PDA

View Full Version : Echoes from the Pit: The Evil Thread



Darklord Xavez
2010-03-02, 05:29 PM
Hello. I have started this thread for one reason: to discuss evil characters. Here is where people can post questions about the darker side of life in D&D and post answers to those questions as well. Roleplaying in particular, because mechanics is pretty much the same for every character. But, before you post, I will say one thing: NO TALKING ABOUT The Book of Vile Darkness. What is mentioned in that book will STAY in that book. I will begin by pitching a question: how does one play a neutral evil bard? Would he fascinate a group of people and then kill them or would he fascinate them and let the rogue pick their pockets?
-Darklord Xavez

Geiger Counter
2010-03-02, 05:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xE8wwigWM

there is also the dirgesinger, libris mortis
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/libris_gallery/84714.jpg

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-02, 05:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4xE8wwigWM

there is also the dirgesinger, libris mortis
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/libris_gallery/84714.jpg

The first one is creepier. By far. Thus, that is how a neutral evil bard would work. In addition, libris mortis is a fun book.

slyfox99
2010-03-02, 07:21 PM
I started my last game with severa; survivors of a badly defeated army entering a village, looking over their shoulders and saying, "Finally! I think they've stopped chasing us!"

Only to have the locals come up to them and say, "Some goblins have stolen our children... Might you help us?"

As for the main question on this thread, I dislike evil parties. They always seem to actually be neutral parties or unaligned parties, interested in turmimg a profit and doing nothing trule EEEEE-VIL!

I had a friend I used to play Vampire: the Dark Ages with, who always played a Tzimisce because of the combat advatage that the zhulo form gave him, and every town he went to, he would try his hardest to become a medeival pimp.

He wondered why I quit Storytelling in that game....

CockroachTeaParty
2010-03-02, 07:59 PM
What is it with Disney and cartoons about vermin? Ever see the one where Mickey huffs bug spray and hallucinates vividly about giant insects? Mouse be trippin' balls!


Hmm... I'd have to echo the sentiment of being against evil parties. I've never seen one gel. The inherent hatred and paranoia of evil characters makes it difficult for PCs with different backgrounds to work together for any amount of time, unless there's something much more powerful cracking the whip. Players are often bad at seizing their own initiative, and being evil ups the demand to formulate your own plans even more.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-02, 08:16 PM
The best evil parties emerge from the corpses of standard parties.

The first campaign I ran had a neutral rogue who became evil when they set a building on fire and barred the doors of a large inn containing government agents to get back at those agents for not paying them for delivery of hippogriff eggs (they forgot to check the bottom of the packs, which consisted on platinum on top of silver), even though the agents simply did not pay them the sum of the money the party had stolen from the local treasury a session ago. The rogue (Elmyra) ended up killing off a few other good characters and causing me to split the campaign into good and evil halves, with each player having one character in each party. Eventually, they would have to choose between the two in a final showdown...but we didn't get that far.

In any case, that party (the evil half) was truly evil. One of their first missions as a fully evil party was to collaborate with Mindflayers to enslave an elven village.

I guess the main thing I learned was that you shouldn't bother pushing your players towards evil, because they'll be able to find it just fine on their own. After that I started playing Eberron, where you can be evil and still normal if you have a powerful patron.

Superglucose
2010-03-02, 08:20 PM
As for the main question on this thread, I dislike evil parties. They always seem to actually be neutral parties or unaligned parties, interested in turmimg a profit and doing nothing trule EEEEE-VIL!
Ugh quite the opposite here. I'm sick of evil parties because apparently "Evil" is a code-word for "Completely unable to work with others, form alliances, or do anything other than sadism." I've never seen an evil party with the goal that is not "Kill everything and everyone and then light them on fire for fun." Everyone wants to play Black Mage and it gets absolutely horribly boring.

Thurbane
2010-03-02, 08:20 PM
I have plans in my campaign for a BBEG who is obsessed with restoring Geryon to his status as an arch-devil. Since Geryon is currently a vestige, this won't be easy. I'm thinking he'll be a Sorcerer/Binder/Anima Mage/Fiend Blooded, and researching some kind of power ritual for Geryon to use his body as a vessel to return to the physical realms...

Benejeseret
2010-03-02, 10:22 PM
Two examples from my games:

1. I have been DMing an evil psion-based game (LE) set in ancient Eberron in which the party members are the first Inspired. Set on forging their own empire and conquering the continent. One of the key things was that they had to appear/seem to be good and the saviours of humankind so that the people would flock to them, giving up religion and magic to follow the Inspired to build monoliths and Riedra itself.

2. My favourite LE bard was Wren Larkvonstein. Based on a dark version of snow white. She was death-touched (race) with the harbinger variant.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-03, 03:45 PM
Ugh quite the opposite here. I'm sick of evil parties because apparently "Evil" is a code-word for "Completely unable to work with others, form alliances, or do anything other than sadism." I've never seen an evil party with the goal that is not "Kill everything and everyone and then light them on fire for fun." Everyone wants to play Black Mage and it gets absolutely horribly boring.

Yeah, I agree. That is why I always play a lawful evil character when I am evil. Otherwise there is too much backstabbing. I also give my evil character some funny quirks, such as a soft spot for cute animals.

Blackfang108
2010-03-03, 04:13 PM
Yeah, I agree. That is why I always play a lawful evil character when I am evil. Otherwise there is too much backstabbing. I also give my evil character some funny quirks, such as a soft spot for cute animals.

I have one that seems to have a soft spot for kids, at least to the other players. :smallbiggrin:

He's just Goal-Oriented. That kid WILL die, but we aren't powerful enough to draw attention to ourselves in a city that is the earthly stronghold of Hireoueous. At least, not yet.

I will PERSONALLY burn that city-state to the ground. I will then [Exlative Deleted] every single [Exlative Deleted] until [REDACTED] and then [REDACTED] the [Exlative Deleted][Exlative Deleted][Exlative Deleted]. :smallbiggrin:

Yukitsu
2010-03-03, 04:22 PM
The best evil characters are ones who are evil for a realistic purpose. Ones who just commit random atrocities, or want to take over the world for taking over the world's sake are one dimensional and boring.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-03, 04:30 PM
The best evil characters are ones who are evil for a realistic purpose. Ones who just commit random atrocities, or want to take over the world for taking over the world's sake are one dimensional and boring.

That is why Chaotic Evil is the worst possible alignment.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-03, 04:31 PM
I have one that seems to have a soft spot for kids, at least to the other players. :smallbiggrin:

He's just Goal-Oriented. That kid WILL die, but we aren't powerful enough to draw attention to ourselves in a city that is the earthly stronghold of Hireoueous. At least, not yet.

I will PERSONALLY burn that city-state to the ground. I will then [Exlative Deleted] every single [Exlative Deleted] until [REDACTED] and then [REDACTED] the [Exlative Deleted][Exlative Deleted][Exlative Deleted]. :smallbiggrin:

I hear what you're saying. My character would do that and then rebuild the city in his own image.
-Xavez

Yukitsu
2010-03-03, 04:38 PM
I disagree. A chaotic person can do something for a reason. They just won't adhere to justifications as to the means they attain it. For example, I recently played a chaotic evil freedom fighter, and it worked out fairly well. I would kidnap people who sold others into slavery, or who were corrupt governers and extract information from them before murdering them to help free the weak.

I have to mention here that when I see chaotic, I think of a person who has no code of honour or ethics, and who refuses to adhere to any laws or rules when they feel like it would make their life even moderately easier. This character didn't fight law for a codified reason, but for an intelligible, rational one. If the opression wasn't hurting people, this character wouldn't continue fighting them merely out of principle, there had to be a rational behind things.

Chaotic people can and should have an intelligent reason behind what they do. The D&D book states explicitly that a chaotic person is not just as likely to jump off a bridge as they are to walk across it. It's simply a world view as to whether things have to be done in a certain codified way, or if it should be determined by the individual as the situation warrants. At least that's my view of chaotic. Obviously, the laurels of chaotic evil will change by definition of chaotic.

Edit: As a caveat, I will agree that chaotic evil, chaotic neutral and lawful good are the most commonly poorly played and RPed alignments out there. That's more an issue of the players misinterpreting the way those alignments should work IMO.

Blackfang108
2010-03-03, 05:26 PM
I hear what you're saying. My character would do that and then rebuild the city in his own image.
-Xavez

Oh, no. That City's not getting rebuilt. It's getting removed from all recorded history.

The rest of the world will be rebuilt in my God's Image. (Maybe. Depends on how much Nerull threatens me.)

That city? Not so much.

Optimystik
2010-03-03, 08:12 PM
Here is where people can post questions about the darker side of life in D&D and post answers to those questions as well.


But, before you post, I will say one thing: NO TALKING ABOUT The Book of Vile Darkness. What is mentioned in that book will STAY in that book.

1) Out of curiosity, why?

2) Are other sources of D&D Evil up for discussion? Champions of Ruin? Savage Species? Exemplars of Evil? The Fiendish Codices?

slyfox99
2010-03-03, 10:35 PM
This is why I like the alignment system in 4e better. Most people in the real world probably work out as Unaligned, so it stands to reason most people in the fantasy world do, as well.

Thurbane
2010-03-03, 10:45 PM
1) Out of curiosity, why?
One would assume because some of the topics in BoVD aren't appropriate for a family friendly forum. Certainly not all, though.

2) Are other sources of D&D Evil up for discussion? Champions of Ruin? Savage Species? Exemplars of Evil? The Fiendish Codices?
Well, if not, this is likely to be a very short discussion thread. :smalltongue:

opheliagonemad
2010-03-03, 11:09 PM
Hmm...In my experience, Evil parties can work, they just have to have some overriding goal to overcome the evil, at least long enough for the game.

