Suggest an evil or creepy class

[BlackRabbit]

We have a Desert Gnome Beguiler, a Raptoran or Dragonborn Cleric, a ranger and a psionicist of some sort. The beguiler is going to be evil, and I'd like to as well. I know, any class can be played evil, but there are some that are just dark to start, like the warlock. Fleshwarper doesn't seem nice either for a PrC. Suggestions?

[Flickerdart]

Dread Necromancers and Death Masters are two twists on plain ol' necromancer base classes. Then there's Hexblade (kind of like an arcane Paladin of Tyranny) and Shadowcasters, who cast spells powered by the Plane of Shadow and usually do unsavoury things to people.

[Amidus Drexel]

What kind of evil are you going for? Hexblade (CWar) has an evil feel to it.

The Book of Vile Darkness has a bunch of evil prestige classes, and there are a handful in each of the Complete X series that are evil.

[BlackRabbit]

Book of Vile Darkness, eh? :smallbiggrin: What about a blackguard?

[Flickerdart]

Other evil-themed books include Heroes of Horror and Champions of Ruin. Lords of Madness is another good one.

[Yogibear41]

you could go for one of the evil paladin variants, what sort of character do you want to play? Caster, Melee, Skill-Monkey?

[Flickerdart]

Book of Vile Darkness, eh? :smallbiggrin: What about a blackguard?
Blackguard is really underwhelming. I've only seen three good uses for it:
1) As a 3-level dip for Aura of Despair, stacked with other save-reducers (such as Hexblade and Unseelie Fey) to make a guy who tanks the saving throws of his enemies just by being near them, at which point his caster friend nukes 'em.
2) Combined with Paladin of Tyranny to score all the extra goodies a Paladin gets for becoming a Blackguard without actually losing his Paladin powers.
3) Using the level trade-out as an 11th level Paladin to go Paladin 1/Blackguard 10 and then use Blackguard casting to go into Nar Demonbinder (a class all about dealing with demons - pretty evil in and of itself).

[Amidus Drexel]

Oh, I forgot my favorite PrC, alienist. (+3hp isn't really a class feature, but the other stuff makes up for some of the lackluster abilities) The only real issue with it is that you give up some of your good summoning options.

[BlackRabbit]

you could go for one of the evil paladin variants, what sort of character do you want to play? Caster, Melee, Skill-Monkey?

Hell, I didn't even know there WERE evil paladin variants. I'm thinking with this crew we might need some muscle? I'm a baby at this stuff, so any info is good.

[Piggy Knowles]

Have you looked into the Fiend of Possession prestige class? It's found in the back of the Fiend Folio. Basically you turn ethereal and start possessing and cursing objects and people. You can possess just about anything, animate objects around you, etc. Lots of creepy fun to be had with that one.

The downside? Hard to qualify for. You must be an outsider with the evil subtype. Just being an evil outsider (like a tiefling) doesn't qualify, you need the actual subtype. But there are a couple of simple ways around this.

A diabolus (Dragon Mag Compendium) divine minion of sebek (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) has LA +2 but is an outsider with the Evil subtype, and therefore qualifies you for Fiend of Possession - you just need the requisite +5 Will save, which is pretty easy. You're also a little imp-looking thing with a spiny tail that can turn into a crocodile as a free action, so that's fun.

Alternately, a dretch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#dretch) or a kaorti (Fiend Folio again) are both 2 HD outsiders with +2 LA that can qualify pretty easily. Just pick up a level or two in something with a good Will save like Dread Necromancer, and you're golden.

[Darth Stabber]

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) are the paladin variants. Blackguard is obviously in the dmg, combine it with paladin of tyrrany, and hexblade and you have a caster's best friend tank. You can make the saves against most of his spells, while debuffing the saves of everyone else. Mix in some swordsage and have some useful attacks and counters enough to be threatening in your own right. Since you get mettle for hexblade, evasion from swordsage, and two different sets of cha to saves, casters can fire any area save or X directly on top of you and you'll be fine.

[Newoblivion]

Are you looking for RP fun? or are you looking for the most powerful evil build you can make?

If its RP I would go with Mindbender and just enslave eveything. There's a lot of evil in a character like this.

[avr]

Binder plays as evil pretty well, especially if you go into the anima mage PrC. There's something about binding spirits from outside space and time and then using them to fuel your magic.

[Con_Brio1993]

You could play an evil Dragonfire Adept that worships Tiamat. You get invocations that give +6 to bluff/intimidate/diplomacy, and eventually get an invocation that lets you Geas people as a standard action (instead of 10 minutes).

I'll also second the Binder suggestion. They have a typically evil flavor, and many of their prestige class options are even eviler.

[BlackRabbit]

Binder, eh? Do they require a lot of bookkeeping? As I said, I'm new and don't know how much I could juggle. My class in a prior game was a druid and I was a little overwhelmed at first. The class sounds fun though.

[Piggy Knowles]

Are you looking for RP fun? or are you looking for the most powerful evil build you can make?

If its RP I would go with Mindbender and just enslave eveything. There's a lot of evil in a character like this.

By the by, Mindbender works well with the FoP idea I posted above. The nice thing about the Mindbender is that all of its abilities are SLAs, meaning they can be used without any verbal or somatic components. That means that you can use them while you're possessing an object. Possess something valuable, and when someone picks it up, use the Mindbender's eternal charm to turn them into your permanent slave. Curse them first to soften up their save.

Or, how about this?

"The Killing Mist"
Necropolitan human, Sorcerer 4/psion 1/mindbender 10
Dedicated to the Elder Evil of your choice (granting a bonus vile feat at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 - see Elder Evils p10 for more details).
1- Evil Brand, Thrall to Demon, Trickery Devotion
3- (open feat)
5- Abyss-Bound Soul, Practiced Manifester
6- Metamorphic Transfer
9- Mindsight
10- (Open vile feat)
12- Improved Familiar
15- (Open feat), (open vile feat)
18- (Open feat)
20- (Open vile feat)

Fill in the last five levels however you'd like.

For Thrall to Demon, choose either Malcanthet, Orcus or Fraz-Urb'luu - you want the CL boost to help you qualify for Mindbender. You could just as easily take Practiced Spellcaster, but this way is a little cooler.

Spells don't matter much, but you need Charm Person as a first level spell to qualify for Mindbender, and you need Alter Self as a 2nd-level spell.

Alter Self into a vampire spawn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm#vampireSpawn). Use Metamorphic Transfer to pick up the vampire spawn's gaseous form, which lets you take gaseous form indefinitely.

Can't do much in gaseous form? Don't worry! You can communicate via telepathy from Mindbender, and see things (even hidden ones) thanks to Mindsight. And you can use all of your Mindbender SLAs, too. Travel around as a mist, and use Trickery Devotion to project a false version of yourself when you need to pretend to be real. (Perhaps use some of those open feats to pick up more uses of Trickery Devotion.) Meanwhile, the mist version of yourself is controlling and dominating those around you.

Oh, and Improved Familiar? You're using that to pick up a mirror mephit, a creepy little creature as it is, and one that also has Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm) as a spell-like ability. So in addition to commanding and controlling those around you, you're also cloning people to act as your spies and assassins.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You already have: Beguiler, Cleric, Ranger, and Psion.
Beguiler covers any Rogue roles plus most of what a Wizard would cover, and Psion covers the rest of what would be expected of an arcane role.
Cleric fills the divine caster role, but it looks like he's going for wings so probably not heavy armor.
Regardless of whether the Ranger is melee or ranged, it looks like your group is going to be lacking in a traditional tank-type character.

