PDA

View Full Version : Why Evil?



Toofey
2012-07-08, 09:34 AM
I've had a lot of interest from my players recently in playing "evil campaigns", None of them have expressed strong motivations for their characters, (with one exception who's motivation is IMO not really evil ie: she wants forbidden knowledge) and they seem to think it's just like a good campaign but evil.

I also see a lot of people down with playing evil here.

Illuminate me, what is the point of this, and what sort of things do you guys think belong in evil campaigns?

kyoryu
2012-07-08, 11:18 AM
I've had a lot of interest from my players recently in playing "evil campaigns", None of them have expressed strong motivations for their characters, (with one exception who's motivation is IMO not really evil ie: she wants forbidden knowledge) and they seem to think it's just like a good campaign but evil.

I also see a lot of people down with playing evil here.

Illuminate me, what is the point of this, and what sort of things do you guys think belong in evil campaigns?

I think "evil campaign" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and it'd be a good idea to figure out what, exactly, your players have in mind.

Yora
2012-07-08, 11:23 AM
Well, I think the players really need to come up with a concept of how they want an evil campaign to be. Otherwise there's a very strong tendency of just having everyone commiting random acts of violence out of boredom
It's important that they do the planning, because everything you prepare won't have any effect if they don't feel like playing the campaign that way.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-07-08, 12:11 PM
I think the fascination with playing evil campaigns comes from being able to not be the good guys/heroes anymore. You don't need to save the world or stop the bad guys (you might actually be the bad guys) and you can play classes and characters you normally can't. That last one is a key element for me. I can play a blackguard or an assassin and not get on the bad side of the Paladin or Cleric of Pelor in the group. I can play someone who wants to overthrow the king or become immortal and command undead armies if I want to, and it fits in.

But make sure you know what kind of evil everyone wants to play, some want the summon demons, kick puppies and burn down the orphanage evil, others wants the morally grey evil that's somewhere between evil and neutral, but certainly not good and driven by more logical urges or simple circumstances. So make sure you know which one you're dealing with and plan accordingly.

And still be wary of Chaotic/Evil, it's still just code for Stupid/Evil.

Yora
2012-07-08, 12:15 PM
And Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid?

I think one really, really good idea to play an evil campaign is to not have any form of alignment.
Make it a campaign of villains, without any clear definitions who is evil and what things are evil. Just go along with what seems fitting at the moment.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-07-08, 12:18 PM
And Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid?

Never said that Yora, but in an evil themed game you're not likely to have to deal with Lawful Good party members are you? :p

Jay R
2012-07-08, 01:18 PM
The problem is that nobody in the real world "wants" to be evil. They want to be rich, or successful, or to rule, or to achieve any other goal that people want.

What makes them evil is what means they are willing to take to achieve their goal.

But nobody's goal is to be evil.

navar100
2012-07-08, 01:36 PM
Most of the time it's because players want to play out their psycho-sadist fantasies. For whatever reason they just want to be bad and through the game is the only way they can get away with it.

It is the rare player who plays an evil character for serious roleplay considerations. Such a player works with the party just as normal in good-heroic play but is striving for an anti-hero experience. He'll usually play Lawful Evil but Neutral Evil is possible. He does not steal from the party, kill them in their sleep, or betray them to the BBEG he finds competent.

jseah
2012-07-08, 02:10 PM
If I played in an evil campaign or ran one, it usually is an excuse to play in a sandbox like setting where the players are the drivers of plot. Good-aligned games tend to be more reactive even when they don't need to be.

The whole evil thing is just there to remove uh... unnecessary concerns in the pursuit of a goal.

VanBuren
2012-07-08, 03:29 PM
The problem is that nobody in the real world "wants" to be evil. They want to be rich, or successful, or to rule, or to achieve any other goal that people want.

What makes them evil is what means they are willing to take to achieve their goal.

But nobody's goal is to be evil.

Unless they're a sadist. Or a card-carrying villain.

nyarlathotep
2012-07-08, 03:41 PM
Essentially most people I know who don't just want to have random acts of violence are people who want to be evil overlord types. They want to be the ones with power who are movers and shakers rather than being reactionary. While this isn't always necessarily evil most of how people would kick off a plot is, i.e. trying to conquer new territory stealing the power of a god etc.

Network
2012-07-08, 04:45 PM
Book of Vile Darkness and Savage Species both talked about the subject.

BoVD says than evil characters have different motivations, but they can do the same things (the good characters will protect/kill the king for the good, the bad characters will do the same for the money). So the characters can basically be evil just to ask for more gp/power and torture some enemies from time to time.

As ever, the less you are good, the more you are centred about personal interests. Also true for neutral characters. And some Chaotic Evil characters are still Pragmatic Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PragmaticVillainy). There are five ways to be CE (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticEvil), after all.

Tvtyrant
2012-07-08, 05:22 PM
There are a couple ways I have seen it run.

1. Take over the kingdom!
Your parties goal is to take over the local kingdom from its ruler. Unless the ruler is a bad guy, this tends to be frowned on. So they go around bribing officials, killing military officers, etc. to pave their way to the top. They aren't necessarily going to go on a brutal warpath/ethnic cleansing/brutal authoritarian regime, but they want to be in control and they don't really care about people who get in the way.

2. Your from evil backgrounds, and you carry your evil stereotypes with you.
Lizardfolk who eat people, goblins who want to destroy the elven homeland, etc. You treat people on your side of the line with a modicum of respect, but the "good" folk are all up for grabs. It is basically normal D&D, but your races are different.

3. Evil City!
You live in an evil, gang ridden town/city/country/universe where everyone is out for their own good and no one can be trusted. Relatively high risk of PC fights, but it could be set up that the group can only really trust its own members.

Edit: As for why, because the whole point of RPGs is to be able to do things you normally can't. I can't be a giant robot in RL or cast magic just the same as I can't become the dictator of a massive space empire.

Eldan
2012-07-08, 05:42 PM
There's three for me I like, corresponding more or less to the three alignments.

The schemer. I love a good scheme. A tripple-insured, airtight plan that is absolutely reckless, brilliant, unexpected, overwhelming, glorious and evil. Evil just as more opportunity for magnificient bastardry. Neutral Evil, mostly.

The Inquisitor. He will save you, even if he has to kill you. He does what needs to be done, and he pays the price. His logic may be flawed, but perhaps, perhaps, he just has a point. Lawful Evil, mostly.

The mercenary. "Would you ask any questions if I asked you to kill an infant?" "Sure. I'd ask "How much?"". He is the one who will survive, in the end, because he is that tiny bit more willing to do whatever he needs to to get through everything. He will get what he wants in the end. Note that he does not have to be uncaring, or that he can not have friends. He may love people. He may be devoted and caring. He is just also a psychopath. Chaotic Evil, mostly.

HunterOfJello
2012-07-08, 06:03 PM
If you're playing an evil campaign, then you can get away with being an ******* all the time. That seems to be the primary motivation that I've seen.

QuidEst
2012-07-08, 07:53 PM
I have some evil characters. (They tend to be Alchemists, oddly enough.) If I'm going to get a chance to use them, they will either be in an evil campaign or behave rather neutral.

Personally, in an evil campaign I would love the opportunity to claw up towards being top villain. Getting to be the grand vizier? That'd be awesome! Especially if it's a result of clawing your way to that position. Being a chromatic dragon transformed into a human? Tons of fun options. Not that I don't have awesome good and neutral characters, but those can be used in many different campaigns.

Kaun
2012-07-08, 08:07 PM
If they want to do it try to encourage them to stay away from chaotic stupid.

If they aren't sure what the difference between chaotic evil and chaotic stupid is.

This is chaotic evil

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/thumb/1/1e/Jaime_Lannister.jpg/300px-Jaime_Lannister.jpg

This is chaotic stupid

http://hotnewshome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/joffrey_2184419k.jpg

While chaotic stupid can be fun to play sometimes it is generally annoying for all others involved and more often then not ends up in a quick and bloody death.

Grimsage Matt
2012-07-08, 08:16 PM
I'm in a Epic Evil Campain right now, and I decided to do the Fun/Slightly sterotypical way for world Dommination.

Welcome to Mattcorp regional general store. How may we help you?

Evil Megacorperation baby:smallcool: It's the way to true evil that DON'T git ya (That little jerk under Chaotic Stupid)ed. I forgot the name, I just rembered that he was royal ass:smalltongue:

Sure, you can be a greedy skumbag, but pick your fights. Be pateint. It'll all be yours if you brainwash the locals, introduce democracy and rig the elections:smallbiggrin:

jaybird
2012-07-08, 09:38 PM
{{scrubbed}}

crazyhedgewizrd
2012-07-08, 09:49 PM
@Kaun, i have always thought that Jamie lannister was more Lawful Neutral/Evil but that my view anyway.

