new player wants to be evil. help! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Stux

2013-06-15, 07:38 AM

Sure evil people would be adventurers too. Just usually they are the sort of adventurers that the PCs are hunting down! You know, villains, haha.

If he wants to play evil so he has the OPTION to screw other people over (hopefully mostly NPCs!) , but wont actually do it all the time or at least in too murder-y a way because that wouldn't make sense for a party of heroes, then he should be playing a neutral alignment.

The problem with having evil characters in a generally good party is that the other PCs, if they find out that he is evil (and its not that hard even if they are trying to hide it), have to justify to themselves why they aren't killing the evil character, which at best is a bit jarring. Sure there might be a "we have to work together to fight a bigger evil" type thing, but then as a DM you are constantly having to contrive reasons why they have to work together, and why the evil character can't butcher all the NPCs you introduce, which can be difficult enough when everyone is good. Plus it doesn't really cut it if theres a paladin in the party!

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with a DM banning evil alignments if it doesn't fit your campaign. Just explain that to him if it's a problem. If it's not a problem I'm guessing you wouldn't be here!

blelliot

2013-06-15, 07:53 AM

Well, I'm guessing since you said he prefers Evil characters, and has played in your games before, that you already have a good idea of what he's going to be doing and what you don't want him to be doing with his Evil Tag. I could give some better options and opinions if I knew.

Last time he played evil, it was a game where all pcs were evil. He spent one night ruobbing every house he could. Just to make as much money as possible. I would love to avoid that if at all possible.

Malvanis

2013-06-15, 09:40 AM

You are the Dungeon Master. Tell him no. You are god. If you would prefer to handle this in a different way, when he tries to commit any crime, have him get caught, and then have him go to prison and try to teach him a lesson.

Ceaon

2013-06-15, 09:50 AM

(...) I don't want to have him running around doing what ever he wants, just because he's evil. (...)

He can't. Evil actions have consequences, like any other action does. And most of the time, the consequence for an evil action is punishment.

Honestly, the best advice you got is asking him why he wants to play an evil character. If he says why not, reply with why not a neutral character? What does he mean to accomplish?

Talya

2013-06-15, 09:59 AM

There's actually room for evil protagonists in games and stories. Think "The Punisher," as an example. Not all "evil" is moustache-twirling megalomaniacal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and is generally Lawful Evil). Characters don't need to be Charicatures. An evil person can care about others, can even have friends, and can, in the end, even be selfless, (not that he necessarily wants to be all of those things, that'd be a pretty extreme case), but they have some serious differences in morality. Stances like "The ends justify the means," "Innocents must occasionally die for the greater good," (A.K.A. You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs), "The people are directionless and lost without a strong leader (and I will become that leader when I grind the kingdom under my boot!)"... the list goes on.

Slipperychicken

2013-06-15, 10:02 AM

As the DM, you are within your rights to disallow Evil characters, on account of them often being the tools of griefers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer). You don't want to DM for that kind of disruptive stupidity, and you don't have to. Make it clear to him that you aren't going to DM for trolling or Evil rapacious shenanigans. The question isn't whether or not Evil people would adventure, but whether it would be fun to play with one.

Basically, talk to the player (and your other players too!*) and establish common boundaries as to what you'll tolerate, and what he wants to achieve through being Evil. Things like, are you okay with him taking a detour to eat babies, joining the BBEG for 'teh lulz, backstabbing party members, stealing from PCs, etc. Also it's important to see his motivation for playing an Evil character. Hopefully a set of common expectations will avert most problems, and if he blatantly violates it, you are free to remove such a character.

*Figure out what your other players' stance is regarding what they'll tolerate from Evil characters. Also, if they're playing Paladins or similar characters, this can be a recipe for disaster.

Renegade Paladin

2013-06-15, 10:59 AM

Have a paladin come along to smite him. :smalltongue:

Waker

2013-06-15, 11:10 AM

Try and find out exactly what his flavor of evil is going to be. Whether that be the steal everything not nailed down, dealing with enemies using extreme prejudice or if he is somehow responsible for all the reality tv shows. If you can come up with an idea of how he's going to behave you can plan accordingly for the adventures.
If his plan is to murder everything that moves, you should probably introduce him to Diablo. However if he is willing to actual come up with something beyond a 2D character who doesn't "do evul for the lulz", you should be able to come up with a good (bad) character. What would motivate such a character to travel with a good or neutral party? Enemy of my enemy? A debt to be repaid? These guys are my cover story?
Regardless, let it be known that there are consequences for his actions. When something valuable turns up missing or someone winds up dead, there is going to be an investigation of some kind. And if the party frequents the place where the crime occurs, they may fall under suspicion. Don't go full Orwell, but make guards/investigators somewhat competent. Avoid classes like straight Fighter, rather consider Urban Barbarians and Rangers or Scouts, there may be Diviners, Clerics devoted to Lawful deities.

Ashtagon

2013-06-15, 11:10 AM

"You can play evil if you want, but don't be too surprised if everyone kills your character for it. Including NPCs that find out about it. Evil monsters generally stay alive because they stay well away of towns. Are you planning on the same?"

Talya

2013-06-15, 11:11 AM

he is somehow responsible for all the reality tv shows.

I've run evil campaigns before, and tolerate quite a bit of nastiness from my players, even things not to be mentioned in polite company. But this... there has to be a line somewhere, man. This is unacceptable.

Taet

2013-06-15, 11:15 AM

Yes. That is on the evil end of the Documentary - Infotainment - Reality Show alignment axis.

Waker

2013-06-15, 11:19 AM

I've run evil campaigns before, and tolerate quite a bit of nastiness from my players, even things not to be mentioned in polite company. But this... there has to be a line somewhere, man. This is unacceptable.

Different grades of evil. Sometimes you want to play a character who sacrifices children to traffic with evil beings from hell and other times you just want to play something really sick.

Callin

2013-06-15, 11:22 AM

Last time he played evil, it was a game where all pcs were evil. He spent one night ruobbing every house he could. Just to make as much money as possible. I would love to avoid that if at all possible.

Where is the problem with this? You dont want him to go around a town and steal everything he can, make consequences. Let him do it, then when he trys to sell the stuff in town arrest him and cut off a hand :smallbiggrin: . Im sure the behavior will stop after that.

But honestly theft isnt that big of a ping on the evil scale to me. Neutral characters steal. Hell in DnD GOOD characters kill things for their possessions. So thats why I am wondering why this would be an issue for you?