In the first evil game I was a part of, I was a NE druid--of the reptile worshipping, cruel nature type. I had hooked in with a mostly evil party that was trying to run a criminal empire (orphan slaves and the lot) because we had a mutual rival/guy who'd screwed us over. And they were going to let me have a huge chunk of land devoted to reptiles. We weren't a very serious game, though, and a large portion of it was devoted to knocking down an evil plot that was in the way of our own evil plots.

In our second evil game, I was the "enhanced interrogator" Favored Soul of Loviatar for an evil police force, maintaining the trade in the Underdark.

SethFahad
2010-03-03, 11:48 PM
I will begin by pitching a question: how does one play a neutral evil bard? Would he fascinate a group of people and then kill them or would he fascinate them and let the rogue pick their pockets?
-Darklord Xavez

He would fascinate them and let the rogue pick their pockets, and then kill the rogue and empty the rogues pockets. :smallbiggrin:

Semidi
2010-03-04, 12:49 AM
For evil parties, I find it works best to make everyone work with each other to make their concepts "fit" better. For instance, if everyone in the party worships Bane some other evil God or a something like that, then you have a good excuse to work together as well as long term goals. It's good to start off with long term objectives to keep everyone's focus and allow the party to be actually evil rather than just kind of mercenary.

I personally like to play evil characters (and good characters, I've really played everything) because I like to get into an alien mindset and think in different ways.

Kylarra
2010-03-04, 01:10 AM
He would fascinate them and let the rogue pick their pockets, and then kill the rogue and empty the rogues pockets. :smallbiggrin:And then turn in the rogue for a bounty.

Optimystik
2010-03-04, 01:11 AM
One would assume because some of the topics in BoVD aren't appropriate for a family friendly forum. Certainly not all, though.

Why would one assume that? BoVD has been discussed here many times, and even features in OotS itself. Further, the part of it that would be relevant to this thread - the nature of Evil - is actually one of the tamer parts of the book.


Well, if not, this is likely to be a very short discussion thread. :smalltongue:

I'm inclined to agree; but why would those books get a pass, and not BoVD? (Especially when at least two of them reference BoVD directly.)

Thurbane
2010-03-04, 01:25 AM
You're obviously missing my point: I'm not saying I agree with the OP, just hypothesizing his reasons. Anyway, my guessing at someone's reasoning is hardly worth arguing over, especially when most of my post is actually in agreement with your POV. :smallwink:

Optimystik
2010-03-04, 08:47 AM
You're obviously missing my point:

I wasn't actually - I know you were attempting an explanation of a stance you personally don't agree with - I was just putting forward my rebuttal on the off-chance that he chimed in to say your proposed reasons did align with his.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 05:51 PM
He would fascinate them and let the rogue pick their pockets, and then kill the rogue and empty the rogues pockets. :smallbiggrin:
Nice one.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 05:54 PM
1) Out of curiosity, why?

2) Are other sources of D&D Evil up for discussion? Champions of Ruin? Savage Species? Exemplars of Evil? The Fiendish Codices?

1. Because almost none of the topics in that book are suitable for a family audience. Kids play this game, you know!
2. Besides that and Book of Exalted Deeds, anything is fair game here.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 05:55 PM
Why would one assume that? BoVD has been discussed here many times, and even features in OotS itself. Further, the part of it that would be relevant to this thread - the nature of Evil - is actually one of the tamer parts of the book.



I'm inclined to agree; but why would those books get a pass, and not BoVD? (Especially when at least two of them reference BoVD directly.)

The other books can be discussed because there's not so much stuff that could scar a small child for life in one place. Still some though.:smallbiggrin:

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 05:57 PM
Hmm...In my experience, Evil parties can work, they just have to have some overriding goal to overcome the evil, at least long enough for the game.

In the first evil game I was a part of, I was a NE druid--of the reptile worshipping, cruel nature type. I had hooked in with a mostly evil party that was trying to run a criminal empire (orphan slaves and the lot) because we had a mutual rival/guy who'd screwed us over. And they were going to let me have a huge chunk of land devoted to reptiles. We weren't a very serious game, though, and a large portion of it was devoted to knocking down an evil plot that was in the way of our own evil plots.

In our second evil game, I was the "enhanced interrogator" Favored Soul of Loviatar for an evil police force, maintaining the trade in the Underdark.
Any evil person I play has a reason as well. My current LE gestalt sorcerer/wizard (so many spells!) is evil because his parents were wrongfully killed by a group of paladins, and evil is really the only alignment that would want to rid the world of every single paladin (and their gods).
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 05:58 PM
Oh, no. That City's not getting rebuilt. It's getting removed from all recorded history.

The rest of the world will be rebuilt in my God's Image. (Maybe. Depends on how much Nerull threatens me.)

That city? Not so much.

You have a point there. However, I would have my minions rebuild the rest of the world in their god's image, which is technically ME.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 06:01 PM
The best evil parties emerge from the corpses of standard parties.

The first campaign I ran had a neutral rogue who became evil when they set a building on fire and barred the doors of a large inn containing government agents to get back at those agents for not paying them for delivery of hippogriff eggs (they forgot to check the bottom of the packs, which consisted on platinum on top of silver), even though the agents simply did not pay them the sum of the money the party had stolen from the local treasury a session ago. The rogue (Elmyra) ended up killing off a few other good characters and causing me to split the campaign into good and evil halves, with each player having one character in each party. Eventually, they would have to choose between the two in a final showdown...but we didn't get that far.

In any case, that party (the evil half) was truly evil. One of their first missions as a fully evil party was to collaborate with Mindflayers to enslave an elven village.

I guess the main thing I learned was that you shouldn't bother pushing your players towards evil, because they'll be able to find it just fine on their own. After that I started playing Eberron, where you can be evil and still normal if you have a powerful patron.
Elves...they make such good slaves. They don't live long enough to organize a rebellion (hee hee). Mind Flayers are good allies, because since they are lawful evil, as long as you have similar motives with them, they won't backstab you.
-Xavez

Optimystik
2010-03-05, 06:07 PM
The other books can be discussed because there's not so much stuff that could scar a small child for life in one place. Still some though.:smallbiggrin:

Well of course there are squicky bits; but as I pointed out, the fluff on the nature of Evil is tame and doesn't run afoul of the forum rules. For example, you can talk about things like why habitual theft, lying, betrayal, as well as harming souls, casting evil spells, tempting others, bullying innocents, and bringing despair are evil in D&D (drawing on examples from the book to discuss each) without violating the forum rules.

The really nasty stuff is under a completely different section: "Fetishes and Addictions" - which I definitely wouldn't touch anyway, even to list them.

elonin
2010-03-05, 06:15 PM
One thing I noticed that came up in a heavy role play LARP that never comes up in table top is the survival mechanism. In the LARP the good folks were very segmented and had many fault lines and no reason to act like allies. The evil people (at least the ones who lived long at all) banned together by common cause. This never happens in table top in my experience, likely cause people don't consider how their characters are going to live off script.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 06:24 PM
Well of course there are squicky bits; but as I pointed out, the fluff on the nature of Evil is tame and doesn't run afoul of the forum rules. For example, you can talk about things like why habitual theft, lying, betrayal, as well as harming souls, casting evil spells, tempting others, bullying innocents, and bringing despair are evil in D&D (drawing on examples from the book to discuss each) without violating the forum rules.

The really nasty stuff is under a completely different section: "Fetishes and Addictions" - which I definitely wouldn't touch anyway, even to list them.
That is why I said no BoVD. If i just said that they couldn't mention that chapter, someone would find a loophole.
-Xavez

sonofzeal
2010-03-05, 06:25 PM
Question for anyone - do you think characters who act without regard to morality is "evil", or merely ones who actively seek to do evil for its own sake?

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 06:25 PM
One thing I noticed that came up in a heavy role play LARP that never comes up in table top is the survival mechanism. In the LARP the good folks were very segmented and had many fault lines and no reason to act like allies. The evil people (at least the ones who lived long at all) banned together by common cause. This never happens in table top in my experience, likely cause people don't consider how their characters are going to live off script.
The only good thing about LARPing (in my opinion, of course, nothing against you) is that people play their characters how they want to play their characters and can't really power game too much.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-05, 06:27 PM
Question for anyone - do you think characters who act without regard to morality is "evil", or merely ones who actively seek to do evil for its own sake?

Those people are actually either the ultimate neutral evils, the chaotic evils, or actually chaotic neutral. It's sort of weird how it works out.
-Xavez

elonin
2010-03-05, 07:50 PM
Question for anyone - do you think characters who act without regard to morality is "evil", or merely ones who actively seek to do evil for its own sake?

I've played a few characters and in my judgment evil for evil sake is just plain stupid. All of the well written evil types have a good motivation ie doing something horrendous for good reasons or maybe just revenge. It's only the Joker, who was poorly written, who wanted to kill the whole population of Gotham.


The only good thing about LARPing (in my opinion, of course, nothing against you) is that people play their characters how they want to play their characters and can't really power game too much.
-Xavez

There are power gamers in the LARP that I've seen too just like in table top. For the most part ,though, the coolest things in LARP are endeavors that the players pull off. A statistically stronger character makes it a bit more likely to survive the attempted feats. The intrigue is better too. If you are at a table top everyone either knows something is up or knows that something is up. You want to talk to someone in private you are actually as successful as you are. Yes some opportunities exist for meta-gaming but it's a lot more controllable.