The number one rule of playing evil is don't cause trouble in your own backyard, and make the people like you. Evil people really do need that buffer around them, so that when the "good" guys do rock up it makes them the bad guys.

Kaun
2012-07-08, 10:22 PM
@Kaun, i have always thought that Jamie lannister was more Lawful Neutral/Evil but that my view anyway.

Ehh they don't call him the king slayer for nothing...

I think after the whole murdering his cousin to escape capture i dropped him into the C/E bin.

He is a man who likes what he likes... and wont give a second thought to doing what ever has to be done to make sure he get is.

Finding an example of a playable C/E character is a hard thing to do but.

VanBuren
2012-07-08, 10:25 PM
Ehh they don't call him the king slayer for nothing...

Yeah, but considering what the king was about to do, I'm not sure I'd ding his alignment for it.

Kaun
2012-07-08, 10:33 PM
Yeah, but considering what the king was about to do, I'm not sure I'd ding his alignment for it.

Hehe funnily enough killing the king was one of his few redeeming acts.

Da Beast
2012-07-08, 10:45 PM
{{scrubbed}}

crazyhedgewizrd
2012-07-08, 11:15 PM
I think after the whole murdering his cousin to escape capture i dropped him into the C/E bin.

It depend if you take your view from the books or the show, But in the books jamie dont kill his cousin, but travels with him to kings landing with Lady Starks orders.

Callos_DeTerran
2012-07-08, 11:25 PM
For me, playing an evil character can hold different appeals. Some are roleplay ones, where you play a character with a skewed moral compass yet travels with heroes. How do they interact? Do they? What sort of relationship do they have?

Others are pure egotistical...for once I want to be the evil overlord. I want to be the grand villain who's moving pawns across a gigantic board to bring me closer to some stereotypical goal like destroying the world or conquering it. I do love the cliches of villains, and the chance to be that cliche is a life-long dream of mine. There's also interesting thought patterns in these characters as well. Why do they want to destroy/conquer the world or kill all dwarves/elves/etc.? Are they just crazy? Do they just hate something that much? Why? Etc. More importantly, I'd just get a warm and fuzzy feeling if I became such a threat to the town/kingdom/country/world/plane/reality that a band of adventurers teamed up to stop me for once.

Third is the chance for realistic PvP. I've always wanted to try an evil game where everyone was going into it with the understanding that they'd most likely be turning upon one another eventually. I think there's a ton of potential for scheming and plannign between players and DMs here and, should one player fall to another, you don't feel gipped or cheated because a monster did it. Especially if you make them work to kill you. All this under the understanding that the PCs still have a quest to complete and they do need to complete it.


As for an example of Chaotic Evil, have you considered the Boss from Saints Row series? :smalltongue: If s/he isn't chaotic evil, then no one is.

PersonMan
2012-07-09, 12:12 PM
Unless they're a sadist. Or a card-carrying villain.

Well, I don't know any, but sadists who hurt others to feel good don't want to be evil, they just want to feel good. Like how people who use drugs don't want to be addicts, they just want the high.

(Normally, of course. Then again, I'd lump 'sadist because I'm evil' in with 'card carrying villain'.)

kyoryu
2012-07-09, 12:18 PM
The more I read this thread, the more I think two things need to be nailed down:

1) How do you define Evil? What's an Evil act, and what is an Evil character? I ask this because it's entirely possible for an Evil character to work within a Good game. Jayne in Firefly is a great example of this.

2) What will the Evil campaign be? What are the expectations? Clearly there's something they want to be different, but what is it?

Without answers to those two questions, it's really impossible to say anything whatsoever about how such a campaign might work out, any more than it's possible to say what a "Good" campaign is about.

kyoryu
2012-07-09, 01:06 PM
A lot depends on how you define Evil. If you define Evil as "sadistic, likes killing puppies," you get once set of answers.

If you define Evil as "To achieve his goals, is willing to step on others", you get a different set of answers. There's also an area where the goals that an Evil person is striving for may be "Good," which (IMHO, but maybe not others) doesn't change the fact that the person pursuing them is Evil - in fact, it's probably the case that the world's worst monsters fall under that category, as once you've rationalized that harming people for "the greater good" is acceptable, there's pretty much no limit on what you can do - especially since you're probably the one defining "the greater good".

EDIT: That was a weird bug. The forum didn't display my first response for about two hours, until I posted the second response.

Giegue
2012-07-09, 01:29 PM
I personally not only love evil campaigns, but prefer them to good campaigns. For years when I had an actual RL group we ran and played almost exclusively evil campaigns. However, evil campaigns get a bad reputation because MANY people use them as an excuse to simply do whatever they want, usually to very violent, gory, and depending on the group sexual levels. However, the evil campaigns I like to play in and run are the kind in which there is actual plot and an end goal beyond "how many people can we slaughter/torture/rape." Simply put, I prefer evil campaigns in which evil characters actually work togther towards a goal and do evil for something other then entertainment or "for the evlulz." Just because your character sheet reads chaotic evil does not mean your character has no motives, goals and things that make him a fleshed out character instead of a cartoon supervillain.

Simply put, when I run or want to be in an evil campaign, I want it to be more then a sanbox of evil for evil's sake; I want it to run like a normal good campaign, but with evil PCs. This usually means that the evil PCs have to unite to fight against some other, larger force of evil. Or a massive force of goodness, in some cases. However, no matter what flavor the "BBEG/BBGG" comes in, there is one, and in my evil games the PCs must WORK TOGTHER despite their evilness to overcome the enemy and achieve their goals.

An evil campaign CAN be crafted and made to be very much like a good campaign if done right. Heck, the BBEG of an evil campaign can STILL be evil in alignment. The difference between a good and evil campaign does not have to be mainly about structure, but rather end results and PC motivations. You can still have an evil villain that threatens the world and the PCs can still adventure in a very traditional way to stop him/her. The difference becomes the reason the PCs fight the BBEG, and the ultimate end game/goal of the party and PCs. In a good game, the PCs fight the BBEG to save the setting and it's people from his plot thus the "endgame" is salvation for the setting. In an evil game, the PCs fight the BBEG because he is an obstacle to their own selfish goals and thus the "endgame" is the PCs achieving whatever those selfish goals are, usually resulting in the subjugation and/or destruction of the setting rather then it's salvation.

However, in such evil campaigns, the adventure structure, while still being able to be somewhat "traditional" has to accommodate the fact that evil PCs will do things differently from good ones. Evil PCs will not hesitate to torture a prisoner for information. Evil PCs, if not lawful, will be willing to commit criminal acts to forward their own goals. There is also a highly likelyhood of inter-party conflict, though if you enforce no PVP this actually makes for a wealth of role-playing situations.

The key to evil campaigns that run like good campaigns is being able to adjust to and accommodate these differing methods. Most importantly, you usually have to make a good reason for the evil PCs to work together. Being the minions of a bigger evil(at first, anyway) is always an easy way to do this. Likewise, throwing them into a setting which is so hostile towards them that they are forced to work together if they want any chance of surviving to see their first level up is another surefire way to assure cooperation between party members. Those are only examples, though, there are plenty of other ways to do this.

So, if you can do all that and have mature players who actually care about playing characters instead of caricatures you can have an evil game that is still very structured and narrative in which the PCs work together to achieve something meaningful(though not good) and defeat a villain. Not every evil campaign is a sandbox sadist gore and sex fest. Just the ones played by immature players and DMs who don't know how to say no.

Fatebreaker
2012-07-09, 01:56 PM
Why Evil? Well, a lot depends on what you and your players think "Team Evil" looks like.

Team Evil can be comical and horrible caricatures, who do evil "for the lulz" or because the plot needs a villain, complete with mustache twirling and monologues.

Team Evil can be real people, who have perfectly valid motivations and methods which just happen to be opposed to your own.

Team Evil can be terrifying individuals who are almost, but not quite, normal.

Team Evil can be reasonable folks who just happened to fall on the "wrong" side of an alignment line drawn by someone else.

Team Evil can be ruthless, working towards goals without concern for who gets hurt along the way.

Team Evil can be caring, but perfectly willing to sacrifice one or more virtues in pursuit of other virtues.

Team Evil can be complete monsters who do whatever they want whenever they want, and the more folks they inconvenience along the way, the better.

Team Evil can be sympathetic, folks who were dealt a bad hand in life and have no other way to get ahead.

Team Evil can be repulsive, engaging in acts best not considered on a family-friendly forum.

Team Evil can be tragic, full of almost-heroes and once-champions, now twisted and working against their former comrades and beliefs.

Team Evil can be fun!

Team Evil can be a lot of things. Not many folks actually think of themselves as evil, but we're all villains in someone else's story.