Roguenewb

2013-06-15, 11:37 AM

There are three kinds of evil characters I find players want to play. I'll give advice sorted from most common to least common:

1.) PreReq Evil: Some cool class or feat has an evil prereq because some designer somewhere had an overly small view of the flavor for it. The Ur-Example for 3.5 would be Assassin. Players love the class and can see all different kinds of non-evil justifications, but in the end have to be evil because the class says so. Some player rights down LE on a character sheet than plays the whole campaign LN or hell, LG because that's what the character actually is. I had a guy I was sure was a CG rogue type (months into the campaign so I'd forgotten my screening) until I hit them with a Blasphemy and he didn't take any damage...all so he could qualify for Assassin with its awesome abilities and bit of spells. The designers were nice enough to eventually give us the Avenger, and thats what you should do too. Almost every prereq evil thing in the game can have its flavor tweaked and allow a non-evil character.

2.) Wish Fulfillment for the Evulz: This is what most DMs are afraid of. The player just wants to run around killing, stealing or betraying whatever they want while their friends can't say no because "it's what my character would do!". This is usually a griefer playstyle or one where the player is in the wrong game. Generally, you just have to ban this. There is no normal, story-driven campaign where this even vaguely works. If they insist, make it so hard to succeed that they lose the rush of power "look at me go!" feeling they were looking for, they'll move on in time then.

3.) Actually Wanna be Evil: These are both the rarest and the easiest to allow. Character concepts who are actually evil, but in a real way. They are selfish, greedy, or hateful (easiest ways to be evil, but not all the ways) characters who have major flaws, but are still fundamentally real people. Likely to be Anti-Heroes if they were in a book or a movie. A wizard who is willing to do anything to learn new spells, including killing occasionally or trafficking with demons. A fighter who loves a good fight, so much so that he'll fight and kill an excellent warrior who doesn't deserve it, just for a challenge. A rogue who struggles with not stealing all the coin when the party sleeps because he wants it so badly. A half-elf who wants revenge on the humans and elves who spurned him, no matter who falls under his blade. A bard who loves nothing more than when people love and worship him, whether they want to or not. All these are evil characters who can still be Anti-Heroes or at least Heroic Villians. They can all fit in a party, and still be evil. However, Steve the murderous rampage barbarian is not.

The difference between players 2 and 3 is usually that a type-2 player will tell you what they wanna do, "I wanna burn down whole villiages!", and type-3 players will tell you why they wanna do something "I wanna play a character who can't stand even the slightest shred of disrespect and will respond disproportionately".

Hope this helps, good luck!

Talya

2013-06-15, 11:45 AM

2.) Wish Fulfillment for the Evulz: This is what most DMs are afraid of. The player just wants to run around killing, stealing or betraying whatever they want while their friends can't say no because "it's what my character would do!". This is usually a griefer playstyle or one where the player is in the wrong game. Generally, you just have to ban this. There is no normal, story-driven campaign where this even vaguely works.

Richard would disagree with you!

(But he's an arse.)

Harlot

2013-06-15, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Styx

The problem with having evil characters in a generally good party is that the other PCs, if they find out that he is evil (and its not that hard even if they are trying to hide it), have to justify to themselves why they aren't killing the evil character, which at best is a bit jarring.

True. I just finished a game with one of the PC's being a vampire and thus evil, and however hard he tried to be discreet about it, we eventually saw through it, and due to our alignments had to kill him.
So: How about persuading him not to be evil per se, but rather just selfish and shallow, not caring for other people - a true psychopath basically.
Thus he wouldn't do openly evil acts like raping, eating babies or selling his teammates souls because that would call unwanted attention to himself from autorities etc. But he wouldn't risk his life to save innocent lives and would always demand some sort of payment for his favors. He would be in the group because it serves his purpose (obtaining wealth, influence and power) and they wouldn't need to kill him or even kick him out as long as he kept out of trouble and helped them obtain their goals.
As a true psycho he could be quite likeable. I'm thinking a character with rather high charisma, able to persuade others to ignore his flaws and make them see reason in his selfish acts. And maybe low on willpower, making it hard for him to always disguise the fact that he is really vile.

Rhynn

2013-06-15, 02:02 PM

All in all, alignment in games I run doesn't matter to me, but I don't want to have him running around doing what ever he wants, just because he's evil. Any thoughts?

Why would he be able to do anything he wants? Evil people are constrained by their surroundings. An evil person has to avoid being caught and punished, or even being thought evil and ostracized.

You have to make it clear to the player and the other players that their characters can kick someone out of the party who they cease to trust - for instance, because they keep trying to backstab the other party members, keep stealing from them, keep running away in combat, or just generally aren't worth the trouble of keeping around. Edit: Also, to be clear, "kicked out" means "the character is put away and you make a new one that fits in this time," not "split the party - permanently!"

Then, you have to make sure the world actually reacts appropriately. For most of the career of your average D&D adventurer, the law in any place that matters (big cities, etc.) can actually squash them. So make sure they do. The authorities have probably got more powerful wizards and clerics available than the PCs, too.

If your world doesn't react appropriately, and actions don't have consequences, it detracts from the whole gaming exprience, whether there are evil PCs or not.

ArcturusV

2013-06-15, 03:33 PM

Well, if his behavior profile is that he just wants to steal a lot, and get all the Gold a city has, nailed down or not... you should point out to him that it really isn't "evil" necessarily. It needs a step further than that to be "evil'. Like if while plundering a house you go and slit everyone's throats just because you could, not because they had detected you.

But my advice, a little different than the rest apparently, is quite simply just accommodate the guy. If he wants to be a thief say "Hey... we can't make EVERY session about you and what you want... but every now and then there's going to be thievery to do."

If it doesn't fit into your carefully crafted plot, just make them one off side sessions. A good campaign can use those pacing breaks anyway. And make the theft more than "I pick locks skill take 20. I move silently. I search for valuables. I move silently. I'm done". Get creative, make it a real heist worthy of his skills, and perhaps needing the help of his teammates. he's a freakin' adventurer, he's "beyond" petty pickpocket of drunks and stealing dishes from little old ladies. He should be doing something with more balls, like stealing rare silks from merchant caravans, stealing the Special MacGuffin Sword from the Throne Room of the palace, etc.

Rubik

2013-06-15, 03:47 PM

I made a LE goblin that fit into a party of Good-aligned characters rather well. He had a vile temper and enjoyed humiliating and tormenting others before he killed them (lording his mental superiority over them all the while), but he didn't want to hide in the shadows or be hunted down by the authorities or his enemies.

So what did he do? He joined an adventuring group and pointed them at his targets like a tactical nuclear missile. He tended to make enemies of powerful Evil people because his ego clashed with theirs quite a lot, so it didn't take much to convince the party that it was the right thing to do. He used the frequent fights to vent his rage at the world and even risked himself for his newfound friends on occasion because he knew they risked themselves on his behalf quite a bit more, and giving to others is the best way to get in return (albeit only if it's the right kind of "others").

He even managed to join the BBEG's side and still remained loyal to his party, since she was convinced he'd turned traitor on them when she threatened him and forced him into the role of mole. What she didn't realize was that he was playing both sides off each other for his own personal gain the whole time. Granted, he liked his friends more so they came out ahead more often than not, but he orchestrated situations where it appeared to the BBEG as though he was working against them for her benefit.

