PDA

View Full Version : PrC Alignment question...



Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 01:44 AM
OK, my current character is going to be taking the Menacing Brute PrC when he reaches level 6. He is CN, and one of the requirements to take this PrC is to be "any non-good". What I want to know is, what happens if I turn good whilst going through the MB levels?

For instance, I'm a Barbarian5/Menacing Brute3, and I turn CG. Can I just not take levels in MB till I'm N/E again, or would I lose class features, or... RoD doesn't say anything about ex-Menacing Brutes, so I'm unsure.

Thoughts, esteemed Playgrounders?

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-23, 01:46 AM
This is something that has been debated. According to Complete Warrior (and I think Complete Arcane), if you stop qualifying for a prestige class in that book, you lose its benefits and cannot continue advancing in it. The issue is whether that's the general rule for prestige classes or just those found in that book or note.

At the very least, you probably would not be able to advance the prestige class. I am uncertain on the RAW of it, though.

KillianHawkeye
2010-06-23, 02:00 AM
The answer is: Ask your DM.

Alternatively, don't change your alignment.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 09:27 AM
The answer is: Ask your DM.

Alternatively, don't change your alignment.

My DM is unsure, hence I've asked the question :smalltongue:

I try not to change my alignment, but apparently if I save X number of little children from burning buildings I'll become good. I don't agree with this particularly, as CN is following one's own moral code, and not always conforming to society, so performing good acts shouldn't make you good, IMO. So, without metagaming, my alignment could swing around without me having much control over it, if that makes sense.

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 09:33 AM
Possibilities:

BoED's idea that "good" acts that are in your own self-interest, are Neutral, might help. Saving children is in your interest- because it makes others like you, and that liking may come in handy.

It also suggested that a good character's response to a request for help should not be "what can you pay"- if the character always says this, then even if they take the approach that the possibility of loot from possible enemy is enough to justify helping, they can be Neutral rather than Good.

Fouredged Sword
2010-06-23, 09:33 AM
Tell your DM that the answer is whatever he wants it to be. He is the DM. All we here in the forum can do is read the RAW and suggest ways to understand it. If he wants you to be able to do it, let you do it. I would suggest an aplication of the Rule of Cool.

If it would be awsome and enhance your character, then do it.

2xMachina
2010-06-23, 09:36 AM
I do good because of my conscience. Since that is in my interest, that is not good. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 09:36 AM
It's ironic that here the objective is to avoid being tagged as Good, whereas a lot of the time, the character's problem is to avoid being tagged as Neutral or Evil.

The paladin adventurer who is greedy and self centred, or the Chaotic Neutral PC who to the DM comes across as CE.

a Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.


I do good because of my conscience. Since that is in my interest, that is not good. :smallwink:

That's one way of looking at it. However, if the Good acts involve sacrifice, then "I don't want my conscience to torment me" might not move them all the way to Neutral.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 09:38 AM
A Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.

You know what? I'm going to take that as a good thing :smallbiggrin:.

Not Good in the alignment sense...

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 09:41 AM
I was actually wondering about an Evil character who is "Evil in Name Only"- they have the evil alignment to gain access to certain feats, spells, PRCs- but they act as heroic and altruistic as the better kind of paladin. Without the hassle of them bullying the other party members into not doing certain things

It might give the DM a headache, but this kind of Token Evil Teammate might be a relief to players who've dealt with PVP Evil types before.

2xMachina
2010-06-23, 09:42 AM
You know, what would be fun would be a char that is LG, but insists he is CE.

I'm Chaotic damn it. Freedom to follow a code is what I believe in!
I'm Evil damn it. I only help people cause I'm be unhappy if I didn't. Also, strong takes all. And since I'm stronger, I can stop other (weaker) evils from abusing people, cause I enjoy helping people.

Optimystik
2010-06-23, 09:43 AM
a Neutral character trying to avoid the DM tagging him as Good, is a bit odd.


Anima Mage?

Though the adaptation does say the alignment restriction can be done away with.

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 11:38 AM
Its more that you often hear of a DM threatening to change a Good (or Neutral) character to Neutral (or Evil) but you hardly ever hear of it happening the other way round.