So why join up with Team Evil? Well, in stories, Team Evil may not be the protagonists, but they certainly tend to be proactive. Maybe your players really want to have more say over their actions. Or maybe your players really don't agree with the game's definitions of good and evil. There are plenty of movies you can watch and think, "Y'know, I really identify more with the designated villains here," or even, "I'm not sure why the movie thinks these guys are the villains at all." Or maybe it has nothing to do with stories, and everything to do with mechanics -- does Team Evil get better toys in your game? Or maybe it's just time for something different, and your players think a Team Evil game will shake things up.

There are plenty of reasons to join Team Evil, and plenty of characters have a home in Team Evil. So ask your players what their version of Team Evil looks like. Just remember, Team Evil is bigger and more diverse than most folks give it credit for, and it doesn't take much to portray a hero as a villain or a villain as a hero...

Thialfi
2012-07-09, 02:17 PM
I don't favor evil campaigns, because I don't think many people do it well. They either play psychotic evil that is openly cruel and hurtful for no reason or stupid evil that hates and kills everything just because they are EEEEEEEVILLL.

Evil characters can love their friends and family and sacrifice for them. Evil and good can often even have the same goals. You can be evil and still play the hero. Evil characters can have unsavory goals, but often the thing that distinguishes evil from good is the methods used to achieve their goals.

It could be intriguing to explore a character that would literally do anything to keep his family and friends from harm, but I don't want to go anywhere near a character that kills puppies without a rational motive.

rorikdude12
2012-07-09, 02:23 PM
Evil is ends justify the means.

Evil is killing the mass-murdering psychopath, but feeding the soul to your cacaodaemon.

Evil is wanting treasure, so you become a slave trader.

Evil is stabbing that guy who robbed from you instead of taking the money back some other way.

Evil can be fun, or you can just be stupid.

I like th Assassin prestige class, but I have to be evil to use it. Same with the PF Souldrinker prestige class.

Evil is turning bad to reach for power...

hamishspence
2012-07-09, 02:54 PM
Evil characters can love their friends and family and sacrifice for them. Evil and good can often even have the same goals. You can be evil and still play the hero. Evil characters can have unsavory goals, but often the thing that distinguishes evil from good is the methods used to achieve their goals.

It could be intriguing to explore a character that would literally do anything to keep his family and friends from harm,

Savage Species, and Champions of Ruin, do say quite a bit about this kind of Evil.

For a movie character of this type- Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side "to save Padme from death"- one that he'd foreseen.

Even after becoming the guy in the suit, some books (the Coruscant Nights trilogy, for example) suggest that Vader genuinely believed his cause was righteous.

Ravens_cry
2012-07-09, 03:11 PM
From a meta-game perspective, there is quite a few options that are 'evil only', so it could be fun to get a chance to actually play them.
Form a narrative perspective, evil is often more proactive, so that can also be a fun role to play.
Instead of chasing down baddies, you create the events, you set things in motion.
Finally, one of the joys of role playing is being someone we are mostly not.
Most of us are not evil, so it can be enjoyable to take on that role.

jaybird
2012-07-09, 04:01 PM
{{scrubbed}}

kyoryu
2012-07-09, 04:02 PM
From a meta-game perspective, there is quite a few options that are 'evil only', so it could be fun to get a chance to actually play them.

And this begs the question - why can't players use Evil characters within a nominally "Good" campaign? Unless they're going for the sadist characterization, there's little reason why they can't.

Maybe Paul the Paladin is trying to accomplish the shared goal out of a sense of nobility, while Al the Assassin is just getting paid to do so. Again, see Jayne in Firefly.


Form a narrative perspective, evil is often more proactive, so that can also be a fun role to play.

And there's no reason that a "Good" campaign can't be proactive, either, especially if the status quo is neutral or evil.


Instead of chasing down baddies, you create the events, you set things in motion.

There's no reason this needs to be solely the provenance of Evil campaigns. It's more of a campaign style issue than anything else. If anything, it happens due to:

1) Presumption that "that's how you play D&D" - a plot which involves saving the nominally good/peaceful world from some evil mastermind that's trying to destroy it.
2) It's easier to control a campaign if the players are in reactive mode. This is exacerbated by systems that do not lend themselves well to improvisation/light prep.


Finally, one of the joys of role playing is being someone we are mostly not.
Most of us are not evil, so it can be enjoyable to take on that role.

Again, why can't you be an "Evil" character without being in an "Evil" campaign?

Starbuck_II
2012-07-09, 08:18 PM
The problem is that nobody in the real world "wants" to be evil. They want to be rich, or successful, or to rule, or to achieve any other goal that people want.

What makes them evil is what means they are willing to take to achieve their goal.

But nobody's goal is to be evil.

I did. It was middle school. The kid's goal ws to be evil when he grew up.

Grimsage Matt
2012-07-09, 08:25 PM
Eh, Being good or being sane is overrated. Better to be a ruthless bastard. Sure, noone will like you, but what the hell do they matter? Your sitting on the pile of gold that pays them, so they kiss your ass when you can see 'em, so whoes the hypocrites?

VanBuren
2012-07-09, 09:21 PM
Well, I don't know any, but sadists who hurt others to feel good don't want to be evil, they just want to feel good. Like how people who use drugs don't want to be addicts, they just want the high.

(Normally, of course. Then again, I'd lump 'sadist because I'm evil' in with 'card carrying villain'.)

But they get pleasure from the pain of others. And to knowingly want that... well, that's not really different, is it?

Fatebreaker
2012-07-09, 09:45 PM
But they get pleasure from the pain of others. And to knowingly want that... well, that's not really different, is it?

The desire isn't to "be EEEEEEEVIL!" The desire is to fulfill a, well, a desire. To meet a goal. It has an origin.

That's a subtle but distinct difference, particularly in how you portray a sadist-character. They might not even like that particular facet of their own character. Or maybe they work to control it. Or maybe they're really mature about it and only hurt people who like being hurt, because some folks get pleasure from pain. Or maybe the sadist is angry at being ostracized by people who judge him all the time. Maybe he's hurt and alone and feels helpless. Maybe that's why he enjoys hurting other people -- because he's been hurt in the past and this is the only way he can feel like he's in control.

But all of those are "real" people. They have larger motivations and emotions and goals and desires that go well beyond "I want to be EEEEEEEVIL!" There's a character there with a story to tell. They might be evil. They might not be. But even if they are, or even if they become evil, the goal isn't to check off the evil alignment box. The goal was to fulfill a deeper desire. To experience an emotion. Other folks may call that evil. But it's doubtful that the sadist thinks of it as evil.

Put another way, the goal isn't to be evil. Evil is just something others call you for fulfilling your real goal.

Frenth Alunril
2012-07-09, 10:28 PM
I see a lot of people here talking camp evil, and psychopath evil as if it's some lame predictable thing. My players, all good ones, mind you, convinced me to run an evil campaign.

I let them.

I set them up as what they wanted to be, mostly Gnolls, Orcs and Hobgoblins from some horrible place in Ebberon. The kings and tyrants of the horrible place were calling for destruction of another kingdom, but they knew that it couldn't be done without special powers. A sign came to a shaman that told them to send selected champions to a location and gather the secrets...

Ta-da, party is bullied into action.

Then I set them loose, it was awesome to watch as they all tried to bully each other into action, and when I gave them situations where they just had to lean on people a little, the often took to flaying people who didn't give up information right away. The more out of hand they got, the more riled up I made the good guys, to the point where they found out how bad a Paladin with the Smite ability can be.

Eventually they faced down some horror, found some secrets, but their inability to coordinate left very few of them alive, but, like the dirty dozen, they had kicked off some wild damage, and provided the war that the tyrants were calling for.

Evil isn't some Camp thing, and Sociopaths/Psychopaths/and the 3 alignments are neither stupid, nor predictable. However, there are stupid people who seem to take stupid actions. That's when you get to kill their characters.

The best thing to keep in mind in an evil game is reputation, word of mouth, and the eventuality that the party will not be able to stay in town, they will be camping, always, unless they find and evil town, where they will probably have to cow-tow to some stronger force.

Just remember the tenants of Law (rules) Neutrality (balance) Chaos (self) and you will find your answers to Evil.

Wyntonian
2012-07-09, 10:38 PM
I kinda mentally cringe whenever I see evil acts being done, as well as really, really not being a fan of X-axis/Y-Axis morality, so I'm not really a fan of running nor playing an evil campaign.

That said, if I were to do one, it would be a more subtle character-development thing. A paladin who thinks that the ends justify just a little bit too much of the means, and that the ruling council of his homeland is getting in the way of his quest to do the greater good by imprisoning him. It wouldn't be a rapemurderkill blood-orgy, more of a descent into the darker edge of grey.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Zarrgon
2012-07-09, 10:39 PM
I've had a lot of interest from my players recently in playing "evil campaigns", None of them have expressed strong motivations for their characters, (with one exception who's motivation is IMO not really evil ie: she wants forbidden knowledge) and they seem to think it's just like a good campaign but evil.