The other players (and their characters) found him invaluable, though occasionally a bit trying. Still, even when he managed to collect all the Artifacts of Ultimate Power and slaughtered the BBEG by himself (not using the Artifacts, BTW -- spellcasters FTW), he still attempted to keep in their good graces, as they'd grown on him by that point.

That was a fun campaign.

[edit] Basically, the moral of the story is that if he can play an evil character that has goals and motivations, and can act in a way that's beneficial, helpful, and useful to the party, without dragging them down the MUAHAHAHAHAHA path of EEEEEVIL, then you probably ought to consider letting him play evil.

Rhynn

2013-06-15, 03:50 PM

ArcturusV

2013-06-15, 03:57 PM

Yeah. Who knows where that line would fall. I figure "Kill them because I can" levels, clearly evil. "Kill them because they detected me, might report me, have the town guards clap me in irons and cut off my hands", less "evil" and more neutral.

Zerter

2013-06-15, 04:07 PM

True. I just finished a game with one of the PC's being a vampire and thus evil, and however hard he tried to be discreet about it, we eventually saw through it, and due to our alignments had to kill him.

Your alignment in no way justifies killing someone just because they happen to be evil. It is in fact an evil act, meaning that it would lead to suicide.

Also evil PCs can work fine in a good party if the PCs are played well. Good examples in the Order of The Stick would be Tarquin, Redcloak and Malack. All of which could function in good aligned parties.

RogueDM

2013-06-15, 04:11 PM

You know, I was just thinking, if the party is on a "good" quest and he's stealing all of the money in the city which will ultimately be spent on killing badguys and accomplishing their goals... It's unlawful but furthering the agenda of Good. CG if you may. If he's intent on doing anything proper evil you have the option of having the guards chase him. Even if they don't capture him it will bring down a lot of trouble on the rest of the party, which may serve to keep him in line.

Order of the Stick #606 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)

Once had a quasi-evil campaign, most of them were more CN, but evil flavored. The various flavors and degrees of evil were interesting to watch interact. One PC was particularly crude and villainous and the Drow Cleric just opted not to heal him, and the whole party left him dead (though opted to spent most of their loot reviving a helpful NPC!)

Richard is an interesting example, he's a liability to the party (immolating people seemingly at random) but makes up for it with vital fire support. So, evil amongst good had best prove that its worth keeping about or the good party members may decide that sleeping in the same camp as a thief is not worth his contributions and dispense a little justice of their own.

Cheiromancer

2013-06-15, 06:34 PM

You have to make it clear to the player and the other players that their characters can kick someone out of the party who they cease to trust - for instance, because they keep trying to backstab the other party members, keep stealing from them, keep running away in combat, or just generally aren't worth the trouble of keeping around. Edit: Also, to be clear, "kicked out" means "the character is put away and you make a new one that fits in this time," not "split the party - permanently!"

Excellent advice.

Then, you have to make sure the world actually reacts appropriately. For most of the career of your average D&D adventurer, the law in any place that matters (big cities, etc.) can actually squash them. So make sure they do. The authorities have probably got more powerful wizards and clerics available than the PCs, too.

This I am a little nervous about. It is very easy for a player to feel he is being treated unfairly by the DM, and this can lead to a lot of problems. A social contract with the other players is, imho, more likely to be effective.

Psyren

2013-06-15, 06:47 PM

"I'm not comfortable with that. For now, players can only be Neutral or better."

Done.

winter92

2013-06-15, 09:05 PM

My DM has handled this by strongly discouraging Chaotic Evil play and requiring a code or objective list from all evil players. Are you Lawful Evil because you serve a dark god faithfully? Fine, just make sure that your objectives largely align with the party's. There's even room for disputes like "kill the prisoner/don't kill the prisoner", just make sure that his character's life plan can align with your party.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-06-15, 09:09 PM

Does he want to be Jayne evil, Belkar evil, Joker evil, or stereotypical D&D thief but with even more sociopathy?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-16, 02:13 AM

A friend of mine wishes to join a game I'm running. He has played on games I've ran before, and prefers evil charachters. He defends his stance saying that evil people would still be adventurers, but for self serving reasons. All in all, alignment in games I run doesn't matter to me, but I don't want to have him running around doing what ever he wants, just because he's evil. Any thoughts?
Note: I would prefer not to have a mark of justice involved

Just a thought, but have you considered scrapping alignment altogether? It's not tied into the system all that tightly so it's extraction from the system is pretty simple and usually pretty painless.

In a nut-shell; everything that relates to alignment mechanically is only directly useful against the outsiders with alignment subtypes. Done.

On-topic;

As others have mentioned you always have the options of either simply saying "no," or saying "yes" with a caveat.

An important detail to remember about the alignment system is that alignment follows action, actions do not follow alignment. That is, who the character is and what he does determines what alignment the universe labels him with. His alignment has -no- influence on his, or anyone else's, behavior.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-16, 02:32 AM

Lawful evil with a goal of power or wealth is absurdly easy to fit into parties. Especially if the lawful evil is a spellcaster. I summon demons and angels and bend them to my will. I raise undead and when I don't need them just let them go. If someone is causing me or the party strife and we don't need them, off comes their head. You basically get a normal party member who doesn't think his actions are anything other than what they are. Most PCs are already murderhobos anyway.

Wings of Peace

2013-06-16, 06:09 AM

To be totally honest this sounds like you being paranoid more than your friend being a likely campaign ruiner. If the only examples of him going on massive crime sprees are from when he was in an all evil party then it's possible he just made the logical conclusion that nobody would try to stop him so his character would have no reason to play nice with the locals.

He's right that evil characters can adventure for self serving reasons, it's part of why I like DMing for them so much. Evil characters are easy to motivate because they're more likely to do what you want them to as long as they stand to make a profit. Worst case scenario he might commit some crimes when nobody is looking but honestly that doesn't seem so terrible as long as he's not slitting party member's throats in their sleep.

Harlot

2013-06-16, 01:43 PM

Zerter:

Your alignment in no way justifies killing someone just because they happen to be evil. It is in fact an evil act, meaning that it would lead to suicide.

True: Actually, what happened was that due to his alignment he eventually teamed up with BBEG, and tried to kill the rest of us, and THAT is when we killed him.
My point was that keeping the peace in the group may be a challenge if the evil PC in a group of good PC's is not very careful - or is just overtly evil.

But I agree with people in here saying that it is doable, but depends on the kind of evil he wants to be.

Raven777

2013-06-16, 01:56 PM

True. I just finished a game with one of the PC's being a vampire and thus evil, and however hard he tried to be discreet about it, we eventually saw through it, and due to our alignments had to kill him.

You killed a fellow party member. You monster.