I'd say go with some sort of medium/heavy armor melee type. A Paladin of Tyranny or Slaughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) would be suitable, but they're not exactly great for a single-classed especially considering Smite Good isn't going to be even useful unless it's an all-evil party. Maybe include some Barbarian to get Improved Trip via Wolf-Totem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wolfTotemClassFeatures ), Pounce from the Lion spirit totem in CC, and of course Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#rageVariantWhirlingFrenzy ). Maybe go with an Intimidate/Fear build, sadly the brilliantgameologists Fear Handbook is offline and there doesn't seem to be a google cache page of it. Stacking fear effects is one of the strongest crowd control methods in the game in the early to mid levels.

What level are you starting at, and what level do you expect the game to reach?

[avr]

They get about 3-4 powers per vestige they bind (probably 1-2 of which you care about), and until 8th level (IIRC) they can only bind one different vestige per day. Pure binder suffers from a lack of tactical options rather than from excessive bookkeeping.

Anima mage complicates that quite a bit, because then you're going wizard & torturing your vestiges for free metamagic. More power, more evil, more bookkeeping.

[Con_Brio1993]

Binder, eh? Do they require a lot of bookkeeping? As I said, I'm new and don't know how much I could juggle. My class in a prior game was a druid and I was a little overwhelmed at first. The class sounds fun though.

At first yes. You have a lot of options for vestiges. A lot. Even moreso if you include online vestiges.

However, once you solidify your party role and test a few out you'll probably only stick with a few of the vestiges and then the bookkeeping ceases. Like if you want to dish it out in melee you'll be binding Slavnok and Paimon at low levels, and Ipos and Chupaclops at high levels. If you want to be a Diplomancer you'll be binding Naberius and Dantalion.


They get about 3-4 powers per vestige they bind (probably 1-2 of which you care about), and until 8th level (IIRC) they can only bind one different vestige per day. Pure binder suffers from a lack of tactical options rather than from excessive bookkeeping.

Lack of tactical options? They are solidly tier 3. You can bind your most used vestige and if it turns out you need another you simply take the Expel Vestige feat or get a Phylactery.

It is true that they don't really shine until level 8 though. You get 2 simultaneous vestiges at level 8.

Oh and if you want to minimize bookkeeping you could enter Anima Mage as a Binder 1 (take improved binding)/Sorcerer X (enough levels to qualify). A bit of a decrease in power due to entering with Sorcerer instead of Wizard. But less bookkeeping, and still stupidly abusable. Oh and CHA is basically your only super important stat.

[BlackRabbit]

What level are you starting at, and what level do you expect the game to reach?

We're starting at lvl 3, and no idea what we'll reach. The usual DM has summer off from college and such, so this the alternate campaign. (Someone might be working up a Dresden Files game too, but we'll see).

[avr]

Lack of tactical options? They are solidly tier 3. You can bind your most used vestige and if it turns out you need another you simply take the Expel Vestige feat or get a Phylactery..
Phylactery's are specific enough items that it may not be possible to pick one up on a whim. Possibly not at all without making it yourself, depending on the rarity of binders in the campaign world.

I can't remember the prereqs on Expel Vestige but I'm sure it wasn't an option for your level 1 or level 3 feat.

So yeah, the vestige you bind in the morning is very probably the same one you'll have bound when you make camp.

[Need_A_Life]

Binder has all that lovely flavour and works a lot better at the table than it looks on paper, in my experience.
There are some nice feats in Fiendish Codex I & II that can increase your "creepy cultist" factor.

[BlackRabbit]

Incidentally, I want to thank everyone for their suggestions. I'm learning a lot, no matter what I choose. And it's been a while since I said eh. I'm not even Canadian. :smallsmile:

[Con_Brio1993]

Phylactery's are specific enough items that it may not be possible to pick one up on a whim. Possibly not at all without making it yourself, depending on the rarity of binders in the campaign world.

I can't remember the prereqs on Expel Vestige but I'm sure it wasn't an option for your level 1 or level 3 feat.

So yeah, the vestige you bind in the morning is very probably the same one you'll have bound when you make camp.

Expel Vestige has no prereq other than being able to soulbind. So it can be taken as early as level 1. It can also be taken as a Binder bonus feat at level 4.

I should also note that Naberius (a first level vestige) can break the game by himself depending on campaign setting. Naberius allows you to make Diplomacy checks rushed without penalty, and lets you take 10. Charisma is your main stat. If you want you can optimize diplomacy and easily have a ridiculous modifier by level 3. 4 base + 6 from skill ranks + 4 skill synergies from bluff/sense motive = 14. That's an automatic 24 at level 3, without any items or feats. Anyone indifferent is automatically friendly. Anyone unfriendly is automatically neutral, and one point away from forced friendliness. Hostile people are one point away from being indifferent, and 6 points away from being friendly.

This is at level 3. With pretty much no optimization. You're investing in skills you'd already invest in anyway. Only problem is having Naberius bound means you're probably bad at combat. But you can use Diplomacy in combat without penalty while you have him bound.

[OverdrivePrime]

Both the Witch and Oracle in Pathfinder can have a wonderful evil or creepy skew to them. The witch is pretty hard to do without creepy.

[DarkEternal]

If it doesn't have to be evil, just creepy, think of Malconvoker. He's a summoner that specialises in exploiting evil forces to do his bidding. I played one and the summon monster school(especially out of core) has some really twisted things you can summon (like a demon that looks like a completelly flayed human that constantly screams, or a bat thing that claws out eyes and is said to look like some kind of a twisted infant or something and so on)

[BlackRabbit]

I just came across the summoner class here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner). Also looks interesting.

[Exirtadorri]

Personally i think a cancer mage is creeepy

[herrhauptmann]

Blackguard is really underwhelming. I've only seen three good uses for it:
1) As a 3-level dip for Aura of Despair, stacked with other save-reducers (such as Hexblade and Unseelie Fey) to make a guy who tanks the saving throws of his enemies just by being near them, at which point his caster friend nukes 'em.
2) Combined with Paladin of Tyranny to score all the extra goodies a Paladin gets for becoming a Blackguard without actually losing his Paladin powers.
Do the Auras stack? Is it because the penalty is never stated to be profane/morale/whatever, and is thus untyped?
They do the same thing, and have the same name.

Using sneak attack/skirmish/sudden strike as an example, the various sources are similarly worded (if not identically in some cases), and pretty much all are specifically stated to stack. Just about the only one that doesn't, is rogue, but it came first, and most of the others reference rogue sneak attack.

[dspeyer]

Your party could use a tank. Crusader's generally good for that, but not very creepy even if you are powered by Evil. If you're DM's open to it, some of the homebrew disciplines (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255468) that float around here can step up the creepiness considerably.

Or go crusader / cleric (of Wee Jas) / ruby knight vindicator and be preachy. Go on and on about how beuatiful and perfect death is, and how wonderfully inevitable it is that whoever you're talking to will eventually die. Creepy enough?

You can probably avoid stepping on the other cleric's toes by co-ordinating spell selection. Especially if you use the spontaneous variant from UA, which will decrease your bookkeeping too.

[Flickerdart]

Do the Auras stack? Is it because the penalty is never stated to be profane/morale/whatever, and is thus untyped?
They do the same thing, and have the same name.

Using sneak attack/skirmish/sudden strike as an example, the various sources are similarly worded (if not identically in some cases), and pretty much all are specifically stated to stack. Just about the only one that doesn't, is rogue, but it came first, and most of the others reference rogue sneak attack.
Aura of Despair on Blackguard and Paladin of Tyranny don't stack, but either one will stack with Dark Companion, Hexblade's Curse and Winter Chill just fine.

[Pechvarry]

If you're considering binder, this vestige list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204941) might give you an idea of what you can do with it...

[Shining Wrath]

I'll be contrarian and suggest that the most creepy, evil characters are classes that *could* be Good, but the choice made by the character (feat selection and what have) are very dark.