I also see a lot of people down with playing evil here.

Illuminate me, what is the point of this, and what sort of things do you guys think belong in evil campaigns?

Most people are brainwashed and converted to the side of good. Not that most can help it, of course, as it's done while they are kids. But the end result is someone who has very little freedom as they must follow the massive, overbearing, and oppressive 'Rules of Good'. And then once they are even close to being an adult, they will likely believe and think that good is the 'only' way. And this is even true in many games like D&D, where a paladin is forced to do or not do things.

But then enter a Evil themed RPG! Finally it allows a person to feel free and get a release from all the rules of good. In a game, you can do whatever you want and even 'get away with it'.

But, of course, most people just want to be 'Evil' to act and go crazy and have unrestricted fun.

VanBuren
2012-07-10, 02:19 PM
The desire isn't to "be EEEEEEEVIL!" The desire is to fulfill a, well, a desire. To meet a goal. It has an origin.

That's a subtle but distinct difference, particularly in how you portray a sadist-character. They might not even like that particular facet of their own character. Or maybe they work to control it. Or maybe they're really mature about it and only hurt people who like being hurt, because some folks get pleasure from pain. Or maybe the sadist is angry at being ostracized by people who judge him all the time. Maybe he's hurt and alone and feels helpless. Maybe that's why he enjoys hurting other people -- because he's been hurt in the past and this is the only way he can feel like he's in control.

But all of those are "real" people. They have larger motivations and emotions and goals and desires that go well beyond "I want to be EEEEEEEVIL!" There's a character there with a story to tell. They might be evil. They might not be. But even if they are, or even if they become evil, the goal isn't to check off the evil alignment box. The goal was to fulfill a deeper desire. To experience an emotion. Other folks may call that evil. But it's doubtful that the sadist thinks of it as evil.

Put another way, the goal isn't to be evil. Evil is just something others call you for fulfilling your real goal.

Now those examples you give, I understand your point. But if we take a character who has no real sympathetic motivations for doing so, who simply hurts people because it makes him happy, and he understands that he's happy because he's hurting people. Cartoonish and serial-killer as that is, it's pretty much being Evil for Evil, in that this case the person knows that his happiness is directly caused by harm and does so. Any difference there, IMO, is merely a technicality.

PersonMan
2012-07-11, 02:27 AM
Cartoonish and serial-killer as that is, it's pretty much being Evil for Evil, in that this case the person knows that his happiness is directly caused by harm and does so. Any difference there, IMO, is merely a technicality.

Except the entire point is the 'technicality' of "I do this to make myself feel good and don't care that it hurts other people" vs "I do this to be evil".

VanBuren
2012-07-11, 11:56 PM
Except the entire point is the 'technicality' of "I do this to make myself feel good and don't care that it hurts other people" vs "I do this to be evil".

But that's the example I'm talking about. Not "I don't care that it hurts other people" but "I like that it hurts them".

Synovia
2012-07-12, 12:45 AM
If I played in an evil campaign or ran one, it usually is an excuse to play in a sandbox like setting where the players are the drivers of plot. Good-aligned games tend to be more reactive even when they don't need to be.

The whole evil thing is just there to remove uh... unnecessary concerns in the pursuit of a goal.

This is where its at. Typical good games are about something happening, and you saving the world from it. Typical evil campaings are about you causing something to happen in the world.


That being said, I've seen way more players act out antisocial tendancies as LG characters than evil ones. The Paladin is usually the problem in the party, not the necromancer.



Ehh they don't call him the king slayer for nothing...



Killing a tyrant doesn't make you Chaotic. Especially when your entire personality is built around family loyalty and that tyrant has killed parts of your family.

The adult Lannisters (except Tyrion) are ALL lawful. Every single one. Its the defining factor for the family. The LAW they follow isn't the legal law, its "The family always comes first" and "Lannisters always pay their debts".

Jaime killing a lower ranking family member to escape is completely consistent with this.


Joffrey is probably the most lawful in the family, in that he is extremely rigid about punishing people in court, consequences and extenuating factors be damned. It doesn't matter that Sansa is completely innocent, and to be Joffrey's wife, the law says the Starks must be punished, and shes the only one there.

VanBuren
2012-07-12, 01:02 AM
Killing a tyrant doesn't make you Chaotic. Especially when your entire personality is built around family loyalty and that tyrant has killed parts of your family.

The adult Lannisters (except Tyrion) are ALL lawful. Every single one. Its the defining factor for the family. The LAW they follow isn't the legal law, its "The family always comes first" and "Lannisters always pay their debts".

Jaime killing a lower ranking family member to escape is completely consistent with this.


Joffrey is probably the most lawful in the family, in that he is extremely rigid about punishing people in court, consequences and extenuating factors be damned. It doesn't matter that Sansa is completely innocent, and to be Joffrey's wife, the law says the Starks must be punished, and shes the only one there.

See, Joffrey always came off as totally Chaotic Evil to me. I never saw it as, "they broke the rules, so I have to punish them" so much as it was "how dare they disrespect me!? I will teach them the meaning of agony!"

It wasn't about the law. It was about him. Joffrey was king, and a king can do whatever he wants and if someone doesn't like it, execute his family.

Morithias
2012-07-12, 01:07 AM
To answer the original question about what kind of evil I see let me talk about the War campaign again. So far in this campaign I have six characters I am running (Yeah I abused leadership and classes to get a ton of cohorts). I'll go over them.

Jebel is a harvester devil, she's a bard and therefore NE. Her damning qualities are her lack of morals, her redeeming quality is her love of the stage and dislike for blunt force (I.e she would rather conquest via diplomacy). She wrote the tome of Jebel which is basically the "Evil overlord list" and gave it to Alex.

Prince Alex is Lawful Evil, the reason he is evil is because of Jebel's influence growing up. His primary goal is to unite the continent so he can become a god (he claims it's to end the endless wars and bring continental peace). His damning nature is his lack of morals and willing to do anything if it's the most profitable option. His redeeming nature comes from his care for those around him, his love for Iseria, and due to having the tome of Jebel his pragmatism. (I.e the strong build many, the weak build few, the dead build none)

Iseria is a blackguard/cleric of Bel with a fetish for war. Lawful evil, her damning qualities are her willingness to kill and her sexual attractiveness to fighting and warfare (i.e being in battle turns her on). Her redeeming qualities are her willingness to follow the laws of war (i.e will not kill surrendering enemies, will not kill medics or civilians). Another redeeming trait is her relationship with Alex and their legit care for each other.

Sabin is an artificer who is lawful evil, but mostly just wants to invent weapons and magical items. He is evil due to willing to experiment with anything to make items (dark xp, liquid pain, etc), and his willingness to associate with evil people and sell them his work. His redeeming qualities are his work ethics and care for the people. Although he specializes in weapons, he is more than willing to help build that aquaduct for the town water supply. Also his relationship with Yumi.

Yumi is a musketeer sharp shooter. Lawful evil and disciple of dispater. Her damning qualities like Iseria are her willingness to kill without second thought, also unlike Iseria she does not care about the laws of war and will shoot medics and such. Her redeeming qualities are her dislike for killing outside of war, she only kills those who she has a reason to kill, i.e she won't just shoot a guy who cut in line or bumped into her. Also her relationship with Alex where they bonded over the muskets and weapon designs is redeeming as well.

Leila is an Amazon Cavalry leader. Lawful evil. Her damning quality like Iseria is her love for battle and willingness to rout entire units with her "Sisters of Battle". Her redeeming quality is just that however, her "sisters". She sees all her unit mates as her family and will fight to protect them, teaching them the Amazon way of unity and sisterhood. Also the Amazons are not sexist and is more than willing to work for Alex (so long as he keeps paying her, she is a mercenary). Her main damning quality outside of her willing to kill is her greed and love of cash.

Basically I guess my point is once you make a character whos motivation is "For the Lulz" you've basically failed as a D&D character. Yes the Joker is for the lulz, but the Joker isn't co-operatively working with 3 other people.

To put it bluntly, if someone joined this campaign with a Joker style character for whom it was clear they would have no problem betraying him, Alex would have Yumi put a bullet in his skull. You need to be more complex then "it's fun to torture and murder people" in both my and the Prince's eyes. The fact is that Evil versus Evil PvP breaks out when people give it a reason to break out. Try playing characters who are in love, or are best friends, or are an elite group of mercenaries who have fought in many battles. Evil more than good needs a backstory, you can't do "you all meet in a tavern" with evil and expect it to work.

Synovia
2012-07-12, 01:11 AM
See, Joffrey always came off as totally Chaotic Evil to me. I never saw it as, "they broke the rules, so I have to punish them" so much as it was "how dare they disrespect me!? I will teach them the meaning of agony!"

It wasn't about the law. It was about him. Joffrey was king, and a king can do whatever he wants and if someone doesn't like it, execute his family.