EDIT :

True: Actually, what happened was that due to his alignment he eventually teamed up with BBEG, and tried to kill the rest of us, and THAT is when we killed him.
My point was that keeping the peace in the group may be a challenge if the evil PC in a group of good PC's is not very careful - or is just overtly evil.

But I agree with people in here saying that it is doable, but depends on the kind of evil he wants to be.

Fair enough. I cannot wrap my mind around why someone would interfere with their own party. Does it ever end well for them?

Phippster

2013-06-16, 01:59 PM

So: How about persuading him not to be evil per se, but rather just selfish and shallow, not caring for other people - a true psychopath basically.

As a true psycho he could be quite likeable. I'm thinking a character with rather high charisma, able to persuade others to ignore his flaws and make them see reason in his selfish acts. And maybe low on willpower, making it hard for him to always disguise the fact that he is really vile.

I don't really see where you get the idea that people who are psychopaths are in anyway likable, other than perhaps watching shows like Dexter. Psychopaths are characterized by anti-social behavior, an inability to feel remorse, and a diminished ability to control their own behavioral urges, which add up to a person which people tend to avoid or even be openly hostile towards. Psychopaths are the kind of people who commonly end up in prison for crimes like rape or murder, and as such are not widely considered charismatic or in any way likable.

Evil characters in a good party is not an awful idea, unless you've got a Paladin that is (for some ungodly reason) using his vanilla Code of Conduct instead of working with you to create as the DM to create one. Evil characters in a party can be memorable for being willing to do things other party members aren't (or at least in most cases shouldn't be). While the rest of the characters may agonize over how to save hostages or solve something with the least amount of casualties, Evil character care less about other people or collateral damage and are willing to do things Good characters aren't simply because they have looser morals.

Such characters can actually be a lot of fun, and are often times rather memorable in the party, unless you have a problem with party expectations where he's playing something that makes the game seem darker and grittier while the rest of the PCs just want to be Big Damn Heroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes). Your biggest concern is making sure all party members are aware that there is a line, and that no one is supposed to cross it. It's up to you and your players to find wherever that line might actually fall.

Harlot

2013-06-16, 03:00 PM

I don't really see where you get the idea that people who are psychopaths are in anyway likable, other than perhaps watching shows like Dexter. Psychopaths are characterized by anti-social behavior, an inability to feel remorse, and a diminished ability to control their own behavioral urges, which add up to a person which people tend to avoid or even be openly hostile towards. Psychopaths are the kind of people who commonly end up in prison for crimes like rape or murder, and as such are not widely considered charismatic or in any way likable.

Erm ... NO! Sorry to go scientific in a fantasy forum, but a very common characteristic of psychos is exactly the charm (think of Ted Bundy luring his victims in, gangleaders influencing their crew etc. ) You can read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Cleckley_checklist) - absolutely optional - or just google psycopaths + charm ...

And I wrote could be quite likeable, not should: being a charming psycho is just a variant of evil - and IMO more interesting than just being straight up evil in the 'I eat babies' kind of way + less offensive to the group overall, creating less friction.

Doesn't mean it's the only way to do it!

Tragak

2013-06-16, 03:09 PM

Erm ... NO! Sorry to go scientific in a fantasy forum, but a very common characteristic of psychos is exactly the charm (think of Ted Bundy luring his victims in, gangleaders influencing their crew etc. ) You can read more here (http://http://aftermath-surviving-psychopathy.org/index.php/2011/02/24/this-charming-psychopath-how-to-spot-social-predators-before-they-attack/) - absolutely optional - or just google psycopaths + charm ...

And I wrote could be quite likeable, not should: being a charming psycho is just a variant of evil - and IMO more interesting than just being straight up evil in the 'I eat babies' kind of way + less offensive to the group overall, creating less friction.

Doesn't mean it's the only way to do it! Plus, there is also sociopathy as an idea: those who weren't "born bad" like psychopaths (who biologically don't process emotions like guilt, shame, sadness, or remorse), but rather grew up in an antisocial environment and learned to survive by becoming just as bad as those around them instead of by leaving or becoming better.

Of course, a villain could also be both (if you take an already manipulative, narcissistic, predatory individual and raise him in a dog-eat-dog environment, you will, not could, have a problem), but from a PC perspective, a sociopathic villain protagonist sounds more doable than a psychopath, as things like loyalty are still important.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-06-16, 03:12 PM

Plus, there is also sociopathy as an idea: those who weren't "born bad" like psychopaths (who biologically don't process emotions like guilt, shame, sadness, or remorse), but rather grew up in an antisocial environment and learned to survive by becoming just as bad as those around them instead of by leaving or becoming better.

I thought sociopaths were born without the ability to feel remorse, but they didn't have the extreme desires to give into their base anger and such.

Tvtyrant

2013-06-16, 03:16 PM

I tend to play evil-tending characters. The big trick to doing it without disrupting the game is to play like you are neutral with a touch of vicious vendetta. Paz for instance is more interested in gold than anything else, and only ever acts evil when someone (other than the party) is thwarting his gold lust.

For instance he burned down an abandoned temple of Moradin to punish said god for sending a living statue after him, but otherwise he would have simply looted it like any other abandoned locale.

Tragak

2013-06-16, 03:16 PM

I thought sociopaths were born without the ability to feel remorse Nope, that's psychopaths.

Psycho- mind
Socio- environment
-path bad

Cheiromancer

2013-06-16, 03:45 PM

Nope, that's psychopaths.

Psycho- mind
Socio- environment
-path bad

Thanks for the mnemonic. I was never able to keep it straight which was which.

DMVerdandi

2013-06-16, 04:53 PM

Just coach him on what it means to be evil.

1. Being evil does NOT mean acting on it. Alignments are the temperment of spirit/mind. Acting on it is not in the best interests of anyone, and logical people act on their best interests.

2.The PHB has written the alignments in a silly and non-realistic fashion. People who do evil things are evil, and people who do good things are good. What about when you do good things for evils sake, and evil things for goodness sake?

3. Here is a practical and logical explanation for the evil alignments.

A: Lawful Evil.
"You respect the laws. The rules are something that you can live by. And by god, the rest of these people surely need em. People are disgusting. Sure there are some that are likable, but if you take the leash off of society, they turn into dogs. The people who don't follow the rules??? Trash. throw em in prison man, because they are the reason society can't be in peace. You don't like to start trouble, but if trouble comes. No Mercy. None...
Your sense of righteousness is obeying the law and creating order and peace...Even if it takes horrible actions for that to happen. You are extremely dogmatic."

Neutral Evil
"You care more about your own safety and security than anything else. It's all about taking care of business. If people don't screw you over, you won't screw them over...Unless you really need something. The rules are more like guidelines. Sometimes they are helpful, but when they aren't, sometimes you have to do what you have to do. It's really all about survival of the fittest out there, and being Neutral evil means that you aren't really that good, that lawful, that chaotic, but something inside you just makes you want to better your lot in life by any means necessary. You are an egotist. Your sense of righteousness is in doing what is best for you and yours."

