So, evil characters...

[742]

idk, i dont play "good" characters so often, because running around murdering random people (or anyone, especially without thorough research) really clashes with my personal morality, even hanging out around people like that without trying to stop them falls into the inaction category, so yes all my characters are at best "neutral". when i play a character i think of as good and am comfy applying that label to i tend to piss everybody off(and often get the character killed eventually-sometimes by DM fiat-unless theyre thoroughly cynical). i ban myself from playing good characters

[Tennic]

Just adding my two cents.

Evil played poorly, or to the detriment of others' enjoyment can kill a game.

Case in point. My first 3.5 game about 5-6 years ago. The DM would bring us into the bedroom to discuss topics the other PCs weren't privy to. So, when I arrived one evening I was surprised and a little worried when I found that the DM and both the other players were in the bedroom.

They all file out a few minutes later and it's revealed to me that I wake up in camp to find both of my companions gone. Turns out the power-gamer playing the evil half-dragon ranger had dragged the elven rogue off into the woods, raped and then killed her.

Apparently she had a magic dagger that he needed for some ritual and his character was effectively leaving the campaign (at least as a PC).

I managed to get the elf to a town where she was resurrected. The power-gamer rolled up an elven paladin with a unicorn mount (seriously). And, next game session, the girl playing the rogue leaves the game, thus effectively ending the campaign (the DM at that time was her boyfriend and decided to take some time off from the game as well).

Sadly, I've heard a lot of the "I'm just playing my alignment" excuses in the years since. Mostly from players who choose Chaotic something and just like to cause trouble for the DM and the other players.

[hamishspence]

Al
A neutral character can make personal sacrifices to help others but it's likely going to benefit them as well or at least be their "only logical choice".

For standard Neutral characters, yes.

For "flexible neutral" characters a la Heroes of Horror- they're more likely to be a hybrid of Good and Evil- willing to do at least minor Evil acts "for the greater good" but at the same time, willing to make personal sacrifices for strangers.

[Prowl]

Am I the only one here whose D&D groups (including the DM) found evil parties to be much more entertaining and interesting than replaying over and over again the typical heroes-save-the-day theme?

[MightyPirate]

For standard Neutral characters, yes.

For "flexible neutral" characters a la Heroes of Horror- they're more likely to be a hybrid of Good and Evil- willing to do at least minor Evil acts "for the greater good" but at the same time, willing to make personal sacrifices for strangers.Okay, if you say so. I don't personally have access to that material so I really don't have any choice but to agree (or find if difficult to argue on way or the other.)

In context of what I do know I could see a neutral character doing these sort of things but it honestly sort of sounds at least a little on the chaotic side of neutral. I think your flexible neutral is my chaotic neutral but there's no need to split hairs.

It could even be lawful neutral with chaotic tenancies depending on the character. Much like good and evil, law and chaos don't have to be mutually exclusive (both in terms of alignment and irl.)

[Shademan]

Am I the only one here whose D&D groups (including the DM) found evil parties to be much more entertaining and interesting than replaying over and over again the typical heroes-save-the-day theme?

I like playing all alignments but I am forever DM so...

[hamishspence]

Okay, if you say so. I don't personally have access to that material so I really don't have any choice but to agree (or find if difficult to argue on way or the other.)

In context of what I do know I could see a neutral character doing these sort of things but it honestly sort of sounds at least a little on the chaotic side of neutral. I think your flexible neutral is my chaotic neutral but there's no need to split hairs.

It could even be lawful neutral with chaotic tenancies depending on the character. Much like good and evil, law and chaos don't have to be mutually exclusive (both in terms of alignment and irl.)

Yup- "flexible neutral" refers only to the moral axis- the character could be LN, N, or CN.

Unlike standard neutral, who tends to have compunctions about doing Evil acts but lack the committment to do Good acts, the "flexible Neutral" character might lack compunctions about doing at least some Evil acts (they might cast Evil spells, or rebuke undead, and so on, regularly)

but at the same time, be more altruistic and self-sacrificing toward strangers, than the traditional Neutral character who tends to reserve their altruism for friends, family, and other groups they have an attachment to.

If the evil acts they commit are serious enough, then they might even be Evil aligned- yet rather different from the traditional Evil character who hurts the innocent for fun or profit.

The later splatbooks (Heroes of Horror, Champions of Ruin, etc.) seem to allow for more complex, less stereotyped characters than the PHB does.

[Grelna the Blue]

Am I the only one here whose D&D groups (including the DM) found evil parties to be much more entertaining and interesting than replaying over and over again the typical heroes-save-the-day theme?

Different strokes, and all that, but I think the "save the day" thing only gets boring when GMs are too easy on their players and simply allow the heroes to prevail because that's the default. In my opinion, when it's a "save the town/country/continent/world" sort of adventure, the more important the adventure is, the more the odds should be stacked against the players from the outset. They should never feel that their success is foreordained so long as they simply fail to make mistakes and the dice don't abandon them. They should have to actually come up with workable plans to give them an edge, sometimes run and hide, and genuinely sweat to make it work. As it is, in most of the games I've played in the difficulty setting was set to Easy mode. The good games were a lot more challenging.