He's the king. Disrespecting the king is treason, and a violation of the law.

Even if you go back to Sansa and the Wolf, its "I was hurt, and someone needs to pay for that hurt". Its a very clear cause-effect law based motivation. There's a transgression, and there must be punishment. He's definitely stupid though. (hes like a poorly played evil paladin)

Tyrion, on the other hand, does whatever the hell he feels needs to be done, and often sides on what is better for him than the family. He's imminently selfish. He has no code. HE, is chaotic evil.


The Greyjoys are probably the most chaotic of the families, but even they have a very visible law leaning (basically, codified survival of the fittest). They're a good example of why the alignment system is so silly. NOBODY is lawful in all things, or chaotic in all things (Or selfish vs selfless - which are really what good and evil mean) Loving your family doesn't mean you're good, and being ruthless with your enemies doesn't mean you're evil.

VanBuren
2012-07-12, 01:53 AM
He's the king. Disrespecting the king is treason, and a violation of the law.

Even if you go back to Sansa and the Wolf, its "I was hurt, and someone needs to pay for that hurt". Its a very clear cause-effect law based motivation. There's a transgression, and there must be punishment. He's definitely stupid though. (hes like a poorly played evil paladin)

Tyrion, on the other hand, does whatever the hell he feels needs to be done, and often sides on what is better for him than the family. He's imminently selfish. He has no code. HE, is chaotic evil.


The Greyjoys are probably the most chaotic of the families, but even they have a very visible law leaning (basically, codified survival of the fittest). They're a good example of why the alignment system is so silly. NOBODY is lawful in all things, or chaotic in all things (Or selfish vs selfless - which are really what good and evil mean) Loving your family doesn't mean you're good, and being ruthless with your enemies doesn't mean you're evil.

Yeah, but it's not because Joffrey respects the institution of king any farther than it gives him the ability to what he wants to do. Going back to the wolf incident, it's not a law based motivation. He wants blood because he was hurt. Because it's all about Joffrey.

phelgeos
2012-07-12, 11:09 AM
Playing an honorable but absolutely ruthless PC can make you evil in a jiffy. Really, the D&D's alignment system is story-book morality - not real-world morality. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more US and Japanese lives in the long run than not-doing it. Was it an evil act in the real world? Good arguments could be made either way. Was it evil in D&D? Totally.

Extend the spirit of that to a campaign and you've got plausible motivations for your PCs. Vlad the Genocidal High Elf Impaler vs The Drow? Evil, but totally understandable. An honorable PC who'd go to his death to protect the innocent -- donates to good causes -- and would raze cities to deny supplies to the enemy forces? Lawful Evil, full stop.

A spellcaster who routinely creates undead, binds fiends (without malconvoker), utilizes the kickass Abyssal Specialist option from the Drow sourcebook, or (merely) runs an optimized Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge? Evil from the get-go.

No sense in comprimising your power since your character can't functon at max efficiency without being evil -- so, why not go whole hog? There are definite mechanical perks to unholy rituals, dark dealings, etc...Pretty soon the PCs are gathering up 'undesirables' and using their souls to power item crafting XP requirements.

Escaping justice for any or all of these can serve as an adventure hook!

Just be sure they know their options :smallamused:

kyoryu
2012-07-12, 12:21 PM
This is where its at. Typical good games are about something happening, and you saving the world from it. Typical evil campaings are about you causing something to happen in the world.

Typically, but not necessarily. You can have proactive good campaigns.


That being said, I've seen way more players act out antisocial tendancies as LG characters than evil ones. The Paladin is usually the problem in the party, not the necromancer.

Oh, yes, which is why acts need to be judged on their own merits, not based on whose side you're on. IOW, most of those "paladins" probably needed to fall. I'd argue that the Knights of the Cross in the Dresden Files are probably the best examples of true paladin-like behavior that I've seen.


Killing a tyrant doesn't make you Chaotic. Especially when your entire personality is built around family loyalty and that tyrant has killed parts of your family.

I'd argue that law vs. chaos is less about "law" and more about a preference for order and structure vs. a preference for individual autonomy. So I agree with you here.


The adult Lannisters (except Tyrion) are ALL lawful. Every single one. Its the defining factor for the family. The LAW they follow isn't the legal law, its "The family always comes first" and "Lannisters always pay their debts".

Jaime killing a lower ranking family member to escape is completely consistent with this.

I don't think that having a code of some sort immediately makes one lawful. Most people have codes of some sort. Chaotic people just don't feel the need to impose their code on others, or want others' codes imposed on them. Lawful folks believe that a common code makes things go more smoothly, and the more all-encompassing, the better.

EDIT:
I think that, really, Tywin is probably the most Lawful of the bunch. Cersei and Jaime seem to be overall too much more about satisfying their own whims and lusts, and Tyrion is far too pragmatic to be strictly Lawful - he'll go with order when it makes sense, and leave things to individuals when it makes sense.

But I'm not sure, by your definitions, why you separate Tyrion from this. He quotes "A Lannister always repays his debts" as much as anyone, and certainly lives by it.


Joffrey is probably the most lawful in the family, in that he is extremely rigid about punishing people in court, consequences and extenuating factors be damned. It doesn't matter that Sansa is completely innocent, and to be Joffrey's wife, the law says the Starks must be punished, and shes the only one there.

Joff's all about what he wants. His attitude towards those actions isn't "it's the law, and I must do what must be done" (compare with Eddard Stark), but rather "I'm mad and someone must pay!". The latter is more of an Evil motivator than it is either Lawful or Chaotic.


Playing an honorable but absolutely ruthless PC can make you evil in a jiffy. Really, the D&D's alignment system is story-book morality - not real-world morality. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more US and Japanese lives in the long run than not-doing it. Was it an evil act in the real world? Good arguments could be made either way. Was it evil in D&D? Totally.


I think one of the things that's not often made explicit is the separation between people and their actions. Even Good people can commit Evil actions.

Stealing is Evil (in that it is taking from others without their consent, harming them and violating their rights). Is there some circumstances in which a Good person will steal? Yes! Faced with starvation, a Good person will steal bread from the wealthy to keep him family alive. The difference is:

1) The Good person will only do so as a last resort, after having looked for work, tried to barter, etc. The Evil person will do so if it is more convenient.
2) The Good person will typically try to make recompense after the fact. The Evil person will not.
3) The Good person will genuinely regret the action, while an Evil person will not.
4) The Good person will try to minimize the harm done - taking only the smallest amount necessary, and will try to steal from someone who will suffer the least as a result. The Evil person will take what he wants, from whomever he wants.

A common misconception seems to be that if a Good person will do something, it is a Good act. I just don't buy that. The act is still Evil. Whether an alignment shift is warranted is then based on a whole bunch of things apart from the act itself, such as frequency, need, harm done, how easily the character does it, etc.

EDIT: Now that I think about it more, there are two common misconceptions:

1) All acts of a Good person are Good, or at worst neutral.
2) Any act that a Good person will commit must, by definition, be Good or Neutral

I'd almost go so far as to call these fallacies.

phelgeos
2012-07-12, 03:31 PM
I think one of the things that's not often made explicit is the separation between people and their actions. Even Good people can commit Evil actions.


I agree with you if you're talking about the real world. But, that's a meta-ethical point. And that's not the way that D&D morality is supposed to work -- at least according to various sourcebooks...

In some way "D&D Evil" encompasses notions which our culture has thought to abandon (often with good reason) -- like 'impurity' or 'dishonor' or the quality of being 'abominable.' Nowadays we tend to think about violations of individual rights, or willing harm to others as the basis for something's being an 'evil act' -- and 'evil character' is something like the robust disposition to perform those certain sorts of acts under a range of relevant counterfactuals (it's okay to X, not if Y, and iff the alternative is Z). In D&D it ain't like that. D&D "Good and Evil" is something more like Karma in a Hindu society, tied up with a magical-realist sort of meta-ethics. It's a spiritual sort of taint, building up of black marks on your soul, and it's tougher to remove than to accumulate. You can accumulate it in one fell swoop, and based on a quantitative measure, of your wrong-doing -- but the end does not justify the means.

Synovia
2012-07-12, 04:31 PM
Yeah, but it's not because Joffrey respects the institution of king any farther than it gives him the ability to what he wants to do. Going back to the wolf incident, it's not a law based motivation. He wants blood because he was hurt. Because it's all about Joffrey.

Again though, that doesn't make him chaotic. That makes him EVIL.



But I'm not sure, by your definitions, why you separate Tyrion from this. He quotes "A Lannister always repays his debts" as much as anyone, and certainly lives by it.

Tyrion does love his revenge.

He's the most chaotic of the bunch, IMO, because he's at heart distrustful of authority. He breaks the law when it suits him, he betrays family when it suits him, he switches sides when it suits him. He's similar to littlefinger in that regard. He has no real allegiance, even to his family.