Where are the horror stories of DMs changing a Dread Necromancer or Hexblade character to Good for their actions, forcing them to lose some of their powers, or cease advancing in the class?

There's quite a lot of "any nongood" classes and PRCs out there though.

Playing a character who is "evil in name only" and who has to commit "evil" acts to stay evil, may end up more Poke the Poodle than Kick the Dog.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PokeThePoodle

Mystic Muse
2010-06-23, 01:02 PM
I never got why the fiend blooded PRC required "any nongood" there's nothing that seems to require it being nongood. If they wanted it to matter they should have made it "Chaotic evil only" because that's the only way the alignment restriction makes any sense.

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 01:15 PM
Fiend blooded can be descended from devils, yugoloths, etc- they don't have to come from demons.

However- the "Playing a Fiend-Blooded" second mentions good aligned fiend-blooded several times.

"Due to your fiendish lineage, and the questions such lineage inevitably raises, you have gotten used to playing your cards close to your chest. Even if good-aligned, you know the price you might have to pay for someone else's ignorance and often find discretion the better part of valor."

"Good-aligned characters born into a fiend-blooded house typically distance themselves from their more depraved kin"

"Few fiend-blooded abandon this path after having set foot on it, for the lure of self-discovery is great. Nevertheless, some good-aligned fiend-blooded grow uncomfortable with the ways in which they are changing and choose to stop advancing in the class at some point"

This may imply that the "any nongood" doesn't really fit.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-23, 01:16 PM
From what I recall, classes whose alignments were part of the source of the power would often drop all the supernatural and spell abilities in case of an alignment conflict, like hexblades and paladins. If part of the Menacing Brute's power is magical or comes from an outside force, it makes sense to drop the non-extraordinary class features.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 01:20 PM
From what I recall, classes whose alignments were part of the source of the power would often drop all the supernatural and spell abilities in case of an alignment conflict, like hexblades and paladins. If part of the Menacing Brute's power is magical or comes from an outside force, it makes sense to drop the non-extraordinary class features.

The Menacing Brute's abilities are purely born from being "street-wise". Their abilities are just enhancements to intimidation, being able to locate items in a city simply by looking around, making it easier to critically injure someone, and a Sneak Attack bonus because of their surprise attacks etc.

Would this then mean that a MB would keep their abilities? They are skills they have learned on the street, losing them just because they are good now wouldn't make sense really.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-23, 01:22 PM
Yeah, just damp the advancement then.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-23, 01:25 PM
Fiend blooded can be descended from devils, yugoloths, etc- they don't have to come from demons.

Then any evil. The alignment restriction still doesn't make sense.


However- the "Playing a Fiend-Blooded" second mentions good aligned fiend-blooded several times.

"Due to your fiendish lineage, and the questions such lineage inevitably raises, you have gotten used to playing your cards close to your chest. Even if good-aligned, you know the price you might have to pay for someone else's ignorance and often find discretion the better part of valor."

"Good-aligned characters born into a fiend-blooded house typically distance themselves from their more depraved kin"

"Few fiend-blooded abandon this path after having set foot on it, for the lure of self-discovery is great. Nevertheless, some good-aligned fiend-blooded grow uncomfortable with the ways in which they are changing and choose to stop advancing in the class at some point"

This may imply that the "any nongood" doesn't really fit.

You have a good point. If I ever use the wizard I have made I'll try and convince my DM that according to the fluff "any non good" doesn't fit the class.

Mr.Moron
2010-06-23, 01:30 PM
House rule out the Alignment requirement.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-23, 01:31 PM
House rule out the Alignment requirement, its silly.

When I DM I will. However, I need to convince my DM to houserule it out.

Of course, I can't use the wizard yet anyway.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-23, 01:32 PM
House rule out the Alignment requirement.
This, this, a thousand times this.

Alignment restrictions are dumb. The Paladin can kind of justify it, and the classes that require no-neutrality or neutral-on-one-axis sort of make sense, but this one is just dumb.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 01:34 PM
Alignment restrictions are dumb. The Paladin can kind of justify it, and the classes that require no-neutrality or neutral-on-one-axis sort of make sense, but this one is just dumb.