Chaotic evil
" The law just gets in the way. It is an annoying opponent. Sometimes you just gotta listen to it though. It would be better if the law was suited to you, and maybe you might even try to gain some sort of political position in life, just so it doesn't effect you and so that you can make the rules. Sometimes you are an anarchist who cares nothing for the law, and other times you are a mastermind, with no respect for the law except as a weapon for your own personal benefit. You aren't above passing out bribes, setting people up, or lying under oath. Being chaotic evil is not about maniac behavior, or wanton violence. It is about not having any respect for societies restrictions on you as an individual.
It is useful only for getting what you want.

ArcturusV

2013-06-16, 05:02 PM

Though I think WotC in all their infinite 'wisdumb' tried to define Psychopaths as "Someone who gets their rocks off from killing people". Not that I necessarily agree with that, though there's probably a certain level of understanding where people believe that to mostly be the case, or use the word like that regardless.

Course, I remember once really delving into what generally the books define as "Good" and "Evil". I was thinking that generally speaking it'd be really, really easy to have "Good" villains and "Evil" heroes in a setting. In fact it's probably something that if I was more into philosophy I could point out as a natural state of things.

I mean the "Good" is generally defined as stuff for the collective, for the group. "Evil" is typically defined as greed and self interest above others (When they're not defining it as Evil for the sake of Evil), while Neutral walks the line between caring for the collective and caring for itself.

So most tyrants would, if their motivations were thus, be Lawful Good (I rule with an iron fist because others cannot take care of themselves, I provide my wise leadership for the good of all, not for personal gain but because I'm a True Believer in my way). If not for their example actually saying "Lawful Evil is the Tyrant", but just looking at the guidelines, that would fit. Where as the rogue who travels the land looking for a quick buck, no job too small, too dirty, or beneath him in any way, would be Chaotic Evil. Even as he takes down the Tyrant in the course of his travels. He could clearly be the Hero, but totally fit Chaotic Evil.

JaronK

2013-06-16, 05:15 PM

Just make sure he's playing evil, not stupid evil.

Stupid evil is robbing every house in the village (which should result in reprocussions).

Evil is using the savage species ritual to make yourself count as a demon for purposes of magic, getting a spell stitched undead minion with Extract Gift, and offering payment to various people in the form of permanent Extract Gift buffs without telling them that you can now see out their eyes and hear out their ears and dominate them when you want.

Stupid evil is murdering everyone you think you can murder (again, reprocussions).

Evil is murdering the high king and replacing him with a Simulacrum of himself that you control, without anyone knowing.

Stupid evil joins with the BBEG just because he gets to murder people.

Evil feigns joining the BBEG, stabs him in the back, publicly saves the day, and gets all the glory and recognition for saving the world... all the while taking over the BBEG's operation and focusing it towards his own ends.

Stupid evil is boring. Evil is awesome.

JaronK

Phippster

2013-06-16, 05:57 PM

Erm ... NO! Sorry to go scientific in a fantasy forum, but a very common characteristic of psychos is exactly the charm (think of Ted Bundy luring his victims in, gangleaders influencing their crew etc. ) You can read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Cleckley_checklist) - absolutely optional - or just google psycopaths + charm ...

And I wrote could be quite likeable, not should: being a charming psycho is just a variant of evil - and IMO more interesting than just being straight up evil in the 'I eat babies' kind of way + less offensive to the group overall, creating less friction.

Doesn't mean it's the only way to do it!

You'll also notice that the same page notes that psychopathy has no defined diagnosis, and in fact has been replaced by anti-social personality disorder in the DSM in regards to diagnoses. Regardless, you do have a point that a lot of known psychopaths tend to charm their victims, but it's also usually a superficial charm, as Cleckley noted. However, I think the big disparity is that I meant they don't have an "actual" charming personality, its something that they formulate through examining others. A better fit for a psychopath's personality would probably be skill ranks as opposed to a high Charisma score. While I'd love to continue this conversation, it really isn't on-topic and I'd dislike getting too far off the topic of the thread.

7thW1ckedness

2013-06-17, 01:13 AM

A friend of mine wishes to join a game I'm running. He has played on games I've ran before, and prefers evil charachters. He defends his stance saying that evil people would still be adventurers, but for self serving reasons. All in all, alignment in games I run doesn't matter to me, but I don't want to have him running around doing what ever he wants, just because he's evil. Any thoughts?
Note: I would prefer not to have a mark of justice involved

Well, seeing as you have some experience with the aforementioned player, does he tend to play the evil characters in a "respectable" way that allows the character to work with the rest of the party even as an "evil" person? Or does he play the alignment as "stupid evil" and habitually use it as an excuse to run the character as a complete detriment to the party and the world at large?

Personally as a DM I enjoy when a player runs a proper evil character in a party of mostly good (or even neutral) PCs, It can add some great contrast to the group. But I'm also quick to veto stupid evil concepts/characters from certain players that tend to run them as a detriment to everything else.

I'd say at worst demand a decent character background and detailed concept beyond "I R ev1L ----Lulz!!!!!111eleventyoneoneone!!!" before aproving anything.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-17, 01:51 AM

I tend to think that people drastically underplay just how extreme you have to be to qualify as anything but true neutral as a human.

Good isn't just "I'm generally a nice person", it's "two steps down from being an Exalted Saint".

Evil isn't just "I kill people whenever it serves my interests to do so", it's "I'm a Devil/demon in human form.".

Lawful isn't "I tend to keep my word most of the time", it's "I will burn a kingdom to the ground before I break an oath".

Chaotic isn't "I have a different kind of ice cream every day for dessert", it's "I'm as apt to chase a butterfly as I am to actually complete the quest I took five minutes ago."

So if you are Chaotic Evil then you are basically playing the Joker, if you are Lawful Good then you are basically playing Superman in terms of morality and thought processes.

Batman though, he's true neutral; just like the vast, vast, majority of the population. This isn't because they espouse neutrality as a life philosophy, its just because they lack any real conviction for any of the other possible alignments.

SiuiS

2013-06-17, 01:56 AM

I tend to think that people drastically underplay just how extreme you have to be to qualify as anything but true neutral as a human.

That's subjective. It should probably be addressed at the start of each game.
There's benefit to a DM being able to change the degrees necessary to fit his current story or world.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 02:03 AM

One thing I forgot to say in my previous response;

If the player in question (or anyone else) ever say's "it's what my character would do" or "because I'm [alignment]" as a reason for an action, slap the taste out of their mouth. Saying those things is nothing but an excuse, and a flimsy one at that, for being an asshat.

The player controls the character. He makes every decision for that character. If you're the player using the excuse; even if you genuinely think it's what the character would do, find a way to rationalize some other course of action; and alignment is the result of actions and attitude, not their cause.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-17, 02:07 AM

That's subjective. It should probably be addressed at the start of each game.
There's benefit to a DM being able to change the degrees necessary to fit his current story or world.