Joffrey, IMO, on the other hand, is very lawful. He's a petty tyrant, sure, and a lot of the actions stem from that, but his mind is very methodical, and everything is cause-effect. Everything he does is a result of "this has been done, and it must be paid for".

Joffrey is sadistic, but hes not randomly sadistic. He hurts people because he believes they deserve it. With Sansa and the wolf, its because he believes its his legal right to destroy the wolf. Despite being able to, he doesn't harm Sansa because the law says he can't. The law says he can harm the butcher's boy, so he does.

When Littlefinger sends his whores to Joffrey, Joffrey hurts them essentially as payment for Littlefinger being disloyal. When Joffrey harms Sansa, its because shes paying for her families sins. When he hurts the drunk knight, its because he was drunk.

Every single person he hurts, he hurts as essentially payment for some transgression. Thats an ordered, lawful, process. He doesn't do it because he just feels like hurting someone, he does it because he thinks it needs to be done, or they deserved it.

yes, hes a petty tyrant, and his punishments are completely out of scale with the transgressions they punish, but I really think he sees himself behaving as a king should. He thinks his 'father' was weak, and he wants to be a strong king, and has mistaken cruelty for strength.


From TVTropes:
A Lawful Evil character is an evil character who either tries to impose or upholda lawful system, and / or adheres to a particular code. They believe in order, but mostly because they believe it is the best way of realising their evil wishes, or they feel it is a realistic and necessary compromise or restraint on them.


That sounds like Joffrey to me. Joffrey punishes people.

kyoryu
2012-07-12, 05:36 PM
I agree with you if you're talking about the real world. But, that's a meta-ethical point. And that's not the way that D&D morality is supposed to work -- at least according to various sourcebooks...

Isn't it? Doesn't the Paladin code of conduct explicitly spell out *both* maintaining their Lawful Good alignment, as well as not committing an Evil act? Doesn't that imply that the two are separately applicable?

IOW, if committing an Evil act makes you Not Lawful Good, then there'd be no need for the "committing an Evil act" clause.

Admittedly, I don't have Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness, but I'm pretty sure they back me up on this.

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that in D&D we have things that are metaphysical Evil, as the .sig goes "made of crueltrons", but that doesn't seem to apply to mortal folks, whose morality is a bit murkier.

But as a DM, I'd find it hard to let a character play a "Good" character that deliberately did a number of "good deeds" simply to build up enough "Good points" to allow them to then do Evil deeds. I'd also have a hard time justifying an alignment slide for someone that stole bread to feed their family as a last resort, and made plans to repay it.

Conversely, I'd have a much easier time imposing an alignment change on someone who decided to steal some bread because they were hungry, and hey, the nearest store/inn was too far away.



Again though, that doesn't make him chaotic. That makes him EVIL.

Well, we agree on that.


Joffrey, IMO, on the other hand, is very lawful. He's a petty tyrant, sure, and a lot of the actions stem from that, but his mind is very methodical, and everything is cause-effect. Everything he does is a result of "this has been done, and it must be paid for".

And so why did he choose to go after the baker boy in the first place?


Joffrey is sadistic, but hes not randomly sadistic. He hurts people because he believes they deserve it. With Sansa and the wolf, its because he believes its his legal right to destroy the wolf. Despite being able to, he doesn't harm Sansa because the law says he can't. The law says he can harm the butcher's boy, so he does.

A bully who only harms others when he can get away with it is no less a bully.

"I must punish those who annoy me" is not a code. Adherence to a code would imply that he would punish those that the code demanded he punished, without regard for his own personal desire. That's not what we see in Joff. What we see is a desire to hurt those he doesn't like. If you're going to extend the definition of "Lawful" to include that, then there's very few people that wouldn't qualify as Lawful.


Every single person he hurts, he hurts as essentially payment for some transgression. Thats an ordered, lawful, process. He doesn't do it because he just feels like hurting someone, he does it because he thinks it needs to be done, or they deserved it.

In many cases it's no more than "they bothered me." That hardly qualifies as "lawful," especially when he has shown himself perfectly willing to lie to get his way.

He also shows absolutely no regard for the business of actually ruling, and doesn't seem to impose his "law" on those he favors.


From TVTropes:
A Lawful Evil character is an evil character who either tries to impose or upholda lawful system, and / or adheres to a particular code. They believe in order, but mostly because they believe it is the best way of realising their evil wishes, or they feel it is a realistic and necessary compromise or restraint on them.

"Because I want to" isn't a code of conduct.

Slipperychicken
2012-07-12, 10:27 PM
Because the DM can't dictate your PC's actions to you.


A fresh example of what I mean:

DM: So the evil Wizard's body turns to ash on the floor. In the ash pile, you see [a bunch of really expensive loot]

Neutral PC: I scoop it into my bag. I killed this guy practically by myself, I don't know these people, they just teleported in six seconds ago, barely scratched him, and half of them literally cowered in a corner instead of fighting. They're servants of my master's enemies, so I'm not giving them loot.

DM: No you don't. You split the loot evenly with everyone.

Neutral PC: :smallfurious:

Synovia
2012-07-13, 08:15 AM
On Joffry: the fact that hes a bully doesn't mean hes chaotic. In fact, Bully is one of the classic archetypes of LE. You should really read up on the alignments, the fact that he justifies things makes him lawful. A chaotic character wouldn't feel the need to continually state why hes doing things.

There's probably no point in continuing, as I'm sure hes LE, and you're sure he's CE, and thats not going to change.


Because the DM can't dictate your PC's actions to you.


A fresh example of what I mean:

DM: So the evil Wizard's body turns to ash on the floor. In the ash pile, you see [a bunch of really expensive loot]

Neutral PC: I scoop it into my bag. I killed this guy practically by myself, I don't know these people, they just teleported in six seconds ago, barely scratched him, and half of them literally cowered in a corner instead of fighting. They're servants of my master's enemies, so I'm not giving them loot.

DM: No you don't. You split the loot evenly with everyone.

Neutral PC: :smallfurious:
Thats got nothing to do with being good. Thats got to do with having a crappy DM.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 09:54 AM
Tyrion, on the other hand, does whatever the hell he feels needs to be done, and often sides on what is better for him than the family. He's imminently selfish. He has no code. HE, is chaotic evil.


I respectful disagree with you 100%. Tyrion seems relatively honorable and honest, and he seems to care for other people (like Bran, when he goes out of his way to make him a special saddle, and Jon Snow, who he counsels on his way to the Wall). I don't know if I would go so far as to say Tyrion is "Good", but he certainly isn't "Evil", and he does care about the realm and the fate of the people being rule over, so I definitely wouldn't call him "Chaotic" - I would play him as a True Neutral character. Yes, he's selfish, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people or enjoy seeing people hurt, and he is just as often actively trying to help society and/or the people around him as he is trying to get what he wants for himself. Balance.


A lot depends on how you define Evil. If you define Evil as "sadistic, likes killing puppies," you get once set of answers.

If you define Evil as "To achieve his goals, is willing to step on others", you get a different set of answers.

I kinda see the "to achieve his goals, is willing to step on others" more as Neutral, than Evil, as long that "stepping on others" doesn't include outright murder or otherwise ruining of someone's life. The power hungry individual who will push people out of her way, take every advantage even at a cost to others (but not a devasting cost), and manipulate to get to the top but who takes care of the people who take care of her isn't necessarily evil... unless they actively defraud, steal, kill, cripple, maim or ruin lives. Just my POV.


Third is the chance for realistic PvP. I've always wanted to try an evil game where everyone was going into it with the understanding that they'd most likely be turning upon one another eventually. I think there's a ton of potential for scheming and plannign between players and DMs here and, should one player fall to another, you don't feel gipped or cheated because a monster did it. Especially if you make them work to kill you. All this under the understanding that the PCs still have a quest to complete and they do need to complete it.


I like this idea.

I'm DM'ing a campaign right now with a NE Rogue/Fighter, a NE Sorcerer, LN Cleric, CN Barbarian, NG Wizard, and CG Ranger. I know, a crazy mix of alignments. Luckily, my players are mature individuals.

The good characters are easy to motivate (stop the BBEG), and the LN Cleric is on the quest because his god told him to go on the quest (my player wanted to play someone like John Locke on Lost - a mystery man / survival expert who worships enigmatic forces that tell him what to do in vague ways).

The CN Barbarian just wants to kill enemies in battle, and get gold, so that's an easy motivation, and he is simple minded enough to stay true to people who give him the most opportunities to do both (i.e. the other PCs).

The NE Rogue/Fighter just wants to get rich and won't shy away from stealing or hurting other people to get what he wants. He is smart enough to realize that stealing from or hurting the other PCs could be fatal, so he refrains from that, but he isn't above torturing or murdering his enemies, unless actively stopped by the other PCs (and he isn't above going out of his way to search the body of fallen enemies, or side rooms in a dungeon, and pocketing choice treasure before the rest of the party notices).