IMNHO, there's something wronger about a sadistic backstabbing rogue that steals from his own party than there is about a necromancer. BTW, if your character *won't* steal from his own party when he can get away with it - and even murder all the others while standing watch after a big score - then you don't really want to be evil. Evil is not "I mock your silly rules", evil is "I will do what benefits me regardless of what I have to do to you".

[Psyren]

Psionics has a number of creepy/dark PrCs. Subverted Psion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20051125a) is a very straightforward downward slope for most characters, and has the additional creepy mechanic where you have to make a will save to avoid taking more levels in the class. Thrallherds become extremely creepy if you think about what they actually do for too long. There's also the Body Leech (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040925a), which allows you to maintain a web of creatures as psionic batteries, and even make one of them into your unwilling phylactery. If you can rationalize the odd fluff, Flayerspawn Psychic does creepy things to your psion as well.

Anima Mage also has a psionic adaptation, though you'll have to flesh this out with your DM.

[Con_Brio1993]

BTW, if your character *won't* steal from his own party when he can get away with it - and even murder all the others while standing watch after a big score - then you don't really want to be evil. Evil is not "I mock your silly rules", evil is "I will do what benefits me regardless of what I have to do to you".

Wow this is the worst thing I've ever heard. As much as it can ruin roleplaying, party members being off limits for screwing with is probably the best way to avoid petty real life infighting, and revenge character creation.

Just stick with being evil towards NPCs rather than the people you are actually playing with.

[Flickerdart]

Evil doesn't mean stupid. Weakening his party members and eroding their trust in him actively harms an evil character. When it's time to part ways, an evil character won't hesitate to take whatever he can with him, but stealing from party members while they're still your party members is stupider than even Chaotic Evil gets.

[Shining Wrath]

Wow this is the worst thing I've ever heard. As much as it can ruin roleplaying, party members being off limits for screwing with is probably the best way to avoid petty real life infighting, and revenge character creation.

Just stick with being evil towards NPCs rather than the people you are actually playing with.

Which is why I, as DM, discourage evil aligned characters. Because evil means pretty much what I said, so now you've got a bunch of people who will kick puppies into pools of acid just to watch them dissolve, but won't steal one another's enormously valuable magical do-dads. Verisimilitude sort of breaks down, doesn't it?

If you want to have a bunch of evil characters working together, you need an overarching rationale why each of the benefits from staying with the others and helping them succeed. Maybe they all work for a Sauron type boss who will eat their souls if they double-cross each other, or maybe there is some pot of gold at the end of the dark-colored depressing rainbow of evil that makes it worth it. But the story line has to be carefully designed or else every time they don't act like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" in the bank robbery scene they are out of character.

[Shining Wrath]

Evil doesn't mean stupid. Weakening his party members and eroding their trust in him actively harms an evil character. When it's time to part ways, an evil character won't hesitate to take whatever he can with him, but stealing from party members while they're still your party members is stupider than even Chaotic Evil gets.

Which is why I said "after a big score". You just cleaned out the treasure of the legendary dragon GotzJoolz and every one of you carried your max carrying capacity in magic items and gems / jewelry back to camp, where the horses are.

You're telling me an evil character doesn't believe that the pick of a dragon's hoard isn't worth saying "goodbye" for? And these are going to be lethal goodbyes, because you don't want one of those "Treasure Island" moments where your former mates track you down.

Evil parties should require some serious storyline glue to hold them together.

[Theoboldi]

Which is why I, as DM, discourage evil aligned characters. Because evil means pretty much what I said, so now you've got a bunch of people who will kick puppies into pools of acid just to watch them dissolve, but won't steal one another's enormously valuable magical do-dads. Verisimilitude sort of breaks down, doesn't it?

If you want to have a bunch of evil characters working together, you need an overarching rationale why each of the benefits from staying with the others and helping them succeed. Maybe they all work for a Sauron type boss who will eat their souls if they double-cross each other, or maybe there is some pot of gold at the end of the dark-colored depressing rainbow of evil that makes it worth it. But the story line has to be carefully designed or else every time they don't act like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" in the bank robbery scene they are out of character.

No. Just no. What you are describing there is the worst kind of stupid evil there is. Evil people can be friends, they can work together because they consider each other to be valuable partners. Heck, a person can be utterly and unredeemably evil without having any kind of murderous intent. I played so many evil characters, lots of them in mainly good parties, and no one of them would have ever dreamed of betraying their teammates just because of teh Evulz or profit. Maybe they have a code of honor, or maybe they aren't completly psychotic, but whatever reason it may be, evil doesn't have to be disfunctional. How do any of your evil NPCs even work together if that's how you define evil?

[Flickerdart]

You're telling me an evil character doesn't believe that the pick of a dragon's hoard isn't worth saying "goodbye" for? And these are going to be lethal goodbyes, because you don't want one of those "Treasure Island" moments where your former mates track you down.
Stupid evil characters might. Clever evil characters understand that the party that helped them clean out a dragon's hoard is capable of both cleaning out more dragon hoards and rearranging their face into an image of pure agony.

[Psyren]

Which is why I said "after a big score". You just cleaned out the treasure of the legendary dragon GotzJoolz and every one of you carried your max carrying capacity in magic items and gems / jewelry back to camp, where the horses are.

You're telling me an evil character doesn't believe that the pick of a dragon's hoard isn't worth saying "goodbye" for? And these are going to be lethal goodbyes, because you don't want one of those "Treasure Island" moments where your former mates track you down.

There's a lot of factors that go into this that you're not considering, prominent among them being the dragon's relatives (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0626.html). Yeah, backstabbing (literally in this case) your teammates to get their share of the loot might make you the winner in the short term, but a heist doesn't end simply because you got out the door with the loot; as the saying goes, you have to live to spend it too. So there's very concrete benefits in keeping your pals around.

[Shining Wrath]

No. Just no. What you are describing there is the worst kind of stupid evil there is. Evil people can be friends, they can work together because they consider each other to be valuable partners. Heck, a person can be utterly and unredeemably evil without having any kind of murderous intent. I played so many evil characters, lots of them in mainly good parties, and no one of them would have ever dreamed of betraying their teammates just because of teh Evulz or profit. Maybe they have a code of honor, or maybe they aren't completly psychotic, but whatever reason it may be, evil doesn't have to be disfunctional. How do any of your evil NPCs even work together if that's how you define evil?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I suspect we mean different things by evil. I view evil as, in the end, letting NOTHING stand in the way of your own good, especially chaotic evil. You may feel a twinge of regret as you slit the throat of a friend, but hey, their 150,000 GP worth of gear makes the regret worthwhile.

If you want to be "I'm going to be selfish but not hurt people who are my friends", that's neutral. Lawful evil is where you see loyalty to the Group as being the only way for you to have what you want, e.g., Mafia.

[Shining Wrath]

There's a lot of factors that go into this that you're not considering, prominent among them being the dragon's relatives (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0626.html). Yeah, backstabbing (literally in this case) your teammates to get their share of the loot might make you the winner in the short term, but a heist doesn't end simply because you got out the door with the loot; as the saying goes, you have to live to spend it too. So there's very concrete benefits in keeping your pals around.

And now we're in a risk / reward tradeoff. You can hire a lot of bodyguards with a dragon's hoard ... if you can find trustworthy ones:smallsmile:

[Theoboldi]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I suspect we mean different things by evil. I view evil as, in the end, letting NOTHING stand in the way of your own good, especially chaotic evil. You may feel a twinge of regret as you slit the throat of a friend, but hey, their 150,000 GP worth of gear makes the regret worthwhile.

If you want to be "I'm going to be selfish but not hurt people who are my friends", that's neutral. Lawful evil is where you see loyalty to the Group as being the only way for you to have what you want, e.g., Mafia.