To the good evil bit I found that my goody two-shoes character ended up supporting an evil operation more than once because of being duped. Never would have happened as realistically on table top.


There was a comment about not wanting to talk about gray area material which is the reason for saying no to BOVD. This book also covers poison which is silly because poison is not evil in and of itself.

sonofzeal
2010-03-05, 08:37 PM
I've played a few characters and in my judgment evil for evil sake is just plain stupid. All of the well written evil types have a good motivation ie doing something horrendous for good reasons or maybe just revenge. It's only the Joker, who was poorly written, who wanted to kill the whole population of Gotham.
There's a lot of evil-for-the-sake-of-evil around, and yeah it usually comes off as silly. And there's a good reason I prefer Lex Luthor to Darkseid, as a villain, or Magneto to Apocalypse.




There are power gamers in the LARP that I've seen too just like in table top. For the most part ,though, the coolest things in LARP are endeavors that the players pull off. A statistically stronger character makes it a bit more likely to survive the attempted feats. The intrigue is better too. If you are at a table top everyone either knows something is up or knows that something is up. You want to talk to someone in private you are actually as successful as you are. Yes some opportunities exist for meta-gaming but it's a lot more controllable.

To the good evil bit I found that my goody two-shoes character ended up supporting an evil operation more than once because of being duped. Never would have happened as realistically on table top.


There was a comment about not wanting to talk about gray area material which is the reason for saying no to BOVD. This book also covers poison which is silly because poison is not evil in and of itself.
The thing I like about LARP is how much more immersive it is. You're not just making decisions for your character, you're living as them for an entire weekend, and it makes the experience far more compelling. It's also, at least in mine, much harder to be truly idealistic. People have to be pragmatists, on both the "good" and "evil" sides.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-03-05, 09:09 PM
Poison, in D&D, is actually Evil, regardless of its use. This is why Ravages were not recieved well, as well as other "these totally are not to give Good exceptions to all the Evil acts, honestly" from the BoED (sorry for mentioning it, but it seemed worth mentioning).

Anyway I may go on to like this thread. Having a set goal or taskmaster is definitely the way to go with an Evil party, at least for less experienced RPers (IMO). My first character was a NE Sorcerer at some near- or actually-epic level. It was semi-freeform though so I wasn't completely overwhelmed. Man I was terrible at optimising back then (I picked every Summon Monster spell).

So yeah, good times. Mostly because I was Evil. I have yet to finish playing a Good character that has not gotten hanged. This is because I'm only on my second attempt at Good, but still.

I will have questions on my favourite alignment later.

Beelzebub1111
2010-03-05, 09:30 PM
An evil bard is Voltaire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujzp9ffPwPM

Akal Saris
2010-03-05, 11:33 PM
As somebody who's devoted a handbook to poisons, I feel qualified to comment on evil in D&D =P I'm currently only playing 2 evil characters though (3 if you count one I'm starting tomorrow!).

One is an evil bard, actually. It's terrific fun - basically the party is the last surviving evil cult in the world, pursued by zealous paladins as we hunt for the artifact that will release the deities of evil into the world once more.

The evil character I just made for tomorrow is an infernal pact warlock. I plan to do my impression of James Woods as Hades from the Disney version of Hercules. "Heeey, badda-bing!" It's an RP-lite group though, so I'm not getting my hopes up for actually being very evil.

Crafty Cultist
2010-03-06, 01:44 AM
In most cases, evil should be a byproduct of the characters veiws, not the reason for them. maybe they dont believe in the concept of good or evil, maybe they consider evil a label the common folk give to that which scares them. while they may have urges or beliefs that serve no real purpose, survival should be their foremost concern

DaedalusMkV
2010-03-06, 02:22 AM
One of my games is actually fast descending into being an Evil party, to the point where my Chaotic Good Warlock is basically unwilling to hang around anymore. We started off as a primarily Good-based party with a lot of Chaotic/Neutral alignments, but the Good characters started dying off, while the Evil characters gained in numbers and influence. By this point we're basically just about to become the personal army of a Cleric of Moloch, or something approximating it, and my Warlock is leaving for... Well, pretty much anywhere away from the crazy Devil-worshipper and his Undead/Diabolic forces.

I think it's actually been going pretty darned well so far. The plan is to remain subtle and keep up a front of good publicity while building numbers and influence and eventually taking over as much of the world as we can. Should be good fun, all together. IMO, that's the way an evil party should work; Good and Neutral subverted from within. It felt much more organic this way, though it did lead to the early retirement of a character I rather liked, at least mechanically. Hell, I'm not sad about it at all and I did enjoy playing that character, so we much be doing something right.

Clovis
2010-03-06, 05:23 AM
Had a stab at a CE character in D&D in a group of mostly LG and CG, some N as well. It was a follower of Lolth, a male shadow elf fighter/wizard (2nd ed, when multiclassing didn't hurt that much). RPing it evilly brought some intra-party unpleasantness as you can imagine. We almost fought more among ourselves than with the monsters!

Later on our player group disbanded and the DM decided to end the story by elevating all the PCs as deities. I've kept writing the background story and char sheet of this CE elven deity [with DMs permission and encouragement] and nowadays he's trying to take over a subterraneon elven race, conquer the elven nation above ground and is of course allied with Lolth, receiving some help from the Queen of Spiders herself. Our prime world is a homebrewn version of Mystara.

The DM has dropped some hints about the followers of this new deity being seen above ground to our present group of heroes (mostly LG). Eventually we may face these bastards, in which case I have to keep my PC from knowing anything about these creatures I've made...

Ravens_cry
2010-03-06, 06:14 AM
Question for anyone - do you think characters who act without regard to morality is "evil", or merely ones who actively seek to do evil for its own sake?
Both, though the former is more realistic, though by far not the only kind of evil. Very few people are Snidely Whiplash-esque, moustache twirling, card carrying members of the Evil Guild Evil Guild of Evil Evildoers, though it can be fun to play.
A very, very scary evil for me is Banal Evil.
It's the guy with a wife and kids, who he loves very much with all sincerity, and is <insert occupation of ultimate evil here/> for a living.
It's not necessarily refined, like Dracula or Hannibal Lecter, it's just. . .banal. Except for what he does, you can't hate the guy.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-06, 01:33 PM
Poison, in D&D, is actually Evil, regardless of its use. This is why Ravages were not recieved well, as well as other "these totally are not to give Good exceptions to all the Evil acts, honestly" from the BoED (sorry for mentioning it, but it seemed worth mentioning).

Anyway I may go on to like this thread. Having a set goal or taskmaster is definitely the way to go with an Evil party, at least for less experienced RPers (IMO). My first character was a NE Sorcerer at some near- or actually-epic level. It was semi-freeform though so I wasn't completely overwhelmed. Man I was terrible at optimising back then (I picked every Summon Monster spell).

So yeah, good times. Mostly because I was Evil. I have yet to finish playing a Good character that has not gotten hanged. This is because I'm only on my second attempt at Good, but still.

I will have questions on my favourite alignment later.
I don't see how poison could really be evil. Animals, which lack the intelligence to actually have an alignment, are neutral. Poison doesn't even have an intelligence score. Also, what if a paladin puts poison on their sword's blade and uses it to kill evil foes more effectively?

On a different note, I love the summon monster spells. My current gestalt sorcerer/wizard has those on the list of spells he knows, along with most evocations and conjurations. He save illusion and enchantment almost exclusively for his wizard spells, because you don't need those as often unless you're a bard. My favorite schools are conjuration, abjuration, and evocation.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-06, 01:36 PM
As somebody who's devoted a handbook to poisons, I feel qualified to comment on evil in D&D =P I'm currently only playing 2 evil characters though (3 if you count one I'm starting tomorrow!).

One is an evil bard, actually. It's terrific fun - basically the party is the last surviving evil cult in the world, pursued by zealous paladins as we hunt for the artifact that will release the deities of evil into the world once more.

The evil character I just made for tomorrow is an infernal pact warlock. I plan to do my impression of James Woods as Hades from the Disney version of Hercules. "Heeey, badda-bing!" It's an RP-lite group though, so I'm not getting my hopes up for actually being very evil.
One of my characters is also in a cult which has just been started up. They chiefly worship Eurythhnul. They so far have a diseased flesh golem, 30 diseased zombies, an airship, and about 20 other cult members. Cults are good fun.
-Xavez

sonofzeal
2010-03-06, 04:51 PM
Wait. A chaotic good warlock? Holy ****!(I typed those stars by the way, that's not the filter's work) Isn't that sort of an oxymoron? Or am I thinking of the average warlock? Anyways, good job for going outside stereotypes for classes.
-Xavez
Warlocks can be "any chaotic or any evil". Chaotic Good's entirely legal. It's just like how Monks and Dwarven Defenders can be Lawful Evil, and Barbarians can be Neutral Good, and Bards can be Neutral Evil. Nothing in the rules prevents it.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-06, 05:04 PM
Warlocks can be "any chaotic or any evil". Chaotic Good's entirely legal. It's just like how Monks and Dwarven Defenders can be Lawful Evil, and Barbarians can be Neutral Good, and Bards can be Neutral Evil. Nothing in the rules prevents it.

Actually, I think that means that they can be chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, or neutral evil, just like a cleric of a chaotic evil deity.
-Xavez

sonofzeal
2010-03-06, 05:12 PM
Actually, I think that means that they can be chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, or neutral evil, just like a cleric of a chaotic evil deity.
-Xavez
Nope, read the "Alignment" paragraph on page 6 of CArcane if you want. It specifically calls out good-aligned warlocks.