The NE Sorcerer, however, is a complete mystery, even to me. His player is much smarter than I am, and I have no idea what his endgame will be. He hasn't hurt the rest of the party yet, and has even pulled off a few side capers with the NE Rogue/Fighter, and has curried favor with the CN Barbarian by giving him some gifts here and there. Frankly, he worries me (in a good way).

It's a fun campaign for me because with the crazy mix of alignments, everyone is paranoid about each other, and just waiting for someone to betray the rest of the group. I've been plotting with each of the players seperately, and always finding new ways to drive them apart (for example, the two evil characters are currently scheming against each other over a woman warrior they both lust after) and then force them back together (a huge army threatens to destroy the town that the woman warrior is protecting, so the PCs [including the evil characters] have to work together to keep her alive).

What none of the rest of them know or suspect is that the LN Cleric has been told by his god that one day he will have to sacrifice all the lives of the rest of the party to save the world, or that on the other hand the NE Sorcerer has started to gain the notice of powerful demonic forces (who hate the LN Cleric).

I can't wait to see how it all plays out.

Synovia
2012-07-13, 12:02 PM
I respectful disagree with you 100%. Tyrion seems relatively honorable and honest, and he seems to care for other people (like Bran, when he goes out of his way to make him a special saddle, and Jon Snow, who he counsels on his way to the Wall). I don't know if I would go so far as to say Tyrion is "Good", but he certainly isn't "Evil", and he does care about the realm and the fate of the people being rule over, so I definitely wouldn't call him "Chaotic" - I would play him as a True Neutral character. Yes, he's selfish, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people or enjoy seeing people hurt, and he is just as often actively trying to help society and/or the people around him as he is trying to get what he wants for himself. Balance.



I might agree with you that hes not necessarily evil. Maybe LN.

Caring about people, and the realm, has absolutely nothing to do with chaotic or law. Robin Hood is often given as an example of Chaotic Good, and he most certainly cared about the realm. Everything you've got listed above is on the good-evil axis.

The chaotic-law axis is about order, its about patterns, its about methodology. Lawful characters are predictable (as Joffrey is). You know how a lawful character is generally going to react to something. Tyrion is a wildcard.

I believe one of the worst things D&D did with the alignement system was their choice of terms. It really should have been Order<->Chaos, and Selfless<->Selfish. Law, Good, and Evil are just too heavily charged words.

kyoryu
2012-07-13, 12:19 PM
Because the DM can't dictate your PC's actions to you.


A fresh example of what I mean:

DM: So the evil Wizard's body turns to ash on the floor. In the ash pile, you see [a bunch of really expensive loot]

Neutral PC: I scoop it into my bag. I killed this guy practically by myself, I don't know these people, they just teleported in six seconds ago, barely scratched him, and half of them literally cowered in a corner instead of fighting. They're servants of my master's enemies, so I'm not giving them loot.

DM: No you don't. You split the loot evenly with everyone.

Neutral PC: :smallfurious:

The DM can't dictate your actions to you. He can, however, shift your alignment over time if warranted.

If you're playing in a game where the DM says what you can or can't do based on your alignment, get a better DM.


You should really read up on the alignments

No need for the ad hominem. FWIW, I've "read up on the alignments" for thirty years.


I respectful disagree with you 100%. Tyrion seems relatively honorable and honest, and he seems to care for other people (like Bran, when he goes out of his way to make him a special saddle, and Jon Snow, who he counsels on his way to the Wall). I don't know if I would go so far as to say Tyrion is "Good", but he certainly isn't "Evil", and he does care about the realm and the fate of the people being rule over, so I definitely wouldn't call him "Chaotic" - I would play him as a True Neutral character. Yes, he's selfish, but he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people or enjoy seeing people hurt, and he is just as often actively trying to help society and/or the people around him as he is trying to get what he wants for himself. Balance.

I'd probably peg him at Chaotic Neutral, personally. He certainly doesn't seem to go for too much of an ordered structure. I could see True Neutral as well.


I kinda see the "to achieve his goals, is willing to step on others" more as Neutral, than Evil, as long that "stepping on others" doesn't include outright murder or otherwise ruining of someone's life.

Eh... We should probably make sure that we're talking about the same thing. Competing for a job that someone else "needs" is Neutral, not Evil. Stealing their car is Evil. You pretty much have to get into direct harm/violation of rights to get Evil, but I don't find it a compelling argument that theft or other "minor" violations of rights aren't Evil.

Of course, a big part of that is because I do accept the idea of Neutral or even Good folks being able to commit *some* Evil acts, depending on circumstances and degree, and I also don't think that "Evil" should be the sole domain of the mustachio-twirling villain or sadistic puppy-kicker.


The power hungry individual who will push people out of her way, take every advantage even at a cost to others (but not a devasting cost), and manipulate to get to the top but who takes care of the people who take care of her isn't necessarily evil... unless they actively defraud, steal, kill, cripple, maim or ruin lives. Just my POV.

I think we're pretty close to agreement. I draw a relatively hard line at "infringes upon the rights of others", but more from a natural rights stance than a legal rights stance.


I believe one of the worst things D&D did with the alignement system was their choice of terms. It really should have been Order<->Chaos, and Selfless<->Selfish. Law, Good, and Evil are just too heavily charged words.

Totally agreed on the order/chaos axis, as it's not really about Law, so much as it is about a preference for things being ordered, planned, etc. A Lawful individual will follow the Law because it's a way of ordering society, not just because of some OCD-like compulsion to follow "the law".

Good and Evil I could deal with being changed just on account of the emotional baggage associated with them, but I think the terms themselves are fine.

kardar233
2012-07-13, 01:22 PM
The reasons why Good campaigns are mainly reactive and Evil ones mainly proactive are twofold.

Firstly, the in-game reasoning is that in most settings, life is Good. Your average person in Faerun, say, is fed enough, has a decent living standard, can afford to appeal to the local church in cases of injury or sickness, and is generally significantly better off than a 14th-century peasant, or for that matter a lot of people in 3rd-world countries today. A Good PC or party is usually upholding the status quo, intervening when, for example, a necromancer lich threatens to spread a country-wide blight.

On the other hand, an Evil character is often unsatisfied with their position in the status quo, whether they've been driven downwards by society or are naturally ambitious. Even if he or she is happy with their own position they're more likely to take an active hand in other peoples' affairs; I once played a game where the PCs were the designated diplomacy/black ops specialists for an expansionist empire, tasked with paving the way for the invading armies. Lawful Evil characters specifically (though other alignments can do this as well) are very good at punching above their weight as they are free to stack the deck as far in their favour as they want, so they have a large variety of targets to strike at.

The second reason is that out-of-game, most DMs start with the "Good party dungeon crawling against evil lich/necromancer/dragon/baddie" style and that's what they're most comfortable with. It usually takes a veteran DM to be able to even start a plausible Evil campaign due to the immediate intra-party tensions involved. These DMs who are more open to intra-party conflict are often more able to improvise on the fly meaning that Evil campaigns are generally more open to player-driven actions.

I love Evil campaigns. They allow you to explore a whole psychological spectrum that goes untouched in more standard games, from Well-Intentioned Extremists to Unfettered to Woobie Destroyer of Worlds. They allow you to explore your own psyche, to the point where your character can be you, just with a little change that pushes them off the edge.

I like taking the lead in Evil campaigns. One way to keep an Evil party together is have them united under one leader. It's a delicate operation; you have to make sure you stay stronger than the ones you cowed with strength, you need to keep the ones you have dirt on keenly aware of their danger, and with some you have to bind to so closely that their star rises and falls with yours.

I love planning in Evil campaigns. As I said earlier, stacking the deck is essential. At one point, leading up to a confrontation with my brother (a master-class assassin and expert duelist with the fanatical loyalty of his forces), I acquired three magic items for the purpose, bartered for a set of powerful magical beasts, bribed five different men and then another ten, had myself trained, tattooed, and fully briefed, and then walked in dangling the biggest carrot I could find for the guy.

I love the sheer madcap craziness that can go on. Once, I decided my pirate cruiser Tenebrous wasn't nearly scary enough (despite decks covered in human hide, sails made from skin, a still-living figurehead as a Greek fire spout, bells made from skulls clanging a massive diminished chord and being soaked in more blood than Countess Bathory goes through in a year) so I ended up making it a Vampiric Draconic Incarnate Animated Corsair (http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/home/images/newsletter/2007_08/Ship.jpg) Blood Magus/Dread Witch.

Synovia
2012-07-13, 01:39 PM
I think its very difficult to design a PROACTIVE good campaign, for some of the reasons above.

I mean, if you start at a pretty normal world, the good hero's options are limited. They can build a bridge, they can build an orphanage, etc. Otherwise, you need to set them up with a cue they can react to (There's a lich, the farmers need some wolves chased off, some item needs to be retrieved, etc), or let them know of threats in the world.