Very well. Still, I wonder, do your good characters have to be as extreme about their alignments too? Is everyone who is good expected to act like a paladin, give all his money to charity and help build orphanages in his spare time? I'm honestly curious, because it would seem silly to me if you only placed those restrictions on evil characters.

On that note, what about chaotic and lawful characters? Do they have to be anarchists and despots, respectively?

[Psyren]

And now we're in a risk / reward tradeoff. You can hire a lot of bodyguards with a dragon's hoard ... if you can find trustworthy ones:smallsmile:

A tradeoff that it makes very little sense to subject yourself to. Which bodyguards could possibly be as competent as the very band that you know can handle a dragon already? And if they're strong enough to fend off any friends of the dragon you needed help to handle, how can you be sure you're strong enough to keep them in line? Or conversely, if they're weak enough for you to keep in line, how do you know they'll be strong/loyal enough to protect you when the time comes?

You might consider your original teammates soft or naive, but you also know that they won't go after you on a whim either because they owe you; do-gooders are patsies like that.

Now if all of you are evil you have a potentially big problem on your hands, but that's a totally different situation anyway.

[Shining Wrath]

Stupid evil characters might. Clever evil characters understand that the party that helped them clean out a dragon's hoard is capable of both cleaning out more dragon hoards and rearranging their face into an image of pure agony.

(1) Can the party be replaced? Unless your party is the absolute highest level party ever, yes, they are replaceable. And no one knows how they died, since after all, this is a dangerous business. "Too bad we ran into that mind flayer party after we offed GotzJoolz - I was lucky to survive".

(2) Only if they are alive.

Really, guys, consider the OOTS. How long is Nale gonna be alive once Malack no longer considers him necessary for the adventure at hand? And what does it say about Tarquin that he is apparently willing to permit Nale's death as the price of Malack's aid?

See, you're not just arguing with me. You're arguing with The Big Footprint himself :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Really, guys, consider the OOTS. How long is Nale gonna be alive once Malack no longer considers him necessary for the adventure at hand? And what does it say about Tarquin that he is apparently willing to permit Nale's death as the price of Malack's aid?

Hold on, are we talking about murdering the party strictly for money, or are you taking revenge for them killing your kids at some point? Because you didn't mention the latter anywhere that I could see.

And again, if the whole party is evil then all bets are off, as the others could strike you first at any time.

[Shining Wrath]

Very well. Still, I wonder, do your good characters have to be as extreme about their alignments too? Is everyone who is good expected to act like a paladin, give all his money to charity and help build orphanages in his spare time? I'm honestly curious, because it would seem silly to me if you only placed those restrictions on evil characters.

On that note, what about chaotic and lawful characters? Do they have to be anarchists and despots, respectively?

Good means at least sometimes sacrificing yourself for the great good, just as evil means at least sometimes hurting others to get what you want.

I don't expect evil characters to kill the barkeep to avoid tipping him - not if that means they have to flee town and never come back. I don't expect all good characters to take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to the King.

I do expect a good character to react differently to a "Seven Samurai" village in distress than an evil one. If you never do something that your RL mother would disapprove of, you aren't playing an evil character.

[Shining Wrath]

Hold on, are we talking about murdering the party strictly for money, or are you taking revenge for them killing your kids at some point? Because you didn't mention the latter anywhere that I could see.

And again, if the whole party is evil then all bets are off, as the others could strike you first at any time.

That's Malack's motivation. What's Tarquin's?

[Flickerdart]

That's Malack's motivation. What's Tarquin's?
Nale has betrayed Tarquin before, in case you forgot.

[8wGremlin]

So you could take a look at Tabitha (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269540)

She is evil, in the sense that she wants immortality and will kill to achieve it.
She's quite happy to have friends, as long as they dont get in her way to achieve her goal.

As a side line she assassinates people, steals from her targets, she does this cus she's bored or needs the cash and can use the kill, to fuel her immortality.

She's vain, and likes to look pretty, mainly in her feline form.

(she's effective from level 1 and would be good at level 3)
in combat she spits acid 1d6 damage, 30' range with ranged touch attacks, with +3d6 sneak attack, if she can get it.

[herrhauptmann]

So you could take a look at Tabitha (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269540)

So showing off your personal homebrew?

[8wGremlin]

So showing off your personal homebrew?

Not homebrew at all, all WoTC published Books...

[hamishspence]

If you want to be "I'm going to be selfish but not hurt people who are my friends", that's neutral.

Savage Species says otherwise- that an evil character can be a "loving parent, loyal friend, devoted spouse" etc without affecting their Evilness in any way- an Evil character can be someone who mistreats people they consider "below them" but treats their peers with respect and affection.

[kardar233]

Shining Wrath:

I believe you're doing Evil characters a disservice here.

Any character, whether they're Evil or Good, has goals that they want to accomplish. The difference is that Evil characters don't restrict themselves in what they are willing to do to accomplish those goals because of morality. If a character's goal is to be respected, a Good character might take the slogging route of slowly building their reputation through little tasks, while an Evil character might engineer a crisis that they will then solve.

This doesn't mean they are restricted to "Evil" ways of doing things those, that just leads to **** Dastardly Stops to Cheat (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DickDastardlyStopsToCheat), where a character decides to be Evil even when it is clearly not the most effective method. If it would be most effective in reaching their goals, they don't have a problem with donating to an orphanage, saving puppies from fires etc.

This doesn't mean that an Evil character can't have friends, though. Humans are hard-wired to crave social interaction, and just because you're Evil doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore that. If I'm not careful, I can slip down to Evil (from my usual CN) but if you ask me whether I'd rather have (some large number) of money or my best friend, even when I'm being an amoral bastard I'll always choose the latter. Well, I'd actually see if I can con you out of the money without losing the friend first, but if that's not possible the choice is clear. That's not because of altruism, it's because the enjoyment I get from my best friend is far more than I'd get from the money.

I've played in several Evil campaigns. In some, the party was held together by a powerful outside force who demanded cooperation; in others, it was led by a leadership figure inside the party, who manipulated, threatened and coerced the party members into following their lead. But my favourite ones were the ones in which the characters were real friends, who stuck by each other despite all the shenanigans that went on.

Just because you're Evil, doesn't mean you're not a person.

[hamishspence]

But my favourite ones were the ones in which the characters were real friends, who stuck by each other despite all the shenanigans that went on.

Just because you're Evil, doesn't mean you're not a person.

There's a pretty good article by The Giant on the subject:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html

Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.

So, how does one create realistic emotional responses? First, remember that alignment is a guide, not a strait-jacket. Not even for NPCs. Evil characters can love, good characters can hate. This alone will help you add some emotional interest; think of an NPC in your game and name three things he or she loves enough to die for (or hates enough to kill for). How about three rules they will never break, or three laws they feel aren't that important?

[BlackRabbit]

I'm ashamed that I didn't come back and thank everyone. I decided to play a goliath hexblade. I'll try and make him as evil as possible. Next time, a gnoll.

[ArcturusV]

A shame. I just saw this topic and really, what came to mind as the most evil, creepy class off the top of my head is one I don't really see suggested yet. And unlike Necromancers, Binders, Subverted Psions, etc, no one sees it coming.

It's the Bard.

Think about it though. A Bard gets powers that allow him to mindjack people whenever he wants. He can turn something an innocent and harmless seeming as a simple marching tune whistled out nonchalantly into a sinister tune that turns people into oblivious drooling drones to which all manner of things can be done to. He can warp people's very sense of reality with his illusions, making them question their sanity at every waking moment, uncertain of what they are experiencing is true or false. And when they are mindjacked, confused, insane rambling people who are clawing at their own faces in sheer madness, the Bard is skilled enough with a blade to easily dispatch him.

And no one suspects them. They're just silly, jolly people who sing at people in battle and are "Cheerleaders" making you slightly more heroic and drawing fans.

No one knows what you really are. No one can IMAGINE what you really are.