I don't even think the paladin can justify it, I see a Paladin as a champion of a cause or deity: Why should they be an honourable, devout warrior of a good deity? I don't see the need for the Blackguard PrC, it should be taken out along with the Paladin alignment restriction.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-23, 01:36 PM
I don't even think the paladin can justify it, I see a Paladin as a champion of a cause or deity: Why should they be an honourable, devout warrior of a good deity? I don't see the need for the Blackguard PrC, it should be taken out along with the Paladin alignment restriction.

Clerics are champions of their deity. Paladins are champions of their alignment.

For example, Moradin decides a couple of giants have to die. No real reason, he just wants them to die. His clerics would have to follow his commands (Unless they wanted to fall.) But the Paladins that worshipped him would have to fight against the clerics (unless they wanted to fall)

However, that's with the standard Paladin. I prefer allowing any alignment on a Paladin.

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 01:36 PM
Besides the three variant paladins in Unearthed Arcana, for the other three "corner" alignments, there was Dragon Magazine, which did 8 variant paladins, one for each alignment.

Then there's 4E, which removed alignment restrictions entirely.

So there's quite a bit of precedent for non-LG paladins.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 01:38 PM
Besides the three variant paladins in Unearthed Arcana, for the other three "corner" alignments, there was Dragon Magazine, which did 8 variant paladins, one for each alignment.

Then there's 4E, which removed alignment restrictions entirely.

So there's quite a bit of precedent for non-LG paladins.

Indeed there are variants that overcome this, however it shouldn't really be in the core game, it doesn't make much sense. IMO that is.

hamishspence
2010-06-23, 01:39 PM
I think it's a holdover from 1st ed.

Mr.Moron
2010-06-23, 01:39 PM
When I DM I will. However, I need to convince my DM to houserule it out.

Of course, I can't use the wizard yet anyway.

Let's pretend your DM is named Carl and is a relatively reasonable person. It should go something like this:

You: Hey Carl, I'd like it if we could drop the alignment requirements on the menacing brute class.
Carl: Why?
You: Well, it just feels a bit restrictive. It's not really going to change how the class plays and as it stands If my character becomes good, he's basically going to become unplayable.
Carl: Wow, that would be a problem.
You: Yeah. The alignment restriction doesn't really add much either, it's not like it's tapping into the lower planes to shoot dark energy bolts or anything. It is just an abstraction that shows what I've learned on the mean streets.
Carl: Well, okay I guess. That's a pretty good argument. Thanks for being straightforward with me on this one.


If Carl is unreasonable, sure it could go badly. In which case, just make a new character should you happen to turn good. Preferably one without silly restrictions Carl is going to try and use to stick-it-to-you.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-23, 01:42 PM
If Carl is unreasonable, sure it could badly. In which case, just make a new character should you happen to turn good. Preferably one without silly restrictions Carl is going to try and use to stick-it-to-you.

...Did anyone else imagine "Carl"'s voice to be identical to the Carl from Llamas In Hats from Filmcow?

I digress. The point is a good one, most reasonable DMs would understand, certainly in this situation, that the alignment restriction is needless.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-23, 01:52 PM
OK, my current character is going to be taking the Menacing Brute PrC when he reaches level 6. He is CN, and one of the requirements to take this PrC is to be "any non-good". What I want to know is, what happens if I turn good whilst going through the MB levels?
It's not a Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane prestige class, so you don't lose any abilities from your existing levels. But if you want to enter into a new level of Menacing Brute you're going to need to re-qualify.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-23, 02:24 PM
Preferably one without silly restrictions Carl is going to try and use to stick-it-to-you.

Well, I'm currently playing a Paladin (It's homebrew.) So, I don't think he's going to try and stick it to me if he hasn't for the last four levels. (The levels before that I played other classes.)

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-24, 01:55 AM
It's not a Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane prestige class, so you don't lose any abilities from your existing levels. But if you want to enter into a new level of Menacing Brute you're going to need to re-qualify.