[MightyPirate]

The later splatbooks (Heroes of Horror, Champions of Ruin, etc.) seem to allow for more complex, less stereotyped characters than the PHB does.This is the only part I have to disagree on. These later books may detail more complex, less stereotyped characters more than the PHB does but PHB (at least according to the SRD, don't have my book handy atm) certainly allows pretty much everything you've been talking about.

The alignment descriptions use language that avoids universal statement by using terms like: "Some evil creatures . . .", "Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents . . .", "Lawfulness can include . . .", and so on. Even when traits are listed as being associated with certain alignments you get: "Alignment implies trait."

This avoids making any of the iconic virtues of an alignment necessary to actually be a part of said alignment. The descriptions also avoid saying what an alignment is not making the whole system not only more concise but also eliminating contradictions. Even the seeming universal statements have loopholes, just because a good character protects innocent life doesn't mean said character protects all innocent life. This is along the same lines as what you said: just because a good character makes personal sacrifices for others doesn't mean that character makes big personal sacrifices.

Even the basic detect evil spell works on a sliding scale and you could easily say that the strength of the evil aura depends not only on the type and strength of the creature but also on how evil they actually are. As is the evil aura of a level 1 serial killer is less potent than the level 20 guy who just stays at home and abuses his dog or something.

[hamishspence]

This is the only part I have to disagree on. These later books may detail more complex, less stereotyped characters more than the PHB does but PHB (at least according to the SRD, don't have my book handy atm) certainly allows pretty much everything you've been talking about.

Agreed- though I've seen people argue that it is logically required, that all evil characters be willing to hurt the innocent for profit or pleasure, that no neutral characters be willing to make sacrifices to help strangers, and so on.

And that many of the PHB statements are absolutes, requirements.

Which is what I usually disagree with.

[Silverlich]

See, what I don't get is the DMs I've had will let someone play the Herp Derp CN klepto, but won't let me play the LE blackmailing extortionist mafia type.

Make him an offer he can't refuse.

[faceroll]

Torturing a particularly vile criminal to death for personal pleasure.

It's not "hurting the common man" or "hurting the innocent" yet, both BoED and Fiendish Codex 2 state that torture is an evil act.

Unless you use a ravage. :smallsigh:
BoVD and BoED should be gotten rid of. The alignments in the PHB are far better at presenting a coherent ethical code.

[Yahzi]

There's a quote
There's another quote:


"We do not hold virtue to be the mere insipid absence of vice."
:smallbiggrin:

Seriously, there aren't other alignments than Good and Evil. Not logically, and not in the classic fantasy trope. You could make a game like that - "My character is not Black or White - he's Purple!"

"What does that mean?"

"It means he can only steal from orphans on Tuesdays."

[Lurkmoar]

I will say that being evil means never saying you're sorry when you cast Forgot on some sucker who gave you half the money upfront for a quest... and you just walk away pocketing the change.

I learned then to funnel employers toward the Lawful Good people.

[Isearchfortraps]

i have no idea why poeple hate evil charecter i find they make games more interesting and id take 5 CE players over a paladin anyday.. Lawful Stupid is much more anoying then CE

[MightyPirate]

i have no idea why poeple hate evil charecter i find they make games more interesting and id take 5 CE players over a paladin anyday.. Lawful Stupid is much more anoying then CE Any kind of character can be annoying. It's all in how you play it.

While we're at it . . . anyone else think five CE characters and a Pally in a party together would make a good sitcom? :smalltongue:

[CycloneJoker]

Any kind of character can be annoying. It's all in how you play it.

While we're at it . . . anyone else think five CE characters and a Pally in a party together would make a good sitcom? :smalltongue:

I'd rather see a Stick-Up Ass ACF LG Paladin, a Good-Is-Not-Nice Pally of Freedom, who is actually nice when not torturing villains to save the world, an Affably Evil Paladin of Tyranny, a Klepto-Rogue, and maybe either a Tier-one not-cleric, or a Factotum with a continuous "Anything you can do" going on. But I have a VERY different view of Paladin's code than some people, so it might not work.

[JamesonCourage]

Man, this thread makes me love my group even more.

No kidding. I'm only 3 pages in, and I've wanted to facepalm quite a few times. I count myself lucky, since I see eye to eye with my players (though we've gamed together for 10-12 years).

[FelixG]

i have no idea why poeple hate evil charecter i find they make games more interesting and id take 5 CE players over a paladin anyday.. Lawful Stupid is much more anoying then CE

Any of the stupid alignments are painful to play with. And an idiot of a player is just as likely to make a Chaotic Stupid PC as a Lawful Stupid PC. Though the Stupid alignments are the reason why more GMs should embrace PvP instead of getting upset when a few players take another one out.

[hamishspence]

Unless you use a ravage. :smallsigh:
BoVD and BoED should be gotten rid of. The alignments in the PHB are far better at presenting a coherent ethical code.

Ravages were intended to be "nonevil poisons"- which is still silly (given that realistically, poisons don't cause more suffering than many other methods of incapacitating)- but aren't the same thing as "nonevil means of torture".

BoVD and BoED tend to be more problematic in mechanics, than in fluff.

"Hurting people excessively is evil" isn't really that bad a basic principle.