*whistles a jaunty tune*

[Amidus Drexel]

A shame. I just saw this topic and really, what came to mind as the most evil, creepy class off the top of my head is one I don't really see suggested yet. And unlike Necromancers, Binders, Subverted Psions, etc, no one sees it coming.

It's the Bard.

And no one suspects them. They're just silly, jolly people who sing at people in battle and are "Cheerleaders" making you slightly more heroic and drawing fans.

No one knows what you really are. No one can IMAGINE what you really are.

*whistles a jaunty tune*

This is why bards make awesome liches. No one suspects it.

[Alienist]

Oh, I forgot my favorite PrC, alienist.

*cough* naughty words *uncough*

Ur Priest on top of a Fighter Chasis. If the DM allows feat retraining, you can jujitsu into it without anyone being the wiser. Use Persistent cleric buff spells to out-godzilla the zillas. Otherwise Spell Focus (Evil) kind of telegraphs the surprise.

Actually, if you're allowed feat retraining, then toss in a couple of levels of Monk too. You might want to season the mix with a couple of levels of Aristocrat, and one level of Human Paragon. (You can take the other two levels after hitting level 2 as an Ur Priest)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Which is why I, as DM, discourage evil aligned characters. Because evil means pretty much what I said, so now you've got a bunch of people who will kick puppies into pools of acid just to watch them dissolve, but won't steal one another's enormously valuable magical do-dads. Verisimilitude sort of breaks down, doesn't it?
Not in the least. There are degrees of evil and there are different kinds of evil. Never underestimate the capacity of the human mind to rationalize irrational crap.

If you want to have a bunch of evil characters working together, you need an overarching rationale why each of the benefits from staying with the others and helping them succeed. Maybe they all work for a Sauron type boss who will eat their souls if they double-cross each other, or maybe there is some pot of gold at the end of the dark-colored depressing rainbow of evil that makes it worth it. But the story line has to be carefully designed or else every time they don't act like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" in the bank robbery scene they are out of character.
Evil characters are perfectly capable of having loyalty and friendship. It doesn't even stretch verisimilitude to imagine a handful of sadistic buddies spending a night on the town murdering hobos and raping farm animals. They may be the worst human trash imaginable but they're still human.

And now we're in a risk / reward tradeoff. You can hire a lot of bodyguards with a dragon's hoard ... if you can find trustworthy ones:smallsmile:

For a moronic greed-bag like the one you're describing, there's no such thing as trustworthy. Being incapable of not betraying his allies would make him equally incapable of understanding the idea that someone else wouldn't betray an ally.

What you've described is chaotic evil with a nice heavy dose of stupid for good measure.

Frankly, it's the least dangerous kind of evil imaginable. If you want evil that will chill your soul, take a look at well run lawful evil.

The baatezu and the quori make excellent examples.

[Shining Wrath]

There's a pretty good article by The Giant on the subject:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html

That makes sense.

I never said evil characters HAD to betray their friends, mind; just that any evil character would consider it a possibility. Or, to be strict about it, the probability of an evil character betraying the rest of the party is 10x or 100x the probability of a good character doing so.

Everyone is capable of a range of responses. The Luke Skywalker line "There is good in you; I can feel it" could be delivered to almost any evil character, and leading good characters into evil is a basic trope of literature going back to Genesis and Homer and so on.

But if it makes no difference to the game if the party is evil aligned then you're doing evil wrong. And that includes intra-party dynamics. Old friends who are evil may trust each other, but can they really trust each other the same way that really old friends who are good can?

[Shining Wrath]

Not in the least. There are degrees of evil and there are different kinds of evil. Never underestimate the capacity of the human mind to rationalize irrational crap.

Evil characters are perfectly capable of having loyalty and friendship. It doesn't even stretch verisimilitude to imagine a handful of sadistic buddies spending a night on the town murdering hobos and raping farm animals. They may be the worst human trash imaginable but they're still human.


For a moronic greed-bag like the one you're describing, there's no such thing as trustworthy. Being incapable of not betraying his allies would make him equally incapable of understanding the idea that someone else wouldn't betray an ally.

What you've described is chaotic evil with a nice heavy dose of stupid for good measure.

Frankly, it's the least dangerous kind of evil imaginable. If you want evil that will chill your soul, take a look at well run lawful evil.

The baatezu and the quori make excellent examples.

Kelb, if I can kill you, get vast amounts of money, and hire someone just like you to replace you for a fraction of that wealth - what rational actor is not going to do that? One constrained by morality.

Also, we're talking emulation of fantasy worlds. Are you saying Tolkein's orcs wouldn't betray each other over loot? Talk to Gorbag and Shagrat about that. Did Sauron ever betray anyone he gave a Ring to? Like, for example, all 9 Nazgul, who got a lot more than they bargained for when they accepted his Ring?

Do you think Renfield liked his life with Count Dracula?

Are you saying an old friend could trust Baron Harkonnen?

In fact, point to one iconic villain that you could really count on if it was in their long-term best interest to betray you.

The willingness to betray ones friends is characteristic of evil. Timing is everything, of course, and clever evil may wait years or decades.

You are correct about degrees of evil. I refer you to Dante's Inferno, where the deeper one gets the worse the sinners are. At the top are people that most of us wouldn't consider to be particularly bad people; fornicators and gluttons and the like.

The bottom of Hell is reserved for the traitors, and the worst traitor of all is Judas Iscariot.

If you want to be "I'm only called evil because I commit fornication", in D&D terms you could be Neutral Good and do that. If you're going to D&D *evil*, betrayal is on the table.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Kelb, if I can kill you, get vast amounts of money, and hire someone just like you to replace you for a fraction of that wealth - what rational actor is not going to do that? One constrained by morality. False dillema. You can't hire a guy just like me for a fraction of the wealth. A guy just like me is going to demand the same share of the wealth I did. After doing this a couple of times people put together the fact that people you hire mysteriously disappear and then you can't hire anyone intelligent or capable at all.


Also, we're talking emulation of fantasy worlds. Are you saying Tolkein's orcs wouldn't betray each other over loot? Talk to Gorbag and Shagrat about that. Did Sauron ever betray anyone he gave a Ring to? Like, for example, all 9 Nazgul, who got a lot more than they bargained for when they accepted his Ring? I'm not familiar with the orcs you've named, but sauron didn't betray anyone. He wasn't their friend and they didn't trust him. He royally screwed them but you can't break a trust that was never there.


Do you think Renfield liked his life with Count Dracula?Maybe. He stuck around for some reason.


Are you saying an old friend could trust Baron Harkonnen?Not familiar.


In fact, point to one iconic villain that you could really count on if it was in their long-term best interest to betray you.Loren Soth of dragonlance fame. He never once betrayed anyone he didn't think betrayed him first.


The willingness to betray ones friends is characteristic of evil. Timing is everything, of course, and clever evil may wait years or decades.Willingness to betray those that trust you is one characteristic of evil. It's not evil's defining characteristic and it breaks verisimilitude for any character to betray a friend, someone with whom they have a mutual trust.


You are correct about degrees of evil. I refer you to Dante's Inferno, where the deeper one gets the worse the sinners are. At the top are people that most of us wouldn't consider to be particularly bad people; fornicators and gluttons and the like. Bad example. The inferno is based around the 15th century, judeo-christian dogma. Amongst those in the first circle were righteous pagans; men of virtue and honor who guessed wrong in the game of which god is the right god.


The bottom of Hell is reserved for the traitors, and the worst traitor of all is Judas Iscariot.It's fine to call betrayal evil. RAW agrees with you on that. You have to have a clear understanding of what that word means before you can properly apply it.


If you want to be "I'm only called evil because I commit fornication", in D&D terms you could be Neutral Good and do that. If you're going to D&D *evil*, betrayal is on the table.