Excellenté :smallsmile:.

sonofzeal
2010-06-24, 02:17 AM
It's not a Complete Warrior or Complete Arcane prestige class, so you don't lose any abilities from your existing levels. But if you want to enter into a new level of Menacing Brute you're going to need to re-qualify.
This has been discussed over and over. The wording of the relevant passages, the exact Rules-As-Written wording, means you lose the benefit of any PrC you cease to qualify for. Yes, this makes Dragon Disciple stupid. Yes, a reasonable DM would give flexibility. Yes, they really should have put it in the DMG or official errata. But as-written, it's universal. Anything else is a very reasonable houserule, but a houserule none the less.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-24, 02:39 AM
This has been discussed over and over. The wording of the relevant passages, the exact Rules-As-Written wording, means you lose the benefit of any PrC you cease to qualify for.
Which rule are you talking about? The rule in Complete Warrior or the later, significantly different rule in Complete Arcane? Or the Primary Sources Errata rule, which says neither of these are allowed to invalidate the primary source for prestige classes, the Dungeon Master's Guide?

Please don't try to invalidate an argument based on WotC's rules about adjudicating other rules just because you prefer a simpler view. D&D is really only consistent in one respect: the rules aren't simple.

Your point has been made, and refuted, under the rules.

sonofzeal
2010-06-24, 02:49 AM
Which rule are you talking about? The rule in Complete Warrior or the later, significantly different rule in Complete Arcane? Or the Primary Sources Errata rule, which says neither of these are allowed to invalidate the primary source for prestige classes, the Dungeon Master's Guide?

Please don't try to invalidate an argument based on WotC's rules about adjudicating other rules just because you prefer a simpler view. D&D is really only consistent in one respect: the rules aren't simple.

Your point has been made, and refuted, under the rules.
I'm looking at both Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane at the moment, and they seem to agree entirely just with different wording. Both say you lose special abilities, but keep the HD/saves/BAB/etc. The only difference is that CWar mentions "class features or other special abilities", while CArc only mentions "special abilities", but given the lack of class features that aren't special abilities it seems like just semantics.

And, again, the Primary Source rule does not apply unless there's a direct contradictions with the DMG. There isn't. One can perfectly well follow the DMG rules surrounding PrCs, at the same time as following the CWar/CArc rules. If the DMG had ever specified what happens when you lose the prereqs, that would be something, but it doesn't address it at all. As such, CWar/CArc give the primary specifications for what happens in that situation.

Agreed that the rules aren't simple, though.

Coidzor
2010-06-24, 02:51 AM
This has been discussed over and over. The wording of the relevant passages, the exact Rules-As-Written wording, means you lose the benefit of any PrC you cease to qualify for. Yes, this makes Dragon Disciple stupid. Yes, a reasonable DM would give flexibility. Yes, they really should have put it in the DMG or official errata. But as-written, it's universal. Anything else is a very reasonable houserule, but a houserule none the less.

Schrodinger's Dragon Disciple, you say?

Curmudgeon
2010-06-24, 03:19 AM
The only difference is that CWar mentions "class features or other special abilities", while CArc only mentions "special abilities", but given the lack of class features that aren't special abilities it seems like just semantics.
The difference is actually huge for spellcasting classes. The special abilities are of course those abilities under the Special heading in every D&D class table. BAB and saves aren't included there, but neither are the "Spells per Day/Spells Known" class features. Those Complete Arcane spellcasting prestige classes only lose special abilities while retaining all spellcasting improvements.

"Just semantics?" I think not.

sonofzeal
2010-06-24, 10:14 AM
The difference is actually huge for spellcasting classes. The special abilities are of course those abilities under the Special heading in every D&D class table. BAB and saves aren't included there, but neither are the "Spells per Day/Spells Known" class features. Those Complete Arcane spellcasting prestige classes only lose special abilities while retaining all spellcasting improvements.

"Just semantics?" I think not.
(edit - misread)

Ah, yes, I see it now. It's awkward though.


"She loses all special abilities (but not Hit Dice, base attack bonus, or base save bonus)"

The problem with the sentence is that it implies HD/BAB/saves are things that would qualify under "special abilities". Reading through the PHB though, "Special Abilities" is never a defined game term. I think that's our problem. The "Special" column is mentioned, but never given that name in the PHB from what I can see, despite the fact that virtually every class has a different wording on the "ex-whatever" text.