Simple boolean logic also applies. "(any chaotic) or (any evil)" is satisfied if either condition is met. "Chaotic Good" satisfies the first condition, so you're okay.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-06, 05:19 PM
Actually, I think that means that they can be chaotic neutral, chaotic evil, or neutral evil, just like a cleric of a chaotic evil deity.
-Xavez
Sorry, that doesn't click at all for me. When something says Any, it means ANY. And chaotic good comes within any chaotic. It doesn't say "A warlocks alignment must be within one step of chaotic evil." which is how it would be formated if it was like a cleric of a Chaotic Evil deity.
Logically, or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_gate) means ' either a, b or both'.
edit: I can never curse a logical ninja.

Ormur
2010-03-06, 09:48 PM
The other books can be discussed because there's not so much stuff that could scar a small child for life in one place. Still some though.:smallbiggrin:

I've been thinking about how to portray the evil doings of the enemies in my campaign as something that really could scar a small child for life but done for believable reasons. The world really is filled with incredibly evil things that aren't done for the evulz but because they make sense, or are simply side effects and I have this twisted desire to incorporate something like that in my campaign. How do you provide a suitably stark contrast to the typical CN adventure party, perhaps even making them passionate about rectifying the evil without going into messy details.

I'm a fan of monstrous systemic injustice. People being ground under the wheels of some impersonal bureaucracy, wars waged to satisfy some king's whim ruining lives for countless peasants, slavery that makes economic sense etc. I.E. making a BBEG that isn't a moustache twirling loner that does random evil acts but a sensible rational man that nevertheless represents a system or an ideology that causes terrible hardship.

DaedalusMkV
2010-03-07, 02:29 AM
Wait. A chaotic good warlock? Holy ****!(I typed those stars by the way, that's not the filter's work) Isn't that sort of an oxymoron? Or am I thinking of the average warlock? Anyways, good job for going outside stereotypes for classes.
-Xavez
Technically, based on the character's backstory he could really have been any alignment at all. He had no idea whatsoever that he was a Warlock, since his power came entirely from a pact made by his father. He didn't really have the whole "struggle for their soul" that most Good 'locks have, at least not by this point in the narrative. Basically, as far as he knew he's just some lucky guy who was born to be a mage (metagame-wise, he considered himself to be a Sorceror), and he basically fulfilled most of the tropes of the CG Sorc, with a little bit of added menace and "nothing this guy does feels quite right to you" descriptions added on to account for the source of his power. I thought he was pretty nifty, although somewhat bland personality-wise (really, though, he never had anyone to interact with. All of the serious characters are either Evil, massively arrogant or rather one-dimentional, which made inter-party RP hard for my moral, easygoing and generally uncaring of position Warlock).

Optimystik
2010-03-07, 02:48 AM
For further validation of the CG warlock, look at the Eldritch Disciple PrC in Complete Mage. It is a Warlock PrC, and some of its abilities can only be used by good-aligned characters. Therefore, good warlocks must exist.

snikrept
2010-03-07, 08:17 AM
Most fun evil character I have played was a LE assassin-variant thief in 2nd edition who for various complicated backstory reasons was forced to team up with, among other people, a Paladin on the quest to slay the BBEG.

The Paladin was played as a complete stick-up-rear smite first and ask questions later guy. Even worse than Miko. He used detect evil like a smite radar on every darn thing. Fortunately the thief had a ring that masked his alignment :P So he was always stealing stuff that wasn't nailed down behind the Paladin's back. The Paladin knew in character that he was at least slightly slimy but the Thief was always convincing him that if only he hung around the Paladin's noble ways a bit more he'd be rehabilitated!

If the Paladin fell the gig would be up as he was far and away the most powerful asset the team had. The evil Thief could never do anything evil or reveal that he had been evil the whole time - so the Paladin was never knowingly associating with evil (though the player playing him knew it). The thief hated the stuck up paladin with the fire of a thousand suns so the first evil act he was always plotting to do in the Paladin's presence would be to assassinate him :)

But as it turned out, the thief ended up activating his Luckblade to save the paladin's life by turning back time for 60 seconds in one of the final battles, since saving the world was more important and only the paladin could do it.

Volkov
2010-03-07, 10:00 AM
This is why I like the alignment system in 4e better. Most people in the real world probably work out as Unaligned, so it stands to reason most people in the fantasy world do, as well.

I hate it because it trivializes law vs chaos. Most humans are true neutral any way.

alisbin
2010-03-07, 10:26 AM
i've always held that good vs evil is a mark of what acts you'd be willing to commit to get what you want, not necessarily an indicator of your goals. example, i played an LE assassin for years in a political type society, he was just a hatchet man, he loved to kill despite knowing it was "wrong" so he devoted himself to becoming the queen's (who was NG) unofficial personal assassin. his goals were actually rather pure, better life for all the citizens of his country, reduce the danger from neighboring enemies and ensure the continuation of the royal line. eventually he and his wife (an NE bard/blackguard with major political chops) got a system working so she could change things from within (being suitably ruthless as long as the end result was positive) and get info to him about traitors, spies, dangerous foreigners, etc. they profited by being made rich nobles (long story, very slimy) and quietly continued their work.
the point is, that they meant well, but they were willing to commit evil acts and even seriously considered selling their souls to bring about good changes in their society. they even associated with paladins, good clerics and other similar folks, thanks to judicious use of items and spells that showed them as true neutral. at one point my assassin even helped a fallen paladin atone since the paladin could do more good as a true servant to his god then as a fallen.
anyway, as i see it, good and evil are not necessarily opposing goals, they are opposing METHODS, same with law and chaos, just in a different way.

Yora
2010-03-07, 10:54 AM
I played a character in a group of Graz'zt cultists. They had the delusion that society was truely corrupted and most people were no longer able to even imagine a live different from slavery by a decadent aristocracy. And all soldiers and guards were willing supporters of the oppression and hoped to gain personal benefits from oppressing the commoners.
But the cultists were some of the very few people who could see the invisible chains and the opression that was disguised as benevolence. And they would rather die trying to end the system than submitting to the corrupt system of society.

If the aristocrats and they guards had been an orc army that enslaved the local people and successfully supressed all resistance, the cult would have been almost indistinguishable from a group of CG rebells. Except that they had no reservations about killing innocent commoners if they might cause propblems, as they thought them to be beyond hope of changing. My character was the youngest acolyte priestess who often took great efforts to rescue innocent children, that could still be raised to become free and independet people. Fortunately, she never got the chance of actually taking any children back to the temple. Her long-term goal was to gain enough recognition to be send an incubus from her demon lord, so she could have her very own campion son.

Greates party I ever played. Aside from being a cult of Graz'zt, the Demon Prince of sorcery and seduction, the head priestess also had a relevation that told her that there was great power in blood. This turned the squick up a number of degrees. :smallbiggrin:

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-07, 01:19 PM
Nope, read the "Alignment" paragraph on page 6 of CArcane if you want. It specifically calls out good-aligned warlocks.

Simple boolean logic also applies. "(any chaotic) or (any evil)" is satisfied if either condition is met. "Chaotic Good" satisfies the first condition, so you're okay.

Okay. I thought that meant "any nongood." Thanks for the clarification.
-Xavez
Edit: It's amazing how easily you can derail a thread. I should really delete that post.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-07, 01:30 PM
I played a character in a group of Graz'zt cultists. They had the delusion that society was truely corrupted and most people were no longer able to even imagine a live different from slavery by a decadent aristocracy. And all soldiers and guards were willing supporters of the oppression and hoped to gain personal benefits from oppressing the commoners.
But the cultists were some of the very few people who could see the invisible chains and the opression that was disguised as benevolence. And they would rather die trying to end the system than submitting to the corrupt system of society.

If the aristocrats and they guards had been an orc army that enslaved the local people and successfully supressed all resistance, the cult would have been almost indistinguishable from a group of CG rebells. Except that they had no reservations about killing innocent commoners if they might cause propblems, as they thought them to be beyond hope of changing. My character was the youngest acolyte priestess who often took great efforts to rescue innocent children, that could still be raised to become free and independet people. Fortunately, she never got the chance of actually taking any children back to the temple. Her long-term goal was to gain enough recognition to be send an incubus from her demon lord, so she could have her very own campion son.

Greates party I ever played. Aside from being a cult of Graz'zt, the Demon Prince of sorcery and seduction, the head priestess also had a relevation that told her that there was great power in blood. This turned the squick up a number of degrees. :smallbiggrin:

That's just like an example of how evil isn't always bad that I heard somewhere. A group of paladins are afraid of people practicing evil magic, so they accuse people who they think are doing so of witchcraft and put on trial. When a witch is convicted (they always are), they are executed. Enter an "evil" sorcerer. He is going around digging up the bodies and using speak with dead to determine if the convicts actually practiced witchcraft. If they did not, he attempts to avenge their death. He is opposing the paladins and breaking the law, making him CE, but he is actually defending the rights of the people to a fair trial and preventing the law from abusing its power. So, which side is truly evil? Think about it.
-Xavez

Bibliomancer
2010-03-07, 01:44 PM
Poison, in D&D, is actually Evil, regardless of its use. This is why Ravages were not recieved well, as well as other "these totally are not to give Good exceptions to all the Evil acts, honestly" from the BoED (sorry for mentioning it, but it seemed worth mentioning).

Their sources are completely different. Ravages only harm evil creatures by using distilled goodness to damage their evil natures. Since it only harms those that are evil, it is not evil. Poison, however, is indiscriminate and harms anyone and everyone who comes into contact with it, and can have lasting effects beyond simple damage (and damage can be evil if caused without provocation), and is thus evil.