Sure but "Good" and "Evil" to the degree that it is supernaturally relevant is far more extreme that what a lot of people seem to play.

Are you a serial killing rapist? No, then odds are that you aren't even close to rating the "Evil" tag. Well unless you are Bernie Madoff or something similar.

JaronK

2013-06-17, 02:55 AM

I tend to think that people drastically underplay just how extreme you have to be to qualify as anything but true neutral as a human.

Actually, by RAW just doing a few evil acts now and again can turn you evil. Cast Deathwatch too much and you could count as evil. Evil doesn't mean "Muhahahahaha I'm EVIL!".

JaronK

NichG

2013-06-17, 03:26 AM

The alignment itself isn't really a problem. Its behavior patterns that are disruptive to the game. So I don't think the thing to do is 'make in-character consequences' for disruptive behavior because you end up basically amplifying its effects, making the game more and more about the disruptive behavior and less about other things. In essence you're rewarding the disruptive behavior with more spotlight time.

The thing to do is to make clear that there is an OOC code of conduct for the game, and whenever IC motivations come in conflict with that code the player has two options: Choose to do something else, or have their character NPC out and play a new character. Once you've made this clear, if they still want to play an evil character, then as long as they (and everyone else) follow the OOC code of conduct it should be fine.

I'd suggest for most campaigns something like the following:

1. No PvP either explicit or implicit. Your character will in general not do things to intentionally harm the party or piss off other players.
2. Don't try to break the game. This is both 'no Pun-Puns' as well as 'no robbing all the magic shops to get 100x WBL'.
3. Everyone gets a roughly equal share of spotlight time, and if necessary the DM will gloss over sequences involving your character if you exceed this too much (e.g. if you try to spend an entire game stealing from store after store, you have a choice between the DM just narrating the result without any rolls or choices on your part, or stopping after one store and letting someone else do something).someone else.
4. Don't do things that make other players/DM uncomfortable OOC; if need be, ask OOC first on things that could be questionable.

tadkins

2013-06-17, 06:22 AM

Belkar seems to be doing fine in the comic. Play off that kind of evil. :)

Talya

2013-06-17, 06:58 AM

Actually, by RAW just doing a few evil acts now and again can turn you evil. Cast Deathwatch too much and you could count as evil. Evil doesn't mean "Muhahahahaha I'm EVIL!".

JaronK

And this makes sense. (Well, not sure on Deathwatch, but the principle makes sense.)

A man who loves his family, donates to charity, is a pillar of the community, and respects the law... but secretly once a year kidnap a young woman, does horrible things to her, and then ritually sacrifices her to his god, is Evil with a capital E.

That glass may be 90% pure springwater, and only 10% arsenic. Drink it and see how good it is.

Evil is also a poison.

Emperor Tippy

2013-06-17, 12:34 PM

Actually, by RAW just doing a few evil acts now and again can turn you evil. Cast Deathwatch too much and you could count as evil. Evil doesn't mean "Muhahahahaha I'm EVIL!".

JaronK

Except for the other RAW that says most everyone is neutral and that Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is a big time thing that is only generally reached by PC adventurers and similar mortals.

Even WotC can't decide what they want alignment to mean.

Mithril Leaf

2013-06-17, 12:44 PM

That glass may be 90% pure springwater, and only 10% arsenic. Drink it and see how good it is.

Evil is also a poison.

Side note:
Using Ravages is a good act. For reasons not fully understood by scholars, poisoning people with a poison called a ravage causes you to exemplify love and tolerance.

Shining Wrath

2013-06-17, 01:27 PM

What sort of evil?

Have him describe why his character is evil. A fascination with dark knowledge, a desire to have wealth, ?

Then talk through the implications for his character. If he's greedy, he's GOT to try to screw the rest of the party out of money if he can get away with it. If he's fascinated by dark knowledge, he's GOT to vote to explore the abandoned ruins of the temple of the demon cult when common sense might suggest not doing so.

Evil should not just be a note on the PC's character sheet. He's not just generically evil, he's evil in one or more particular ways. Then make him play that even when it is sub-optimal.

Tragak

2013-06-17, 01:31 PM

If he's greedy, he's GOT to try to screw the rest of the party out of money if he can get away with it. If he's fascinated by dark knowledge, he's GOT to vote to explore the abandoned ruins of the temple of the demon cult when common sense might suggest not doing so.

Evil should not just be a note on the PC's character sheet. He's not just generically evil, he's evil in one or more particular ways. Then make him play that even when it is sub-optimal. No, that's not it. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

hamishspence

2013-06-17, 01:35 PM

Except for the other RAW that says most everyone is neutral and that Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is a big time thing that is only generally reached by PC adventurers and similar mortals.

Where's that? The PHB itself states "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral". The DMG, when randomly generating human NPCs, doesn't have 90-odd percent be Neutral. Nor does it have the vast majority of town "power centers" be Neutral. Same applies to Cityscape, which doesn't have the vast majority of "population general alignments" be Neutral.

Shining Wrath

2013-06-17, 01:35 PM

No, that's not it. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

Not sure what the Giant said different than I did. I say each evil character is evil in their own way, but that evil has to make in-game choices. You can't say "I'm the greediest person alive" but NEVER act greedy in game.

Some exceptions, yes, for good reasons. But if every decision is an exception then you aren't really evil, and your DM is within his rights to decree an alignment shift.

7thW1ckedness

2013-06-17, 01:44 PM

The player controls the character. He makes every decision for that character. If you're the player using the excuse; even if you genuinely think it's what the character would do, find a way to rationalise some other course of action; and alignment is the result of actions and attitude, not their cause.

Very true. Especially when it comes to Evil characters. Sometimes its the methods not the intention behind the action that is really the evil component.

As example, in one campaign I was playing a NE noble/warlock half-fiend tricked out to be a masterminding socialite, high on charisma and intelligence, The party had been tasked to adjudicate a dispute between two factions (led by a pair of brothers) over rights of succession. (old lord about to die of old age, who's the new lord?) Anyway, the two factions were both a significant contribution to the royal army and weren't doing too terribly much to protect the realm due to their infighting. both leader had a pretty good claim to the positions, and the party wasn't able to get either side to budge or find a loophole to support or disqualify one or the other, things were getting pretty close to open war . . . . . .

So I killed the one leaders young son in his sleep with a poison spell, left a few stab wounds on him, and framed up a travelling elf as an assassin working on behalf of the Elven nation . . . . at least thats what the bloody dagger, vials of poison and "official" documents that we're found on him indicated anyway.

For the record I also apparently throw a great funeral, and never forget that the skill Performance(public address) is a winner.

As a result, both factions went to kick the teeth in of said elvish nation, or at least an outpost of theirs.