Evil characters, on the other hand, in a neutral world, can do whatever the hell they want. They don't need to wait for you to populate the world before they act. They're inherently more independant of the DM.




Koryu:
Totally agreed on the order/chaos axis, as it's not really about Law, so much as it is about a preference for things being ordered, planned, etc. A Lawful individual will follow the Law because it's a way of ordering society, not just because of some OCD-like compulsion to follow "the law".

Good and Evil I could deal with being changed just on account of the emotional baggage associated with them, but I think the terms themselves are fine.

I think Dexter Morgan (for those that know of the show) is a good example of why 'law' is a poor term here. He clearly has no respect for the law itself (he tampers with evidence, kills people, etc), but he's clearly a lawful character by the definition presented in the PHB. The question with him is where he falls along good/evil - selfish/selfless.


I think good / evil just have too many images of guys in shining armor and capes vs guys with bad posture and bad mustaches.

JoeMac307
2012-07-13, 02:02 PM
I think Dexter Morgan (for those that know of the show) is a good example of why 'law' is a poor term here. He clearly has no respect for the law itself (he tampers with evidence, kills people, etc), but he's clearly a lawful character by the definition presented in the PHB. The question with him is where he falls along good/evil - selfish/selfless.


I think good / evil just have too many images of guys in shining armor and capes vs guys with bad posture and bad mustaches.

I would agree that Dexter is Lawful. From my POV, he is also clearly Evil.

Hurting other people, even bad people, for the sake of your own pleasure, is evil to my mind, even if it is because of a compulsion, or because you are born that way, or because you were abused as a kid, or whatever.

I can sympathize with Dexter (he's been through a lot), but I can't excuse murder for pleasure, whatever the impetus. But I think morality is fairly relative, so I'm open to hear counterarguments, of course.

EDIT:

But if you want to relabel it as "Selfish" rather than "Evil", I'd still argue that putting your own needs (must murder because I'm compelled to) above the most basic needs of others (the need to survive) is very, very selfish.

kyoryu
2012-07-13, 03:27 PM
I think its very difficult to design a PROACTIVE good campaign, for some of the reasons above.

I mean, if you start at a pretty normal world, the good hero's options are limited. They can build a bridge, they can build an orphanage, etc. Otherwise, you need to set them up with a cue they can react to (There's a lich, the farmers need some wolves chased off, some item needs to be retrieved, etc), or let them know of threats in the world.

Evil characters, on the other hand, in a neutral world, can do whatever the hell they want. They don't need to wait for you to populate the world before they act. They're inherently more independant of the DM.


And I think that's built on a stereotype of Good folks as just being people that try to save anybody. That's an incredibly shallow character definition.

Good people are just people. They have their own goals, desires, etc. They can desire power and money. They can get angry. They can explore, search for knowledge.

Your setup even presumes a lot of things that I wouldn't presume - specifically, that the world is at peace until disturbed. Most places aren't, at best they're at some kind of dynamic equilibrium between groups.

Even without that, even in a relatively peaceful area, there can be proactive things that good characters can do - the Good fighter can decide that he wants to start an academy to help up and coming warriors - a kind of Professor X without a wheelchair and less weirdos hanging out around him. By actively trying to make a decent area better, they can certainly stir the ire of those who are attached to the status quo.

The only problem with any of this is that many fantasy campaigns are set up so that the world is a Perfect Happy Land, and so there's nothing wrong with it. And that's just incredibly shallow and poor world design.

I don't deny that what you're saying can be accurate. But I just think it's a symptom of shallow characters and weak world design, and can be better resolved with interesting characters and worlds rather than just saying "heck with it, we'll just be Evil".

Synovia
2012-07-13, 03:48 PM
I would agree that Dexter is Lawful. From my POV, he is also clearly Evil.

Hurting other people, even bad people, for the sake of your own pleasure, is evil to my mind, even if it is because of a compulsion, or because you are born that way, or because you were abused as a kid, or whatever.

I can sympathize with Dexter (he's been through a lot), but I can't excuse murder for pleasure, whatever the impetus. But I think morality is fairly relative, so I'm open to hear counterarguments, of course.

EDIT:

But if you want to relabel it as "Selfish" rather than "Evil", I'd still argue that putting your own needs (must murder because I'm compelled to) above the most basic needs of others (the need to survive) is very, very selfish.
Right, but thats all tempered by the fact that Dexter only kills those that are clearly evil.

Is that so different from a Paladin smiting evil outsiders?


And I think that's built on a stereotype of Good folks as just being people that try to save anybody. That's an incredibly shallow character definition.


I completely agree. There are a lot of arguments (even in this thread) where someone says something along the lines of "Oh, but he loves xxx,"
or "he tried to save XXX." he must be good.

Evil beings still have loved ones. They have families. They do things they think are right. Theyre just, in a lot of cases, wrong when they think those things are right.



Your setup even presumes a lot of things that I wouldn't presume - specifically, that the world is at peace until disturbed. Most places aren't, at best they're at some kind of dynamic equilibrium between groups.


It doesn't presume that at all. For a good party, you have to provide conflict. An evil party creates that conflict itself.



Even without that, even in a relatively peaceful area, there can be proactive things that good characters can do - the Good fighter can decide that he wants to start an academy to help up and coming warriors - a kind of Professor X without a wheelchair and less weirdos hanging out around him. By actively trying to make a decent area better, they can certainly stir the ire of those who are attached to the status quo.


And that could work, but your essentially looking at the "build an orphanage" scenario. You have to introduce a villain who has some reason for hating orphanages (or fighting schools), and to start a conflict.

In the Evil campaign, theres no such necessary thing. The party is one initiating the conflict.

kyoryu
2012-07-13, 03:58 PM
But if you want to relabel it as "Selfish" rather than "Evil", I'd still argue that putting your own needs (must murder because I'm compelled to) above the most basic needs of others (the need to survive) is very, very selfish.

Well, yeah. I think that's his point.

And people are more likely to have "selfish" on their character sheet than "evil," due to stereotypes of "evil" being a mustachio-twirling villain.

And people are probably less likely to play their characters as extreme psychopaths if their sheet says "selfish" than "evil".

I'm actually wondering if there's a better, less-loaded word for Chaotic as well. Something like Individualistic, etc. Chaotic individuals aren't necessarily *random* - they don't throw a die to determine what they're going to do. Well, they could, but that's more "Insane" than anything, and alignments aren't mental disorders.

Chaotic individuals simply prefer greater individual autonomy and flexibility in dealing with scenarios, rather than adhering to a strict plan and having a defined hierarchy.



Right, but thats all tempered by the fact that Dexter only kills those that are clearly evil.

Is that so different from a Paladin smiting evil outsiders?

Given that Evil outsiders are, from a D&D perspective, *made of Evil*, then yeah, it is.

Even a Paladin smiting an Evil wizard or whatever is typically different. I'd argue that a Paladin shouldn't go smiting (mortal) Evil just because it's Evil. They should certainly smite away in the defense of others, but not just 'cuz.


I completely agree. There are a lot of arguments (even in this thread) where someone says something along the lines of "Oh, but he loves xxx,"
or "he tried to save XXX." he must be good.

Evil beings still have loved ones. They have families. They do things they think are right. Theyre just, in a lot of cases, wrong when they think those things are right.

Yeah. Evil people have friends. And everybody is nice to their friends. What you do to strangers is a better gauge of morality.

And some of the greatest evil is performed in the name of Good - the road to a nasty place is paved with good intentions, and all that.


It doesn't presume that at all. For a good party, you have to provide conflict. An evil party creates that conflict itself.

An all-good party can have intra-party conflict, so long as they actually have characters that are well-defined enough to have goals outside of "Be Good" and "Save Puppies". It's just less likely that those conflicts will come to blows.

And, again, not every single thing that a Good character does has to be "Good". A Good character can want to be the best swordsman on earth, which can provide a goal, direction, and movement within the game.


And that could work, but your essentially looking at the "build an orphanage" scenario. You have to introduce a villain who has some reason for hating orphanages (or fighting schools), and to start a conflict.

Only if you assume that someone smashing the school is the only possible conflict.

And you're shifting the goalposts a bit here. Your previous point was that Good games can't be proactive. Now it's that even in a proactive Good game, you have to provide an external conflict.


In the Evil campaign, theres no such necessary thing. The party is one initiating the conflict.

And that's fine, if you want a PvP game. But even in most evil games, you're going to have a lot of externally-directed conflict as well. Most RPGs are not designed primarily around intra-party conflict. And if they are, they're probably designed in a way that they can work well with "Good" (a D&D-centric concept) just as well as "Evil" characters.

huttj509
2012-07-13, 06:53 PM
"Sure he's evil, but he's not a bad guy."