Further complicating matters is that Spells are usually listed under Class Features, but sometimes not even that (PHB page 59, which seems to use Class Features as identical to the Special column). These aren't rigorously defined game terms we're dealing with, and we're both applying a standard they aren't really going to meet.


In any case, the DMG still does not give rules on what happens when you lose the prereqs. The "Primary Source" rule thus doesn't apply there, and the competition (if any) is between CWar and CArc. The "Primary Source" rule isn't clearly applied here.

A mere lack of agreement is not the same as an active "disagreement", which is what's required for the Primary Source rule to kick in. Every book refers to and gives a partial description of rules given in other books, and merely failing to specify every relevant fact is not the same as contradicting it.

Optimystik
2010-06-24, 10:38 AM
The difference is actually huge for spellcasting classes. The special abilities are of course those abilities under the Special heading in every D&D class table. BAB and saves aren't included there, but neither are the "Spells per Day/Spells Known" class features. Those Complete Arcane spellcasting prestige classes only lose special abilities while retaining all spellcasting improvements.

"Just semantics?" I think not.

As CArc was printed later, then it would supersede CWar in the event of a conflict.

And the DMG isn't a primary source for what causes you to cease qualifying for a Prestige Class - it does not mention the topic at all.

sonofzeal
2010-06-24, 11:20 AM
As CArc was printed later, then it would supersede CWar in the event of a conflict.
I'm not quite sure on that front, actually. The "Primary Sources" text that I'm looking at doesn't seem to specify exactly what happens when two splatbooks disagree. Is the original the "primary"? Or does the new one supersede and replace it?


For example, "Radiant Servant of Pelor" doesn't have an ex-RSoP paragraph. If you switch your devotion to Elhonna, what happens to your class abilities and spellcasting? Intuitively, it seems necessary that you'd lose your RSoPness, but the spells are ambiguous. Is the spellcasting granted by a Pelor-devoted class coming from Pelor? Is it even possible for another deity to fill that?

Temple Raider of Olidammara is an even better example, as it has its own spellcasting advancement, which is much more clearly from Olidammara herself. Intuitively, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect that spellcasting to stay if the character became Lawful or switched to Cuthbert. However, CDiv does not say what happens, and any RAW-focussed DM would have to look for other sources.

On the other hand, a Wizard who went Rainbow Servant and then became Evil should intuitively lose Detect Evil, access to the Good Domain, etc. But I don't see a strong reason here why he should lose spellcasting beyond the CWar wording.



I think there's a strong RAW argument for losing features when you change. I also think it's a necessary one for verisimilitude and a believable game world. Keeping spellcasting from a lost PrC is ambiguous, both in RAW and in verisimilitude, but I see no reason not to accept that, if you must be THIS alignment or worship THAT god to gain these powers then ceasing to do so will cost you those powers. I don't buy the argument from silence from a RAW perspective, and I deny that it makes sense in the game world from an intuitive perspective. I also don't think that's always how you should play the game, and I believe that a good DM should be flexible and not hose over his players unnecessarily, but I also think that radical character alterations can and should have consequences. If you want to combine incompatible PrCs, talk to your DM about adapting them to the point where it works by itself.

Rumpus
2010-06-25, 01:54 AM
BoED's idea that "good" acts that are in your own self-interest, are Neutral, might help. Saving children is in your interest- because it makes others like you, and that liking may come in handy.

This has always been contradictory at best, idiotic at worst. If performing evil acts with good intentions is still evil, then why is performing good acts with secondary motives not good? Even if you are saving a kid because you've got the hots for his older sister, saving the life of a child is still a capital-G Good act, and should be treated as such. Now, if you go the said sister afterwards and say something like, "You owe me, and I'm here to collect", you've probably just cancelled out your good karma, but that's between you and the DM.

To answer the original question, the common sense answer is that you can't gain any more levels in the class, but you should keep your existing levels and abilities. A Diety might yank powers from a Divine-based PRC, but it just doesn't make any sense for an Intimidate-based class to lose his abilities because he's on the side of the Angels.