Yes, essentially the argument boils down to "Ravages aren't evil because they only hurt evil," but if you accept that an alignment system exists this is a possible derivation.


Elves...they make such good slaves. They don't live long enough to organize a rebellion (hee hee). Mind Flayers are good allies, because since they are lawful evil, as long as you have similar motives with them, they won't backstab you.
-Xavez

True. However, the Mindflayers are also very, very intelligent. They got the party rogue to sign a contract of Nepthas (from the Complete Arcane). If the rogue had backstabbed them, she would have had to make a DC 17 Will Save or be permanently blinded and deafened.


I don't see how poison could really be evil. Animals, which lack the intelligence to actually have an alignment, are neutral. Poison doesn't even have an intelligence score. Also, what if a paladin puts poison on their sword's blade and uses it to kill evil foes more effectively?

Animals are mindless, and thus anything they do is neutral. Good and evil cannot exist without sentience (zombies not included). A paladin using poison adds the potential to hurt non-evil creatures in a lasting manner that cannot easily be stopped once they surrender (ie a poisoned goblin might die from poison secondary effects once combat ends) and is thus evil. Using a ravage, while possessing the same net effect, only hurts evil creatures (since it saps their evil nature) and is thus non evil.

In the current Red Hand of Doom campaign, I'm playing a LN elven escalation mage. I'm going to (probably) gradually turn evil over the course of the campaign in order to more effectively fight the hobgoblins. We're playing in Eberron, so its not like I lose a good afterlife. I'll be evil because I'll want to save Brindol Starilaskur (for back-story related reasons) by whatever means necessary.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-07, 02:02 PM
Their sources are completely different. Ravages only harm evil creatures by using distilled goodness to damage their evil natures. Since it only harms those that are evil, it is not evil. Poison, however, is indiscriminate and harms anyone and everyone who comes into contact with it, and can have lasting effects beyond simple damage (and damage can be evil if caused without provocation), and is thus evil.

Yes, essentially the argument boils down to "Ravages aren't evil because they only hurt evil," but if you accept that an alignment system exists this is a possible derivation.



True. However, the Mindflayers are also very, very intelligent. They got the party rogue to sign a contract of Nepthas (from the Complete Arcane). If the rogue had backstabbed them, she would have had to make a DC 17 Will Save or be permanently blinded and deafened.



Animals are mindless, and thus anything they do is neutral. Good and evil cannot exist without sentience (zombies not included). A paladin using poison adds the potential to hurt non-evil creatures in a lasting manner that cannot easily be stopped once they surrender (ie a poisoned goblin might die from poison secondary effects once combat ends) and is thus evil. Using a ravage, while possessing the same net effect, only hurts evil creatures (since it saps their evil nature) and is thus non evil.

In the current Red Hand of Doom campaign, I'm playing a LN elven escalation mage. I'm going to (probably) gradually turn evil over the course of the campaign in order to more effectively fight the hobgoblins. We're playing in Eberron, so its not like I lose a good afterlife. I'll be evil because I'll want to save Brindol Starilaskur (for back-story related reasons) by whatever means necessary.

First: If poison harms anyone and everyone indiscriminately, then that is more of chaotic neutral because it is not trying to harm anyone, it just does. It really depends on who is using it, actually.

Second: I'll be sure to always have a break enchantment ready for when I have to break one of those contracts, or never sign one at all. Or I can just make my will save, which I can do almost every time. I have optimized my current character to have amazingly powerful saves ('cause they're important), so he should be able to get around that meager DC 17.

Third, if a paladin uses poison on something they would capture, they should either use a poison that paralyzes or one that causes unconsciousness. Otherwise it is an evil act, and they lose all paladin powers until they atone. Too bad for them!
-Xavez

Bibliomancer
2010-03-07, 02:14 PM
First: If poison harms anyone and everyone indiscriminately, then that is more of chaotic neutral because it is not trying to harm anyone, it just does. It really depends on who is using it, actually.

No. Neutrality = not affecting people. Evil = affecting them adversely. Thus, poison use is an evil act (as is cutting someone with a sword, if you do so without provocation).


Second: I'll be sure to always have a break enchantment ready for when I have to break one of those contracts, or never sign one at all. Or I can just make my will save, which I can do almost every time. I have optimized my current character to have amazingly powerful saves ('cause they're important), so he should be able to get around that meager DC 17.z

They were only 8th level in an unoptimized campaign, so the rogue had a 50-50 chance of becoming blind.


Third, if a paladin uses poison on something they would capture, they should either use a poison that paralyzes or one that causes unconsciousness. Otherwise it is an evil act, and they lose all paladin powers until they atone. Too bad for them!
-Xavez

True, poison that causes unconsciousness is not evil (ability damage is). You didn't clarify that they were using that kind of poison. However, a paladin cannot use ability damage poison under any circumstances.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-07, 02:28 PM
No. Neutrality = not affecting people. Evil = affecting them adversely. Thus, poison use is an evil act (as is cutting someone with a sword, if you do so without provocation).



They were only 8th level in an unoptimized campaign, so the rogue had a 50-50 chance of becoming blind.



True, poison that causes unconsciousness is not evil (ability damage is). You didn't clarify that they were using that kind of poison. However, a paladin cannot use ability damage poison under any circumstances.

First: then it is chaotic evil.

Second: I'm talking about me and my +15 will save bonus.

Third: I think that my character will trick his party's paladin into using a lethal poison.
-Xavez

Swok
2010-03-07, 03:33 PM
No. Neutrality = not affecting people. Evil = affecting them adversely. Thus, poison use is an evil act (as is cutting someone with a sword, if you do so without provocation).

So therefore a provoked use of poison is neutral?

Bibliomancer
2010-03-07, 03:39 PM
So therefore a provoked use of poison is neutral?

No. Normal violence is neutral under certain circumstances, since you can stop whenever the other person surrenders. Poison is always evil (if it does ability damage) since even if the other person surrenders they might still die from ability damage (Constitution damage is thus the worst type), and leaves lasting debilitating affects over a moderate period of time (HP loss has no effect until is equals HP total).

However, all that is based on the BoED, so is technically not allowed in this thread.


First: then it is chaotic evil.

Sure, depending on your law/chaos definitions.


Second: I'm talking about me and my +15 will save bonus.

True, but I was referring to what I did in a previous campaign (initially).


Third: I think that my character will trick his party's paladin into using a lethal poison.
-Xavez

That's BoED definitions, so your DM might not be using it.

hamishspence
2010-03-07, 03:41 PM
Other sources suggest poison is evil- such as Defenders of the Faith.

BoED was the only source to make the distinction between poisons that do ability damage, and poisons that don't, though.

Darklord Xavez
2010-03-09, 05:07 PM
Really, poison could still be neutral if it is used against a chaotic evil foe. Since it is normally chaotic evil, and it was used in a lawful good act, they sort of cancel out. Especially if the poison was used against only chaotic evil foes.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:05 PM
Since nobody has visited this site for a while, I think I will post a question for people to answer:
One thing I have noticed a lot in campaigns is that the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) is almost always a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard. Why do people think that is? Why not like, say, a rogue or a bard or something?
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 12:18 PM
Mostly because casters, especially those with level 9 spells, have a lot more power, in 3.5, than noncasters- at higher levels.

That said, done right, a bard could make a pretty formidable villain.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:22 PM
Mostly because casters, especially those with level 9 spells, have a lot more power, in 3.5, than noncasters- at higher levels.

That said, done right, a bard could make a pretty formidable villain.

Bards WOULD make pretty formidable villains. Hmm...

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 12:30 PM
Maybe the Pied Piper is an example of a high level bard using Bardic Music to lure away an entire townful of children?

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:32 PM
Maybe the Pied Piper is an example of a high level bard using Bardic Music to lure away an entire townful of children?

I guess we're back to page one of this thread now, but yes.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 12:37 PM
yes- it went off-topic into "is poison evil"- "which books say so" "why this doesn't make sense" etc- with counterarguments.

Getting back to the original subject is probably best.

Champions of Ruin is quite a good source for the psychology of various kinds of villain, as is Exemplars of Evil. Heroes of Horror works quite well for the creepier villains.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:42 PM
yes- it went off-topic into "is poison evil"- "which books say so" "why this doesn't make sense" etc- with counterarguments.

Getting back to the original subject is probably best.

Champions of Ruin is quite a good source for the psychology of various kinds of villain, as is Exemplars of Evil. Heroes of Horror works quite well for the creepier villains.

First: I hated the poison argument.
Second: Getting back on track is good.
Third: And Book of Vile Darkness is for the crazy DM who has a succubus get into a relationship with one (or more) of the player characters.
Fourth: Lemon Curry?
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 12:45 PM
You mentioned not using BoVD earlier- so I listed the others.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:47 PM
You mentioned not using BoVD earlier- so I listed the others.

I saw the opportunity to insult that book (it's just all the bad parts of the other books, plus things which could scar several children for life AT THE SAME TIME), so I took it.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 12:51 PM
The art is actually fairly tame.

The concepts might occasionally be a little creepy, but not necessarily "scar children for life"- there are worse things in many of the kid's books out there.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 12:57 PM
First: the art has to be tame, or else it's porn.
Second: I would probably just outlaw the chapter "Fetishes & Addictions," but then someone might sneak around that somehow, and this thread will stay PG-rated.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-07, 01:04 PM
Tame in the sense of "not hideously gory & mind-warping"

It works better for the DM to create especially nasty villains, than for the players- players who want sources for playing Evil characters, might do better with some of the other sources.