Now half of the party stumbled onto my "evil" mechanics after the fact and asked at length WHY I would do such a thing, and why they shouldn't just hand me over to the law and what not:

"The two are now united in purpose against a common enemy rather than divided with infighting, as you can see that have chose a suitable leader in their time of grief and are once again mobilised to defend the kingdom as is their duty, our peace is preserved, and a short war with the elves will bring the province a measure of much needed prosperity. I think that is indeed worth the life of one boy.

And besides, which one would believe you after all I have done for them in their time of need? And what would you accomplish by undoing my works?"

Did they like it? nope. Did they accept it? yup. Did I cause some alignment shifts? You betcha I did.
Did we finish the quest and get what was needed done? damn rights. Was it at a high moral cost? for sure.

hamishspence

2013-06-17, 01:48 PM

Reminds me very much of Garak in the Deep Space Nine episode In The Pale Moonlight.

Tragak

2013-06-17, 01:50 PM

Brilliant description of a true Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard) Is it still a spoiler at this point to call that strategy "the Ozymandias?"

Rubik

2013-06-17, 02:01 PM

As example, in one campaign I was playing a NE noble/warlock half-fiend tricked out to be a masterminding socialite, high on charisma and intelligenceYou rang, dahling? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjCrrhn1SR4m-EecSQY3mRgmVrxEA9cH2saIdPDex9IkOZxL7q

Raven777

2013-06-17, 02:34 PM

- Snip -

You just won the thread.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 03:36 PM

Side note:
Using Ravages is a good act. For reasons not fully understood by scholars, poisoning people with a poison called a ravage causes you to exemplify love and tolerance.Where are you getting that? The use of ravages isn't evil but it's certainly not good either. It's turning a creature's own evil against it in a way to incapacitate it. The moral weight of its use is determined by how you use it just like most other weapons.

Where's that? The PHB itself states "Humans tend toward no alignment, not even neutral". The DMG, when randomly generating human NPCs, doesn't have 90-odd percent be Neutral. Nor does it have the vast majority of town "power centers" be Neutral. Same applies to Cityscape, which doesn't have the vast majority of "population general alignments" be Neutral.

This was also my understanding. I honestly don't know where people are getting this 90% neutral idea.

137beth

2013-06-17, 05:16 PM

This was also my understanding. I honestly don't know where people are getting this 90% neutral idea.
IIRC the 4e PHB said something about how "most" people were neutral. It's been awhile since I looked at it, though, but I don't remember any specific number.

Shining Wrath

2013-06-17, 05:24 PM

True. I just finished a game with one of the PC's being a vampire and thus evil, and however hard he tried to be discreet about it, we eventually saw through it, and due to our alignments had to kill him.
So: How about persuading him not to be evil per se, but rather just selfish and shallow, not caring for other people - a true psychopath basically.
Thus he wouldn't do openly evil acts like raping, eating babies or selling his teammates souls because that would call unwanted attention to himself from autorities etc. But he wouldn't risk his life to save innocent lives and would always demand some sort of payment for his favors. He would be in the group because it serves his purpose (obtaining wealth, influence and power) and they wouldn't need to kill him or even kick him out as long as he kept out of trouble and helped them obtain their goals.
As a true psycho he could be quite likeable. I'm thinking a character with rather high charisma, able to persuade others to ignore his flaws and make them see reason in his selfish acts. And maybe low on willpower, making it hard for him to always disguise the fact that he is really vile.

I call that the "coward psycho". He has no sense that other people are real, but knows what they'll do to him if they catch him. Sometimes people like that in the RW can be quite successful.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 06:19 PM

IIRC the 4e PHB said something about how "most" people were neutral. It's been awhile since I looked at it, though, but I don't remember any specific number.

In spite of sharing the name and a few iconic monsters, that's an altogether different game.

IIRC CG and LE aren't even options in that game and the statement in question probably says most people are unaligned, not neutral.

Serin

2013-06-17, 06:22 PM

I'm currently playing a character that is a LE vampire. Most of her class levels are in rogue with a smattering of Pally and Red Mantis.

She is thoroughly evil but She would most likely get along in a group of good aligned PCs because she has standards.

Firstly, She refuses to turn anyone who doesn't accept being turned. She also refuses to murder pointlessly or do crazy stuff like raping people. She also dislike's having to kill to feed and will go out of her way to avoid it. Usually by feeding on animals or paying for a courtesan that she then doses with a sleep poison and feeds without killing the person. Though she strongly prefers willing blood donors. She also has strong attachments to her friends, loved ones, and servants and would not do anything that would bring harm to them. She values honor highly and if she gives her word on a matter or makes a promise she will uphold such bargains to any extent possible.

Of course none of this means she isn't without a flexible sense of ethics. She dis likes murder but assassination is a viable thing. She values the law and while murder is illegal most places there is also contract law to consider and the concept of might makes right. If you were dumb enough or lacked foresight enough to not get a contract placed on your head then you don't deserve whatever power or authority you have. Meaning you need to be replaced with someone more worthy of your authority, and once a contract is made it must be upheld regardless of the legality of the deed you promised to perform.

She values honor but not necessarily honesty. Lying is perfectly acceptable in order to manipulate someone but if you make a vow you must honor it.

A good example: While she is a noble and is well known, it is also well known by other nobles that she moonlights as an assassin. She was once arrested by an extremely LG guard captain in a city for the murders of several individuals. She stayed in prison all of 5 minutes before picking the lock. The guard of course attacked her. She refused to slay said guard. Primarily because the guard was just doing her job, and also because it would be inconvenient. Instead she knocked the guard out before the reinforcements arrived. She then proceeded to rattle off this bogus tale about how the captain attacked her completely unprovoked while she was just there to retrieve one of her servants that was locked up from a brawl. (the part about the servant was true at least.)

They believed it. She then made a big to-do about taking the captain prisoner and returning to her own hold for the captain to stand trial for assaulting her directly. The captain never stood trial. She was imprisoned and then the Sadistic Choice trope was invoked. The captain had proven herself quite capable by inconveniencing my character several times. The captain was given the choice of accepting being turned and leading my own guard. She of course declined. It wouldn't be much of a sadistic choice if that was the end of it though. So it was suggested to the captain that if she didn't wish to serve that was ok. Though maybe those wonderful skills of hers that were so attractive could have been passed on to her children. The captain's son might not be so adverse to being turned.

The captain then accepted being turned and my character vowed not to let any harm come to the captain's family. So now the family has been offered positions within my keep and the captain's grandson will be given a good education. None of them will be turned unless they ask for it.

This character is 100% evil, but she is played intelligently and has goals and values that she will not compromise. It wouldn't be that hard for her to have reason to adventure with a bunch of goodie two shoes. Would there be disagreements? Sure, but given her morals I doubt there would be any issue that would cause party conflict.