Sexual relations are explicitly neither evil nor good by RAW. Sluts and lotharios don't end up in baator or the abyss if they're otherwise good people.

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that if a character doesn't constantly exhibit every form of evil behavior that he's not evil. This simply isn't the case.

[SGNenets]

That makes sense.

I never said evil characters HAD to betray their friends, mind; just that any evil character would consider it a possibility. Or, to be strict about it, the probability of an evil character betraying the rest of the party is 10x or 100x the probability of a good character doing so.

Everyone is capable of a range of responses. The Luke Skywalker line "There is good in you; I can feel it" could be delivered to almost any evil character, and leading good characters into evil is a basic trope of literature going back to Genesis and Homer and so on.

But if it makes no difference to the game if the party is evil aligned then you're doing evil wrong. And that includes intra-party dynamics. Old friends who are evil may trust each other, but can they really trust each other the same way that really old friends who are good can?


BTW, if your character *won't* steal from his own party when he can get away with it - and even murder all the others while standing watch after a big score - then you don't really want to be evil. Evil is not "I mock your silly rules", evil is "I will do what benefits me regardless of what I have to do to you".

This to me sounds like you indeed did mean that all evil characters must betray their friends, as people who won't aren't actually evil. I believe this is the specific point that everyone is disageeing with you on.

EDIT: So what if all of you being evil doesn't change party dynamics? The campaign significantly changes due to you being evil. Your goals, your methodology, your demeanor to those not in your "ingroup" all change due to you being evil, and I would say that is plenty of change to justify evil characters.



Kelb, if I can kill you, get vast amounts of money, and hire someone just like you to replace you for a fraction of that wealth - what rational actor is not going to do that? One constrained by morality.

Also, we're talking emulation of fantasy worlds. Are you saying Tolkein's orcs wouldn't betray each other over loot? Talk to Gorbag and Shagrat about that. Did Sauron ever betray anyone he gave a Ring to? Like, for example, all 9 Nazgul, who got a lot more than they bargained for when they accepted his Ring?

Do you think Renfield liked his life with Count Dracula?

Are you saying an old friend could trust Baron Harkonnen?

In fact, point to one iconic villain that you could really count on if it was in their long-term best interest to betray you.

The willingness to betray ones friends is characteristic of evil. Timing is everything, of course, and clever evil may wait years or decades.

You are correct about degrees of evil. I refer you to Dante's Inferno, where the deeper one gets the worse the sinners are. At the top are people that most of us wouldn't consider to be particularly bad people; fornicators and gluttons and the like.

The bottom of Hell is reserved for the traitors, and the worst traitor of all is Judas Iscariot.

If you want to be "I'm only called evil because I commit fornication", in D&D terms you could be Neutral Good and do that. If you're going to D&D *evil*, betrayal is on the table.

Citing specific examples doesn't help your point here, as noone said evil people can't betray their loved ones. We are merely saying not all of them must do so even when it is profitable.

Also, aside from all the problems that come with killing your party that is capable of slaying dragons, there is also the fact that not all evil people must have the end goal of making themselves wealthy/more powerful. They could just be out to kill people (who may or may not include your friends, again depends on the individual), for example. Yes, getting more money/gear will most likely help you towards your goals anyway, but if amassing wealth is not your end goal in and of itself, that wealth may benefit you just as much in the hands of your allies as it would in your own hands, or even moreso if they are better able to utilize them. The point is, rational decision and logic is context dependent, and does not always lead to the same conclusion for a vague case such as the one you are describing.

I'm not entirely sure why you are referencing the degrees of evil at the end of your post there, but I think what you are trying to say is that betrayal is the worst form of evil there is. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that this is true, we are still left with the question: why does every evil person have to be the worst evil there is? Good-evil is a gradient, not two spots you must rigidly adhere to. You can be only slightly evil, or be the worst person there ever was. Both are still evil, just one more so than the other. Yes, by this gradient of evil that you described, betraying your allies may automatically make you evil, but the reverse need not be true. Evil people can have good perks, just as good people can have evil perks, like your example of fornification. Saying someone is not evil just because they don't betray their allies is like a blind person trying to describe an elephant. You can't describe the whole by just looking at its parts one at a time.

[Psyren]

But if it makes no difference to the game if the party is evil aligned then you're doing evil wrong. And that includes intra-party dynamics. Old friends who are evil may trust each other, but can they really trust each other the same way that really old friends who are good can?

And why can't they? Again, being evil doesn't necessarily mean being evil to each other. Look at Nale and Sabine - they've been together for over a decade and neither has any desire to betray the other. Sabine is even willing to go against her demonic masters for him. Zz'dtri has been part of the party for a long time too, and is easily its most powerful member, yet he has no desire to betray the others. Quite simply, they are friends.

In the Trigun anime, Legato Bluesummers was totally evil, yet totally devoted to his boss Knives. In DBZ, Captain Ginyu showed no signs of ever wanting to betray Freeza, even when he was alone with all 7 dragonballs multiple times (and didn't know they needed a password.) He never even tried to use or hide them, despite the fact that the prize in this case (immortality) would have meant never fearing reprisal. In D.Gray-Man, the Noah clan are thoroughly evil and free-willed, yet see each other as a family. There are numerous other examples.

[Shining Wrath]

False dillema. You can't hire a guy just like me for a fraction of the wealth. A guy just like me is going to demand the same share of the wealth I did. After doing this a couple of times people put together the fact that people you hire mysteriously disappear and then you can't hire anyone intelligent or capable at all.

I'm not familiar with the orcs you've named, but sauron didn't betray anyone. He wasn't their friend and they didn't trust him. He royally screwed them but you can't break a trust that was never there.

Maybe. He stuck around for some reason.

Not familiar.

Loren Soth of dragonlance fame. He never once betrayed anyone he didn't think betrayed him first.

Willingness to betray those that trust you is one characteristic of evil. It's not evil's defining characteristic and it breaks verisimilitude for any character to betray a friend, someone with whom they have a mutual trust.

Bad example. The inferno is based around the 15th century, judeo-christian dogma. Amongst those in the first circle were righteous pagans; men of virtue and honor who guessed wrong in the game of which god is the right god.

It's fine to call betrayal evil. RAW agrees with you on that. You have to have a clear understanding of what that word means before you can properly apply it.



Sexual relations are explicitly neither evil nor good by RAW. Sluts and lotharios don't end up in baator or the abyss if they're otherwise good people.

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that if a character doesn't constantly exhibit every form of evil behavior that he's not evil. This simply isn't the case.

Uh, no. I simply believe that the label "evil" means something, and that the little stuff like fornication simply doesn't matter AT ALL for D&D - that is, I'm rejecting 14th century Catholicism as a guide for 21st century adventuring.

So, if "evil" means anything, it means you do stuff that everyone believes is bad. It doesn't mean you don't follow the rules; that's covered by chaotic. To call yourself "evil" in a D&D game means you're doing stuff from the lower circles of the Inferno, and we have to skip stuff that's monotheistic like heresy. You've got to be stealing from people who have less than you do, or murdering innocents, or betraying friends. Maybe not all of those for any one person, but you shouldn't be able to say "Oooh, I'm evil" and never do anything that's actually no-bones-about-it evil.

Therefore, an evil person is more likely to betray his friends. Not 100% guaranteed to always betray his friends; but he's much more likely to do it than the local NG priest.

[Shining Wrath]

False dillema. You can't hire a guy just like me for a fraction of the wealth. A guy just like me is going to demand the same share of the wealth I did. After doing this a couple of times people put together the fact that people you hire mysteriously disappear and then you can't hire anyone intelligent or capable at all.

I'm not familiar with the orcs you've named, but sauron didn't betray anyone. He wasn't their friend and they didn't trust him. He royally screwed them but you can't break a trust that was never there.

Maybe. He stuck around for some reason.