The list of common evil (or at least highly morally dubious) acts might be handy- though the players might dispute some of them. I've seen a lot of people say "Theft is neutral, not evil- only if you steal from good people who are already in need, is it evil" or dispute other things that are argued by BoVD to be Evil.

Same with lying (though BoVD at least admits it is not necessarily evil- just morally risky)

The bit on Context is also something worth paying attention to- killing someone by accident isn't evil- killing someone through negligence is a little evil, and so on.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-07, 01:06 PM
Tame in the sense of "not hideously gory & mind-warping"


Okay. I thought you meant something else.:smallwink:
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:13 AM
It works better for the DM to create especially nasty villains, than for the players- players who want sources for playing Evil characters, might do better with some of the other sources.

The list of common evil (or at least highly morally dubious) acts might be handy- though the players might dispute some of them. I've seen a lot of people say "Theft is neutral, not evil- only if you steal from good people who are already in need, is it evil" or dispute other things that are argued by BoVD to be Evil.

Same with lying (though BoVD at least admits it is not necessarily evil- just morally risky)

The bit on Context is also something worth paying attention to- killing someone by accident isn't evil- killing someone through negligence is a little evil, and so on.

That's really just common sense. Lots of things aren't truly evil, just used often by evil creatures. Example: poison.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 11:19 AM
true- I think it might have been Gygax who first raised the concept of using poison on an enemy being an evil act.

Defenders of the Faith, in the section "The code" said:



Some parties might be leery of you because they would rather keep all their options open: lying, cheating, and using all the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:21 AM
Wait.

What?

That contradicts what I said, even though you agreed. Please explain.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 11:27 AM
Meaning that yes- I agree that it can be a bit silly that some rulebooks say poison use is evil- but there are still several D&D rulebooks that do so.

I personally would make poison use context-sensitive, rather than "always evil"- a bit like lying is in BoVD, but that's me. And it still wouldn't be RAW.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:31 AM
Meaning that yes- I agree that it can be a bit silly that some rulebooks say poison use is evil- but there are still several D&D rulebooks that do so.

I personally would make poison use context-sensitive, rather than "always evil"- a bit like lying is in BoVD, but that's me. And it still wouldn't be RAW.

I agree with the context thingy. RAW isn't always right.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 11:38 AM
Thing is though, if you make all acts normally considered Always Evil context-sensitive (rape, torture, robbing the needy, slavery, discrimination, etc) then it stops being the D&D alignment system.

Some people subscribe to the view that in D&D torture is nonevil when done as punishment for serious crimes, or when the objective is gaining life-saving information.

This does, however, conflict with D&D alignment sources.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:40 AM
Obviously. However, good characters don't usually do the things you mentioned, but good-aligned characters often use poison. I have also seen skeletons used as servants for good clerics. Cool visual image.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 11:43 AM
yes- 4th ed did say in Open Grave that while the default principle is that undead are evil, there are rare exceptions- good aligned undead heroes, or skeletons that mysteriously come to the rescue of people in distress.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:44 AM
Intelligent undead, however, are almost always evil. Examples: nightshades, liches (which can become good through an atonement), and many ghosts.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 11:51 AM
Generally (in 4E) undead with souls are more capable of being nonevil than those without. Wraiths are soulless, ghosts, vampires, liches and the like, have souls.

They also dropped the idea that zombies and skeletons are unintelligent (zombies have at least Int 1, skeletons often have more)

Some societies, such as Sigil, accept intelligent undead as citizens, if they behave.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 11:54 AM
Generally (in 4E) undead with souls are more capable of being nonevil than those without. Wraiths are soulless, ghosts, vampires, liches and the like, have souls.

They also dropped the idea that zombies and skeletons are unintelligent (zombies have at least Int 1, skeletons often have more)

Some societies, such as Sigil, accept intelligent undead as citizens, if they behave.

So 4e does have some good parts in it. Smart skeletons is a really cool idea.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 12:01 PM
They'll still be soulless though. Open Grave draws heavily from Libris Mortis, suggesting that the less intelligent undead (zombies) might be animated by evil spirits.

There is also the animus- the more animalistic drives of a creature- which can be brought back. This is the usual rule for smart undead that are fixated on destroying the living, like wraiths or wights.

Smarter ones, which have their living personality, have to be ensouled.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 12:02 PM
I think there should be rules for giving zombies/skeletons souls without making them a lich.
-Xavez

Just_Ice
2010-04-09, 12:05 PM
Generally the reason evil parties fail is because barely anyone who makes an evil party is trying to do anything other than genocide.

Chaotic evil is kind of right out in parties. Chaotic neutral is bad enough; you can pretty much do anything and when the DM and other players are like, "uhhhh" you just say "haha chaotic neutral".

Neutral evil and lawful evil often boil down to being very similar, but then there are players who play chaotic good and neutral good exactly the same as well.

The only evil character I've ever personally made was Lawful Evil, and he could function with a neutral party (although they were sliding towards evil pretty often) because he had an evil long term goal (revive an ancient evil empire which he had survived from) and heroic short-term goals served his purposes the best since he was looking for relics and artifacts.

This is just one example. If people wanted to play evil characters who weren't just KILL RAPE DESTROY then they could, but it's easier just to play a neutral character.

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 12:10 PM
There is support for the notion that evil beings aren't just destructive.

Complete Scoundrel lists characters like Riddick from Pitch Black, and Carl Denham from King Kong, as Chaotic Evil.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-09, 12:21 PM
There is support for the notion that evil beings aren't just destructive.

Complete Scoundrel lists characters like Riddick from Pitch Black, and Carl Denham from King Kong, as Chaotic Evil.

That's because chaotic evil isn't about destroying random stuff, it's actually about not caring about the effects of your actions.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-04-09, 12:28 PM
Not caring about the harm that results is Evil (even in the character is nice a lot of the time) and lack of respect for law is Chaotic.

So Denham is Evil Negligent, with the chaotic trait of lacking respect for law and authority.

druid91
2010-04-09, 12:42 PM
Generally the reason evil parties fail is because barely anyone who makes an evil party is trying to do anything other than genocide.

Chaotic evil is kind of right out in parties. Chaotic neutral is bad enough; you can pretty much do anything and when the DM and other players are like, "uhhhh" you just say "haha chaotic neutral".


Neutral evil and lawful evil often boil down to being very similar, but then there are players who play chaotic good and neutral good exactly the same as well.

The only evil character I've ever personally made was Lawful Evil, and he could function with a neutral party (although they were sliding towards evil pretty often) because he had an evil long term goal (revive an ancient evil empire which he had survived from) and heroic short-term goals served his purposes the best since he was looking for relics and artifacts.

This is just one example. If people wanted to play evil characters who weren't just KILL RAPE DESTROY then they could, but it's easier just to play a neutral character.

Not really just because a local villain donates to orphanages and puppy shelters around home doesn't make the fact that he slaughtered a thousand innocents and used their souls to open a gate to the far realms any less evil.

Evil doesn't mean "Will act evil always, no exceptions." it means they will act evil most of the time and their overall effect of their actions is negative.
for example a theif-boy is being told off by his mother and father. the villain comes along kills the mother and father and teaches the boy how to use a weapon leading to the boy becoming a wealthy theif.
Now the boy benefited from this but his parents didn't now did they? this is an evil act.
There are more options than "Good,idealist. Neutral, pragmatist. and Evil, enjoys electrocuting boxes of kittens."

enigmatime
2010-04-09, 03:32 PM
The other books can be discussed because there's not so much stuff that could scar a small child for life in one place. Still some though.:smallbiggrin:

*looks alarmed* You, Xaves, not trying to scar a child? EVERYTHING I KNOW IS A LIE!!! Except, of course, that Evil characters should be played.

Zellic Solis
2010-04-09, 03:52 PM
The only forgotten realms campaign I've ever enjoyed was the one in which I played Juliette. She was cute... 6 str, 18 charisma, 18 wisdom. She loved people and small animals. She was barely 4' tall and weighed only 70 lbs dripping wet. She was also a cleric of Cyric. Oh she didn't WANT to be a cleric of cyric. Her parents had been cultists. They had sold her soul in a ritual to the dark lord. Her only source of divine power was through Cyric. Really. But she wanted to be good! Even when she collected those orphans for a ritual to forsake a holy graveyard... she didn't have a choice. And seducing the daughter of the mayor and convincing her that the only way they could be together was kill her father... well... she just had to do it. Of course turning her into an assassin for Cyric... well she's much happier now, right? And when the fighter just had to insult her God... well SHE wasn't the one that did inflict wounds and kill him. No no no... that was Cyric. Of course everything was all better after she spoke with his spirit and he pledged his soul to the supreme God. Oh yes. She offered herself as a sacrifice to a red dragon, then seduced him, then used the dragon to eat a party member who was being annoying... bad dragon... and then they looted the dragon's horde while the dragon went out to attack the castle. They're still quite fond of each other, regardless of the little 'misunderstanding'.

Oh. She also fought virtually naked. She used rings, amulets, potions, and spells to protect herself. She specialized in using her reproductive orifices to administer touch attacks. Oh... and the best part. She's only twelve years old. And the funnest part, the entire party would fight to the death to save her... why, I still haven't figured out.

Actually, I think I know why she worked even though she was chaotic evil. She wasn't predictable but she also wasn't threatening. She wouldn't make jokes about killing other party members. She established that if the players did certain things then they were far more likely to survive... and if they didn't... well... accidents happen, right?

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-10, 08:13 PM
*looks alarmed* You, Xaves, not trying to scar a child? EVERYTHING I KNOW IS A LIE!!! Except, of course, that Evil characters should be played.