Scarey Nerd
2010-06-25, 01:56 AM
To answer the original question, the common sense answer is that you can't gain any more levels in the class, but you should keep your existing levels and abilities. A Diety might yank powers from a Divine-based PRC, but it just doesn't make any sense for an Intimidate-based class to lose his abilities because he's on the side of the Angels.

I whole-heartedly agree. (Partly because it makes sense, and partly because it means that after ECL 10 I can go any alignment I want. Except Lawful.)

Sliver
2010-06-25, 02:35 AM
Honestly, I don't see a reason to have alignment restrictions on anything that gains it's abilities not through divine means. If you can convince me it makes sense with your character's background and personality, I'll be glad to let your good character advance in an intimidation based PrC. Alignment shouldn't restrict your access to certain PrCs, it should guide you to the fitting ones. If this one is generally not good but your good character wants to advance it due to reason X, then he should be able to.

Ykhare
2010-06-25, 09:38 AM
I was actually wondering about an Evil character who is "Evil in Name Only"- they have the evil alignment to gain access to certain feats, spells, PRCs- but they act as heroic and altruistic as the better kind of paladin. Without the hassle of them bullying the other party members into not doing certain things

It might give the DM a headache, but this kind of Token Evil Teammate might be a relief to players who've dealt with PVP Evil types before.
Played a few of those. Lawful Evil (I don't think it'd work as well with NE or CE), and not "token" evil, definitely not altruistic, but somehow externally or personnally motivated to further the PC group's ends, or part of them at least.

I think what's important whatever the alignment of the characters, is willingness to both roleplay alignment, and do it in a way that doesn't willfully lead into stuck parties or stuck characters.
Having an overarching common goal or a situation that make internal strife a Very Bad Idea, or at least something pretty petty and counterproductive, helps a lot of course.


Honestly, I don't see a reason to have alignment restrictions on anything that gains it's abilities not through divine means. If you can convince me it makes sense with your character's background and personality, I'll be glad to let your good character advance in an intimidation based PrC. Alignment shouldn't restrict your access to certain PrCs, it should guide you to the fitting ones. If this one is generally not good but your good character wants to advance it due to reason X, then he should be able to.
Alignment restrictions can be justifed IMO even when there's no divinely granted abilities. In the OP's case, what does a "Menacing Brute" PRC would seem to imply ? Someone who interacts through instilling fear of immediate physical harm to others. It's not just "streetwise", and no way that can be construed as good. So while past experience "in the field" may be retained by someone who has turned good, I don't think they could be good AND still growing better at bullying others as their prime mean of interaction.

sonofzeal
2010-06-25, 12:22 PM
Honestly, I don't see a reason to have alignment restrictions on anything that gains it's abilities not through divine means. If you can convince me it makes sense with your character's background and personality, I'll be glad to let your good character advance in an intimidation based PrC. Alignment shouldn't restrict your access to certain PrCs, it should guide you to the fitting ones. If this one is generally not good but your good character wants to advance it due to reason X, then he should be able to.
Agreed. Actually, all flavour requirements (race, alignment, god, etc) should be treated flexibly, IMO. As a DM, I'd expect those things to be met by default, but allow any changes if the person gave me a suitable backstory. Some changes would be easier than others though; an Elven Red Wizard would be pretty easy to argue, a Good Assassin would be a little harder (although I'm aware that there's an official already out there), and a Radiant Servant of Nerull would require a powerful narrative justification.

But if they ceased to qualify for the houseruled version, I'd have them lose class features. There'd be options to atone, or rebuild, because it's no fun to have your character ruined, but that would become part of the fun of the game too.

hamishspence
2010-06-25, 12:25 PM
Played a few of those. Lawful Evil (I don't think it'd work as well with NE or CE), and not "token" evil, definitely not altruistic, but somehow externally or personnally motivated to further the PC group's ends, or part of them at least.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TokenEvilTeammate

A Token Evil Teammate's level of evilness can vary a great deal- the term simply means that they're the evilest character in the party- there's a noticable gap between them and everyone else.