Not familiar.

Loren Soth of dragonlance fame. He never once betrayed anyone he didn't think betrayed him first.

Willingness to betray those that trust you is one characteristic of evil. It's not evil's defining characteristic and it breaks verisimilitude for any character to betray a friend, someone with whom they have a mutual trust.

Bad example. The inferno is based around the 15th century, judeo-christian dogma. Amongst those in the first circle were righteous pagans; men of virtue and honor who guessed wrong in the game of which god is the right god.

It's fine to call betrayal evil. RAW agrees with you on that. You have to have a clear understanding of what that word means before you can properly apply it.



Sexual relations are explicitly neither evil nor good by RAW. Sluts and lotharios don't end up in baator or the abyss if they're otherwise good people.

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that if a character doesn't constantly exhibit every form of evil behavior that he's not evil. This simply isn't the case.

On my examples:

If you think Sauron didn't give those rings away telling people they would be a good thing to have you are unfamiliar with the mythos.

Gorbag and Shagrat were the orc leaders who were evidently friends, and discussed leaving Sauron's service and setting up together as bandit chiefs ... and then fought to the death over Frodo's mithral shirt.

Baron Harkonnen was the bad guy from Dune. Sci Fi not fantasy but in terms of pure evil he makes Emperor Palpatine look like a jaywalker.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To be blunt to the point of risking rudeness; I don't care what you believe. Evil is fairly well-defined in D&D. They dedicated an entire book to it as a matter of fact.

If you consistently display any one of the behaviors that are labeled as explicitly evil. You don't have to even look at the rest as long as you don't offset that one behavior with acts of good.

E.G. a sorcerer that learns a number of evil spells and likes spamming them in combat can still be discrete in whom he attacks, never needs to betray anyone, he can even speak nothing but the unadulterated truth at all times if he wishes. As long as he's regularly committing that one evil act (casting spells with the evil descriptor) and not offsetting that with any good acts, he'll ring up as evil on an alignment scan even if he never commits any other kind of evil act.

Also, why the deuce did you bring up the Divine Comedy if you believe it to be a poor example for defining evil?

[Kelb_Panthera]

On my examples:

If you think Sauron didn't give those rings away telling people they would be a good thing to have you are unfamiliar with the mythos.I'm sure he did, but lying to people that don't trust you isn't betrayal. It's just being a douche. Lying and breaking a trust are related but they're not the same thing.


Gorbag and Shagrat were the orc leaders who were evidently friends, and discussed leaving Sauron's service and setting up together as bandit chiefs ... and then fought to the death over Frodo's mithral shirt.So their greed was stronger than their friendship. Even then, it's not necessarily betrayal. It's not as though Gorbag told Shagrath, "go ahead, you take it. I'll get the next one," then shanked him in his sleep. It's close enough to the line that I'd probably call it a betrayal though.


Baron Harkonnen was the bad guy from Dune. Sci Fi not fantasy but in terms of pure evil he makes Emperor Palpatine look like a jaywalker.

Okay, I do know him. Just didn't recognize the name. Again, I think you're finding more examples of dudes that were just plain douches rather than people that anyone trusted enough for them to even have an opportunity to betray anyone.

[Psyren]

Sauron and Palpatine are pretty clearly Stupid Evil though. No one is arguing that stupid evil characters wouldn't be chronic backstabbers to everyone around them - that's (part of) what makes them stupid.

Prequel Palpatine was smarter - being caring and even fatherly to Anakin, the one Jedi with the power to foil all his plans, and even saving his life to cement his loyalty. Then in the regular trilogy he lost his brain cells by torturing Anakin's son right in front of him instead of removing Luke from the equation quickly and decisively.

Sauron meanwhile bred his minions to be feckless and foolish, and encouraged Saruman to do the same. A couple of quick stabs would have ended Merry and Pippin, thereby ensuring the later survival of both his top lieutenant and his most useful puppet in Gondor. Instead, he keeps his troops on the edge of starvation, forcing them to take prisoners for cooking later and enabling daring rescues.

[Shining Wrath]

Sauron and Palpatine are pretty clearly Stupid Evil though. No one is arguing that stupid evil characters wouldn't be chronic backstabbers to everyone around them - that's (part of) what makes them stupid.

Prequel Palpatine was smarter - being caring and even fatherly to Anakin, the one Jedi with the power to foil all his plans, and even saving his life to cement his loyalty. Then in the regular trilogy he lost his brain cells by torturing Anakin's son right in front of him instead of removing Luke from the equation quickly and decisively.

Sauron meanwhile bred his minions to be feckless and foolish, and encouraged Saruman to do the same. A couple of quick stabs would have ended Merry and Pippin, thereby ensuring the later survival of both his top lieutenant and his most useful puppet in Gondor. Instead, he keeps his troops on the edge of starvation, forcing them to take prisoners for cooking later and enabling daring rescues.

My reading was that Saruman ordered the hobbits kept alive because (1) He wanted to question them (2) He wanted to get off torturing them and (3) He was afraid the Ring would be found if they were "spoiled", which in that usage does not mean "started to rot", and he didn't trust his Uruks with the Ring ... that is, betrayal just came right back in.

[Shining Wrath]

To be blunt to the point of risking rudeness; I don't care what you believe. Evil is fairly well-defined in D&D. They dedicated an entire book to it as a matter of fact.

If you consistently display any one of the behaviors that are labeled as explicitly evil. You don't have to even look at the rest as long as you don't offset that one behavior with acts of good.

E.G. a sorcerer that learns a number of evil spells and likes spamming them in combat can still be discrete in whom he attacks, never needs to betray anyone, he can even speak nothing but the unadulterated truth at all times if he wishes. As long as he's regularly committing that one evil act (casting spells with the evil descriptor) and not offsetting that with any good acts, he'll ring up as evil on an alignment scan even if he never commits any other kind of evil act.

At the risk of making you angry, which is not what I'm after at all, if there's one thing all the literature agrees on, it's that dabbling with evil (your spamming sorcerer) spills over into the rest of your life. Frodo's ring? Elric's sword? Every single doomed protagonist from everything Lovecraft ever wrote? You *think* you can control it. You *think* you can do just this little evil over here. But ... no.

Kelb, you do not understand the power of the Dark Side :smallsmile:

BTW, I can do a reasonable James Earl Jones imitation, so you should imagine the appropriate bass rumbling.


Also, why the deuce did you bring up the Divine Comedy if you believe it to be a poor example for defining evil?

If you recall, I brought it up by way of agreeing with you that there were tiers of evil. Not that it was a good guide to playing D&D.

[Ravens_cry]

Creepy and evil is how you play it.
You could play a heal-bot cleric, who enjoys torturing captured enemies and using their healing abilities so they get to play longer.

[Psyren]

My reading was that Saruman ordered the hobbits kept alive because (1) He wanted to question them (2) He wanted to get off torturing them and (3) He was afraid the Ring would be found if they were "spoiled", which in that usage does not mean "started to rot", and he didn't trust his Uruks with the Ring ... that is, betrayal just came right back in.

That's just my point - betrayal most often comes in for stupid evil.


At the risk of making you angry, which is not what I'm after at all, if there's one thing all the literature agrees on, it's that dabbling with evil (your spamming sorcerer) spills over into the rest of your life. Frodo's ring? Elric's sword? Every single doomed protagonist from everything Lovecraft ever wrote? You *think* you can control it. You *think* you can do just this little evil over here. But ... no.

Kelb, you do not understand the power of the Dark Side :smallsmile:

There are plenty of counterexamples there too. Sesshomaru and Tokijin. Ultima's Avatar and the Black Sword. Any protagonist ever that overcomes and harnesses their Superpowered Evil Side. Interacting with darkness does not HAVE to make you evil yourself, even if that is the most common outcome.