First: NEVER misspell my name. I refuse to speak with you until you apologize to me in person. Which brings me to my second point: Don't acknowledge that you know me in real life, you're not supposed to.
Third: I'm just not nearly perverted enough to scar children using the BoVD. Being that perverted is just scary. Even to ME.
-An angry Xavez (with a Z!)

enigmatime
2010-04-10, 08:20 PM
First: NEVER misspell my name. I refuse to speak with you until you apologize to me in person. Which brings me to my second point: Don't acknowledge that you know me in real life, you're not supposed to.
Third: I'm just not nearly perverted enough to scar children using the BoVD. Being that perverted is just scary.
-An angry Xavez (with a Z!)

:smallconfused: First: How would I apoligize in person? I don't know you. Second: See above. Third: I don't think anyone is. Fourth (and this is refering to another reason he (or she, we don't know for sure) doesn't want us refering to BoVD): That book is just wrong. Sure, Staff of Tongues is hilarious (literally a staff of tongues), but I have paged through that book and I had nightmares about sexual relations with dead and undead for about a month. Sorry, Xavez.

enigmatime
2010-04-10, 08:28 PM
First: NEVER misspell my name. I refuse to speak with you until you apologize to me in person. Which brings me to my second point: Don't acknowledge that you know me in real life, you're not supposed to.
Third: I'm just not nearly perverted enough to scar children using the BoVD. Being that perverted is just scary. Even to ME.
-An angry Xavez (with a Z!)

Unless you are, in fact, in my house... :eek:

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-11, 05:27 PM
Unless you are, in fact, in my house... :eek:

First: If you do not know me, then why did you say this:

*looks alarmed* You, Xaves, not trying to scar a child? EVERYTHING I KNOW IS A LIE!!!
If you do not know me, then how could you have thought to say that? This is the first time you have ever spoken to me on this forum.
Second: Yes, I actually AM in you house. There is no escape.
Third: Thank you for correcting your error, enigmetime (hahaha).
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-11, 05:29 PM
The only forgotten realms campaign I've ever enjoyed was the one in which I played Juliette. She was cute... 6 str, 18 charisma, 18 wisdom. She loved people and small animals. She was barely 4' tall and weighed only 70 lbs dripping wet. She was also a cleric of Cyric. Oh she didn't WANT to be a cleric of cyric. Her parents had been cultists. They had sold her soul in a ritual to the dark lord. Her only source of divine power was through Cyric. Really. But she wanted to be good! Even when she collected those orphans for a ritual to forsake a holy graveyard... she didn't have a choice. And seducing the daughter of the mayor and convincing her that the only way they could be together was kill her father... well... she just had to do it. Of course turning her into an assassin for Cyric... well she's much happier now, right? And when the fighter just had to insult her God... well SHE wasn't the one that did inflict wounds and kill him. No no no... that was Cyric. Of course everything was all better after she spoke with his spirit and he pledged his soul to the supreme God. Oh yes. She offered herself as a sacrifice to a red dragon, then seduced him, then used the dragon to eat a party member who was being annoying... bad dragon... and then they looted the dragon's horde while the dragon went out to attack the castle. They're still quite fond of each other, regardless of the little 'misunderstanding'.

Oh. She also fought virtually naked. She used rings, amulets, potions, and spells to protect herself. She specialized in using her reproductive orifices to administer touch attacks. Oh... and the best part. She's only twelve years old. And the funnest part, the entire party would fight to the death to save her... why, I still haven't figured out.

Actually, I think I know why she worked even though she was chaotic evil. She wasn't predictable but she also wasn't threatening. She wouldn't make jokes about killing other party members. She established that if the players did certain things then they were far more likely to survive... and if they didn't... well... accidents happen, right?

Excellent character. I think the party was definitely protecting her for a reason, what with the fighting naked thing. Oh, and does she get a circumstance penalty on touch attacks, because it is, you know, between her legs, after all.
-Xavez

enigmatime
2010-04-11, 05:44 PM
If you do not know me, then how could you have thought to say that? This is the first time you have ever spoken to me on this forum.

Meh, boredom makes people say things but I don't want to derail this thread into an arguement. I don't want Roland to lock it.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-11, 06:04 PM
Meh, boredom makes people say things but I don't want to derail this thread into an arguement. I don't want Roland to lock it.

Agreed. Don't want another phase like the dreaded Poison Argument. So, to get us back on track, a question:
What is your favorite evil character you have ever played? Link to the character sheet if you want to. Open to anyone. Reading my earlier posts, you can figure out that mine is the gestalt Sorcerer/Wizard 7 who is out to wipe paladins off the face of the earth.
-Xavez

enigmatime
2010-04-11, 06:13 PM
Favourite Evil character... I haven't played him yet but he's alot better than my first Evil character I made. He's an 8th level Elf Ranger name Andrix Solitoth. He's Lawful Evil.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-13, 03:45 PM
Favourite Evil character... I haven't played him yet but he's alot better than my first Evil character I made. He's an 8th level Elf Ranger name Andrix Solitoth. He's Lawful Evil.

Evil in what way? Being lawful evil, does he see certain species (or races) that he feels must be eradicated completely? Or something else? Please elaborate.
-Xavez

randomhero00
2010-04-13, 04:10 PM
I like playing evil characters. People vastly misunderstand how to roleplay them though. For fun, I told everyone my character was neutral good, even on my sheet. But secretly roleplayed him evil. They barely noticed. There were a few close calls (where the DMs like you just slid a little toward evil) but I simply justified it with good intentions (paving the way to hell...only on purpose.):smallamused: The DM suspected but the player's barely noticed anything amiss.

After all, its not like an intelligent evil person goes around broadcasting such. It is rarely good for their goals. And the best way to blend in for survival's sake is to surround yourself with good, powerful, allies.

OldTrees
2010-04-13, 06:16 PM
Favorite Evil character: [LE] Last Star Elf Necromancer

He needs to enforce the ability for all creatures to be free. As an effectively omniscient (DungeonLord prc) ruler he has criminals polymorphed into the desired race and then animates them so they can repay those they wronged after which they spend their enterinty as law enforcement.

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-19, 08:43 PM
I like playing evil characters. People vastly misunderstand how to roleplay them though. For fun, I told everyone my character was neutral good, even on my sheet. But secretly roleplayed him evil. They barely noticed. There were a few close calls (where the DMs like you just slid a little toward evil) but I simply justified it with good intentions (paving the way to hell...only on purpose.):smallamused: The DM suspected but the player's barely noticed anything amiss.

After all, its not like an intelligent evil person goes around broadcasting such. It is rarely good for their goals. And the best way to blend in for survival's sake is to surround yourself with good, powerful, allies.

I hate people who play simple evil characters that either say that they are evil or make it amazingly obvious. My current character seems evil when you see him, seems good when you meet him, and seems a little bit of both when you really get to know him.
-Xavez

Darklord Xavez
2010-04-24, 02:09 PM
Favorite Evil character: [LE] Last Star Elf Necromancer

He needs to enforce the ability for all creatures to be free. As an effectively omniscient (DungeonLord prc) ruler he has criminals polymorphed into the desired race and then animates them so they can repay those they wronged after which they spend their enterinty as law enforcement.

Great character. That's an excellent version of the LE alignment.
On a different note: threads sink fast on this site.
-Xavez

enigmatime
2010-04-25, 01:27 PM
Evil in what way? Being lawful evil, does he see certain species (or races) that he feels must be eradicated completely? Or something else? Please elaborate.
-Xavez

He really doesn't like Good Dragons. Mostly the Gold ones. He wants them gone. By that I mean, erradicatted from existence and destroyed from their afterlife. They killed every single person in his family, except him. He was off fetching water at a family gathering and these Gold Dragons come along and kill all that was left of his family. He was young when this happened, so this was what impacted him the most and shaped him. He was maybe, three, when it happened. His brain was still developing, so he thought the metallic Dragons were the Evil Dragons.

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-02, 02:07 PM
He really doesn't like Good Dragons. Mostly the Gold ones. He wants them gone. By that I mean, erradicatted from existence and destroyed from their afterlife. They killed every single person in his family, except him. He was off fetching water at a family gathering and these Gold Dragons come along and kill all that was left of his family. He was young when this happened, so this was what impacted him the most and shaped him. He was maybe, three, when it happened. His brain was still developing, so he thought the metallic Dragons were the Evil Dragons.

Nice. I always thought the alignments for dragons were too strict.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-05-02, 02:12 PM
yes- 4E generally dropped that. Metallic Dragons are now Unaligned on average, with some being Good or Lawful Good, and some Evil or Chaotic Evil.

Similarly, while Chromatic Dragons are Evil on average, they aren't Always X Evil the way they were in 3.0/3.5- some can be other alignments.

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-02, 02:13 PM
yes- 4E generally dropped that. Metallic Dragons are now Unaligned on average, with some being Good or Lawful Good, and some Evil or Chaotic Evil.

Similarly, while Chromatic Dragons are Evil on average, they aren't Always X Evil the way they were in 3.0/3.5- some can be other alignments.

I'm somewhat sad that the alignment system seems to be less restrictive in 4e than 3.0/3.5, because I play the latter of the two.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-05-02, 02:17 PM
Eberron (3.5) also has less restrictive alignments.

And plays up "Good for dragons, may also be exceptionally ruthless"

Even good dragons can be very indiscriminate when "destroying evil" in that setting.

Most good 4E ideas can be pinched and imported into 3E.

Dragons as "Not Casters", for example, can be done by using the Xorvintaal rules in MM 5.

enigmatime
2010-05-10, 01:40 PM
I'm somewhat sad that the alignment system seems to be less restrictive in 4e than 3.0/3.5, because I play the latter of the two.
-Xavez

If you DM you could learn how to play 4e and combine the good stuff from it with the good stuff from 3.0/3.5e and create a homebrew edition. This would mean, however, that you would either have to buy a 4e PHB or borrow it from a friend. I suggest the latter. You'd probably have to get the second 4e PHB as well. You'd probably also have to get the second 3.5 PHB too

hamishspence
2010-05-10, 01:45 PM
Sounds about right.

4E ideas that might be worth pinching- all divine classes can change alignment without losing their powers or ability to advance in the class.

A paladin of a LG god has to be LG when they start the class, but if they change alignment, they won't lose their powers.

No Falling, basically.

And without any Detect X Alignment magics, a corrupt cleric or paladin won't be easily identified- since they still have all their powers.

Plus you can have paladins of any deity.

enigmatime
2010-05-10, 01:54 PM
Sounds about right.

4E ideas that might be worth pinching- all divine classes can change alignment without losing their powers or ability to advance in the class.

A paladin of a LG god has to be LG when they start the class, but if they change alignment, they won't lose their powers.

No Falling, basically.

And without any Detect X Alignment magics, a corrupt cleric or paladin won't be easily identified- since they still have all their powers.

Plus you can have paladins of any deity.

That would actually useful for me. I generally play spellcasters. Wait. Is Blackguard still a class?

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-10, 02:00 PM
That would actually useful for me. I generally play spellcasters. Wait. Is Blackguard still a class?

PrC actually. Any evil characters qualify, not just fallen paladins.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-05-10, 02:02 PM
Not in published books- though there might be something like it in Dragon.

In the books, a Paladin of an Evil deity might make for a passable Blackguard (since paladins can be of any alignment.)

And due to the fact that changing alignment has no in-game effect, you can play a Chaotic Evil paladin of a Lawful Good deity, and not be mechanically penalized.

Bards and Barbarians don't have a "must be nonlawful" rule anymore, Monks don't have a "must be lawful" rule, druids don't have any alignment restrictions.

Only divine classes have restrictions, and even then, only their starting alignment is restricted.

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-10, 02:04 PM
Not in published books- though there might be something like it in Dragon. ( Ninjaed):




In the books, a Paladin of an Evil deity might make for a passable Blackguard (since paladins can be of any alignment.)

And due to the fact that changing alignment has no in-game effect, you can play a Chaotic Evil paladin of a Lawful Good deity, and not be mechanically penalized.

Bards and Barbarians don't have a "must be nonlawful" rule anymore, Monks don't have a "must be lawful" rule, druids don't have any alignment restrictions.

Only divine classes have restrictions, and even then, only their starting alignment is restricted.

Oh, I thought you were talking about 3.5 for a second. Had me confused there. When I post, it's about 3.0/3.5.
-Xavez

hamishspence
2010-05-10, 02:10 PM
The question I was answering was- what 4E ideas might be worth importing back into 3.5?

I'm not sure if 4E has done Blackguards yet- but I wouldn't be surprised if Dragon Magazine has them.

Very few 4E things tend to be alignment restricted- you could even take the Prince of Hell epic destiny in Dragon Compendium and still be of any alignment.

"Less alignment restrictions" is IMO an idea worth importing.

enigmatime
2010-05-10, 02:12 PM
PrC actually. Any evil characters qualify, not just fallen paladins.
-Xavez

Yeah, I know that, but still, Blackguard are cool (they can be kinda creepy at times, though). Back on topic (your question, I mean), the other day during my Algebra class after an exam, I was drawing a character. His name is Martis St. Trik. He's five levels of Gestalt Ranger Wizard then eight levels of a Prestige class I made, The Ringmaster. Only the people of his race can get it (he's a homebrew race called Cirque). On his character sheet it says that he's Chaotic Good but he acts like he's Lawful Good. No, seriously, he literally acts like he's Lawful Evil. The only thing that makes him Chaotic Good is that he doesn't actually do Evil things. He a circus performer basically. He can convince people to do most anything and believe most anything. Sure, he's Good, but I think it would be worth mentioning him here.

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-15, 03:34 PM
Only the people of his race can get it (he's a homebrew race called Cirque). On his character sheet it says that he's Chaotic Good but he acts like he's Lawful Good. No, seriously, he literally acts like he's Lawful Evil. The only thing that makes him Chaotic Good is that he doesn't actually do Evil things. He a circus performer basically. He can convince people to do most anything and believe most anything. Sure, he's Good, but I think it would be worth mentioning him here.

First: sorta like arcane archer or dwarven defender?
Second: that's chaotic neutral.
-Xavez

Math_Mage
2010-05-16, 02:17 AM
Yeah, I know that, but still, Blackguard are cool (they can be kinda creepy at times, though). Back on topic (your question, I mean), the other day during my Algebra class after an exam, I was drawing a character. His name is Martis St. Trik. He's five levels of Gestalt Ranger Wizard then eight levels of a Prestige class I made, The Ringmaster. Only the people of his race can get it (he's a homebrew race called Cirque). On his character sheet it says that he's Chaotic Good but he acts like he's Lawful Good. No, seriously, he literally acts like he's Lawful Evil. The only thing that makes him Chaotic Good is that he doesn't actually do Evil things. He a circus performer basically. He can convince people to do most anything and believe most anything. Sure, he's Good, but I think it would be worth mentioning him here.

Can you elaborate on the 'Acts Lawful Evil without actually doing any Evil things'? The description seems implausible.

hamishspence
2010-05-16, 03:53 PM
Maybe he's the sort of guy who "talks the talk" loudly proclaiming the virtues of order, and suggesting that people who steal should have amputations, or crucifixions, and sees everyone less powerful than himself, as weak and unworthy,

but doesn't actively go around hurting people, either?

Math_Mage
2010-05-16, 04:08 PM
Maybe he's the sort of guy who "talks the talk" loudly proclaiming the virtues of order, and suggesting that people who steal should have amputations, or crucifixions, and sees everyone less powerful than himself, as weak and unworthy,

but doesn't actively go around hurting people, either?

Well, it's a start. There has to be some impetus for the "actually CG" part, too, else this guy is just a LE who's too wimpy to walk the walk. So, eh, there's probably a way to go about it. It just doesn't come off that way initially.

hamishspence
2010-05-16, 04:16 PM
The "good" factor could manifest itself in the character risking their life against "the forces of evil" without expecting any kind of compensation.

Or possibly altruistic behaviour- he might talk like he thinks all poor people are lazy or parasitic, but when confronted with people in need, he helps them, and makes excuses for it later, saying that helping them is a personality flaw of his.

SaintRidley
2010-05-16, 06:30 PM
I will merely note that I find the notion of the BoVD being anything short of tame -- nay, domesticated -- amusing.

To the thread at hand, I will submit that my favourite evil character was an Anti-Paladin (Dragon 312) named Belladonna.

The build was something along the lines of Anti-Paladin 3/Hexblade 3/Thrall of Demogorgon 5/Blackguard 3 or so. Double charisma to saves plus Mettle

Mind, she was a character many years ago, but she was quite fun. Her armour was a cliché of black with skull decorations, to better reflect how much of a child she still was. She was quite insane, feeling she was chosen by Demogorgon to sow destruction and chaos throughout the Material Plane as was possible.

She reveled in slaughter and mayhem, and developed a taste for elf after she was captured by one under the control of a brain in the jar and forced to become the elf's servant. The party managed to return in time to destroy the brain, freeing Belladonna, who promptly set upon the elf in as savage a way as she could muster without her greatsword. That night she dined well, as lean meat is good meat.

It was rather fun to take a character who was out and out insane. She had moments of clarity, though, like an attempt on a visiting elf dignitary that got her caught (she missed and got one of the guards with her longbow). She couldn't quite escape, so she stripped off her armour as quickly as possible, hid it, and hacked herself in the leg with her own sword to try and provide a plausible alibi.

Of course, the next planned campaign was agreed to be an exalted seafaring campaign, and I suggested I play an exalted paladin (I had my eye on possibly being a Vassal of Bahamut, as the class looked like fun). The DM brought up several major moral dilemmas, as he said he didn't trust me to be able to play exalted after my showing with the anti-paladin, but the responses I gave were satisfactory enough to disarm him of that notion.

Sadly, I never got to play that campaign. I moved a few months later and it has been rough going finding a group to play with since.

enigmatime
2010-05-17, 03:37 AM
What I mean is: He tests people by trapping them in a circus-like world and they can't get out until they either solve an extremelly complex riddle, complex puzzle, or fight through his world. The last is the easiest. To the players, he seems Evil. When the players get to know him, they realize that he's really good but has abnormal ways to train and test people to make sure they're ready to save the world and what not.

hamishspence
2010-05-17, 03:43 AM
Question is, how lethal is this circus world?

If the "testing to determine if the characters are ready to save the world" has a high chance of killing the characters, this might be highly morally dubious.

If failures don't actually die, but are simply kicked out of circus world- seems more reasonable.

"It was all a test" is a fairly common trope- but done carefully it might be fun to see.

enigmatime
2010-06-02, 09:25 AM
If failures don't actually die, but are simply kicked out of circus world- seems more reasonable.

That's more or less how it works. Alright, I have a question for all of you! What is your least favorite evil character in regards to either gaming, television shows, movies, comics, and so on. Also, what do you think is the least thought out evil character?

EDIT: Mine is probably the evil guy from The Dungeonmaster (a very old movie).