[ArcturusV]

Well, lets go with a For Instance example.

I ran an adventure as a Lawful Evil character, a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard combo if it matters, and he only was that combo because every time I leveled up I let the story and events determine what he leveled rather than following a build.

Now, I told everyone at the start that he was Lawful Evil. But I didn't "rub their noses" in it, and go out of my way to remind them about it later on.

We started out with him joining the party for personal reasons. The game was started with one of those "you're in a prison in enemy territory" types. So he joined the party not because he was good. But because it was his best attempt to escape and he wanted to crack the heads of those who had imprisoned and enslaved him wrongfully. Yes, "Justice" can be evil. He does so, the guy he fought alongside to escape was a useful, and powerful ally who proved himself. The NPC they ran into to help them was likewise. When they finally "escaped" he found himself in the middle of a desert (His homeland HAD no deserts) with only two strangers who he had fought along side, and no clue what was going on other than he got shipped off to a strange land and enslaved by unfamiliar humanoid monsters.

So despite the fact he was evil. He didn't get directions from the strangers who were familiar with the land, kill them, take their stuff (Including Camels) an ride off in the way of the nearest town. He stuck with them because, well, they had proved USEFUL, and might still be necessary if there were more Orcs about, and of course, he had given a promise to ally with them until this was figured out. So he tagged along.

Of course he was still Evil. And there were moments where due to his Evil and knowing of nature he antagonized an obviously evil, about to betray everyone, Vizier. And did things like tricked a slave into eating his dinner at the palace first because he was certain the Vizier was going to poison him (He did).

And as things went on, and he learned more about where he was. He never really considered betraying the party. Even though he was Lawful Evil. In fact due to having some fairly powerful attention his way, he tried to expand the party and recruit more allies, contacts, cohorts, etc. He never considered "slitting their throats" or anything up until one point. Where the supposedly Lawful Good type stole a very valuable consumable item from him while he was sleeping. Then used Charm Magic on him to make him humiliate himself instead of confronting him when he found out that he had been robbed.

From THEN he started planning a long, thought out revenge. But he didn't just slit his throat in the night. Not even when he had the chance. He still adventured with the guy as he needed his skills. He worked to turn all the allies they had gathered against the man. Twisting their loyalties so they were loyal to my character, alone, and not to my enemy. I would subtly sabotage his attempts to try to and gather people who were personally loyal to my enemy alone, but nothing overt. In fact people seemed to have forgotten I was "Evil" at that point except for the DM.

Eventually we have a part where the party splits up after having finished off what we thought was the last of the Big Bad Guys. And mostly splitting off because the Good guy wanted to go reclaim his throne, alone. So I was stuck with all the allies, alone. The ones I already flipped. It was THEN I betrayed him actively. Raised an army, united 5 different usually warring nations. Marched on the Kingdom which the Good Guy was trying to build (Wasn't going so well, the situation was Demon Apocalypse at that point), kicked out the Demons, severely wounded the "Good" guy, revealed that I basically destroyed all his life's dreams and goals. And that he was forced into exile on the equivalent of Corsica.

I was still Lawful Evil the whole way. And yes, I did "betray the party", or rather one person in the party. But I only did that because HE betrayed ME first. Lawful Evil, I'm not going to break an alliance just on a whim or because of an immediate, short term gain. I have MUCH more to gain from using the system, and keeping alliances and relationships in tact. By the same token however my goals are ultimately evil (He installed himself as the Man Behind the Curtain of a Puppet Figurehead). The methods I used were evil, inspiring others into betrayal and willingly becoming the subjects of my empire. But if he had never stolen from my character? Then flaunted it and humiliated him? Never would have betrayed him. Instead he would have just been someone that, since we had similar goals, would have been an ally helping take over the other half of the continent.

[Con_Brio1993]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I suspect we mean different things by evil. I view evil as, in the end, letting NOTHING stand in the way of your own good, especially chaotic evil. You may feel a twinge of regret as you slit the throat of a friend, but hey, their 150,000 GP worth of gear makes the regret worthwhile.

If you want to be "I'm going to be selfish but not hurt people who are my friends", that's neutral. Lawful evil is where you see loyalty to the Group as being the only way for you to have what you want, e.g., Mafia.

I think you must live in a bubble if you think people who could be described as evil don't have their own friends and (twisted) values. Evil also doesn't mean "kicks puppies into acid." Hitler was a vegetarian and tried to do a lot for animal welfare. He had friends and family. He was also a vile evil man who will forever be remembered in history as a man responsible for the loss of over 6 million lives as the result of his actions.

[Squirrel_Dude]

We have a Desert Gnome Beguiler, a Raptoran or Dragonborn Cleric, a ranger and a psionicist of some sort. The beguiler is going to be evil, and I'd like to as well. I know, any class can be played evil, but there are some that are just dark to start, like the warlock. Fleshwarper doesn't seem nice either for a PrC. Suggestions?

Goliath Paladin of Slaughter

Spiked Fearsome Armor+ Monkey Grip + Dire Wolf Mount + Gargantuan Heavy Flail = Congratulations, you're now Sauron.

[Doxkid]

Bards are pretty creepy to me; they're like horrible fiends copied straight out of old legends and epic tales.
----
"...and the man did not raise his hand nor speak harshly, but before him men were bowled over by his presence or left weeping by his voice.

A hundred noble-blooded wives followed in his wake, bound to him more truly than their husbands-lords, but he did not deign touch them and leave them harlots for they were unworthy of his body's song.

Ye, when he happened upon our king he was greeted as an equal. Those who spoke against him were shamed but not put to death and those who stood against him wavered and bowed upon meeting his gaze."

[Venger]

Psionics has a number of creepy/dark PrCs. Subverted Psion (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20051125a) is a very straightforward downward slope for most characters, and has the additional creepy mechanic where you have to make a will save to avoid taking more levels in the class. Thrallherds become extremely creepy if you think about what they actually do for too long. There's also the Body Leech (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040925a), which allows you to maintain a web of creatures as psionic batteries, and even make one of them into your unwilling phylactery. If you can rationalize the odd fluff, Flayerspawn Psychic does creepy things to your psion as well.

Anima Mage also has a psionic adaptation, though you'll have to flesh this out with your DM.
subverted psion sounds kind of cool, like a tainted scholar, and so does body leech, but your links don't work and I can't find those pages anywhere. can you provide a different link?

[Psyren]

subverted psion sounds kind of cool, like a tainted scholar, and so does body leech, but your links don't work and I can't find those pages anywhere. can you provide a different link?

...Huh. None of the Mind's Eye links are working for me either. Were they taken down?

[Venger]

...Huh. None of the Mind's Eye links are working for me either. Were they taken down?

it seems more like a server error. I don't see a reason for wotco to care if we read some of their free material that's been sitting around inert for 7 or 8 years anyways. wayback machine seems to work though.

links for subverted psion (http://web.archive.org/web/20120419165238/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20051125a) and body leech (http://web.archive.org/web/20120419122956/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040925a) for those who are interested

[Mystral]

Tanking? How boring. Go Wizard1/Cleric2/Master of Shrouds and summon shadows. They can tank far better then you, not being hurt by nonmagical weapons and ignoring magical ones.

Master of shrouds is from libris mortis and works very well with DMM shenanigans, too, so you can tank as well.

[8wGremlin]

Tanking? How boring. Go Wizard1/Cleric2/Master of Shrouds and summon shadows. They can tank far better then you, not being hurt by nonmagical weapons and ignoring magical ones.

Master of shrouds is from libris mortis and works very well with DMM shenanigans, too, so you can tank as well.

thats was similar build I used build in a e6 evil game....Amazingly evil
especially when you send your shadows in to an orphanage to create more shadows at night, so you can take over the town...

ah the good old days, simple dreams....

sleep well children where ever you are....