Even a lawful stupid paladin would have to have a good reason to attack her. Sure she is a vampire, but she doesn't kill to live and prefers willing donors. She also provides free healthcare, clean water, and education to the people of her hold. Without her charity hundreds of people would die from disease or starvation. Of course a lawful stupid pally might not be lawful stupid anymore if he hung around too long, with alignment changes and what not.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 06:36 PM

Serin

2013-06-17, 07:23 PM

I'm sorry, but what you've described isn't evil. It's, if anything, at the north end of neutral. Definitely got the lawful part right though.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps my examples didn't quite show enough evil for you, but my character is definitely evil. I haven't detailed all of the character's mindset in this post, as the thread isn't really about my character.

That being said, I personally would think that using the threat of turning a child into a vampire, or otherwise harming said child, in order to blackmail someone into accepting it in their stead is rather evil. Furthermore, technically by the book just being a vampire makes her evil in its own right. Compounded by the fact that she worships Vecna and directly owes her undeath to him. Then there are potential plans to make punishment for crime more draconian in order to potentially provide a source of blood for her clan without *actually* killing for it.

Her overarching goals of simply existing, cementing her position of authority, and finding a way to actually have a family with the woman she loves (who is mortal), and not being hunted for being undead...not exactly the stuff of your evilest nightmares. It's all about methods. That's what I feel makes her simply evil and not a villain.

I'd rather not argue about whether my description was "evil enough" as it's off topic. Let's suffice to say that a simple snapshot of a character may not be enough to accurately portray alignment.

I'm sorry if I may offend, such was not my intent.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 07:51 PM

Actually, parts of -that- description bring the character more in line with evil; particularly with the inclusion of blackmail, plans for draconian law, and worship of vecna.

I'm still not entirely convinced but if those details had been there before I wouldn't have doubted it enough to question it in-thread.

Serin

2013-06-17, 08:03 PM

As I said, I suppose I could have picked better examples. I was just trying to lessen the wall-o-text factor. I would admit that it's possible that I am straddling the line between neutral and evil. I've dubbed her evil though and that's what the character sheet says. I'm just trying to play it in an fun and intelligent way. Maybe I need to push it a little more and get her off the fence. I'm not exactly sure where the plot is going yet though. It's a lot of political intrigue and mystery. She may end up attempting to depose the current queen depending on where the DM takes the plot.

Either way, I feel like it does a pretty good job of helping the OP. Using some of my examples that you say were more toward neutral, the player could easily be rather nefarious without actually being evil or he or she could actually be evil and still be able to get along with good or neutral people.

*edit* spelling

Raven777

2013-06-17, 08:29 PM

What I take out from Serin's character is that even evil has standards.

I tend to believe this is the cornerstone around which to build a functional evil party member.

ArcturusV

2013-06-17, 08:37 PM

Either that or "Evil has focus".

As long as your evil character has a focus of some sort, there's no real problem with them. It's when evil characters lose their focus that you find people doing things "because I'm Evil" like stealing from party members and such.

but if your evil character is driven by something... say a Half-Demon who wants to mount Asmodeus's head on a pike and end the Blood War once and for all, able and willing to do anything to end it? You can get along just fine. Even the Goody Two Shoes in the party are likely to just say, "Cool... I'm not going to stand in your way. Heck, I'll even HELP you. Evil or not, sounds like a worthy goal to put down the architect of about 90% of the evil out there."

Pickford

2013-06-17, 09:34 PM

I'm sorry, but what you've described isn't evil. It's, if anything, at the north end of neutral. Definitely got the lawful part right though.

I think you missed the part about being willing to create other vampires. Also being willing to resort to murder. That's decidedly evil and assuming some adventurer was 'aware' of her proclivities, it would not be evil to kill her. (Though if she begged mercy a Paladin would likely have to attempt to undo her vampire status)

Serin

2013-06-17, 09:38 PM

ArcturusV

2013-06-17, 09:43 PM

Yeah, it's even a pretty simple process. Someone destroys your coffin. Stabs you unto death. Then pops off for a Rez. You return as a non-vampiric version of yourself.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-17, 10:28 PM

I think you missed the part about being willing to create other vampires. Also being willing to resort to murder. That's decidedly evil and assuming some adventurer was 'aware' of her proclivities, it would not be evil to kill her. (Though if she begged mercy a Paladin would likely have to attempt to undo her vampire status)Being willing to create other vampires when the 'victim' wants it is technically evil, but it pings pretty low on the radar. Political assassination isn't murder and it's not necessarily evil. Contract killing without any concern for the reprocussions would definitely count as murder and would be unquestionably evil though.

Would you even be able to undo the vampire status? Since it exists directly via the intervention of a deity?

Where are you getting this deific intervention thing? Vampires are spawned by other vampires; full stop. A DM can rule differently or declare that the first vampire was a result of divine meddling, but it's not the default.

Rubik

2013-06-17, 10:58 PM

Where are you getting this deific intervention thing? Vampires are spawned by other vampires; full stop. A DM can rule differently or declare that the first vampire was a result of divine meddling, but it's not the default.Her character was spawned by Vecna himself, according to her (abbreviated) character bio.

Raven777

2013-06-17, 11:37 PM

Some people hog all the cool DMs :smallfrown:

See, Trel (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Trelmarixian)? Her god made her a vampire! Why not you? Why not me? Do I need to put more peasants and their kids through the Ghoul Hunger Games (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/ghoul-hunger)?

SowZ

2013-06-17, 11:43 PM

Raven777

2013-06-17, 11:49 PM

You mean Darken (http://darkencomic.com/).

Serin

2013-06-17, 11:49 PM

Being willing to create other vampires when the 'victim' wants it is technically evil, but it pings pretty low on the radar. Political assassination isn't murder and it's not necessarily evil. Contract killing without any concern for the reprocussions would definitely count as murder and would be unquestionably evil though.

Where are you getting this deific intervention thing? Vampires are spawned by other vampires; full stop. A DM can rule differently or declare that the first vampire was a result of divine meddling, but it's not the default.

In regards to contract killing without concern: She's already done that once. Because the contract was taken out by a noble that is involved in a tentative alliance with her. It was because he was trying undermine a rival's slave trade though. That may or may not count as political.

In regard's to divine intervention, a brief synopsis of plot: 200 years prior to the start of the game vampires of a specific clan were exterminated by a curse placed on the Progenitor by Wee Jas. The effect of the curse was that if He or his progeny tried to feed they would be destroyed by the blood they fed on, and it would be the true death. When the Progenitor was the last surviving member of the clan and he was lying in agony in his crypt from so long without sustenance He called out for aid. The only deity that responded was Vecna. The progenitor made a pact with Vecna that He would be saved if He devoted himself to Vecna. When the Progenitor went out to feed he was destroyed as His children were. Flash forward 200 years and based on plot revealed so far, Vecna chose to save part of the Progenitor's soul in me and transformed me into a vampire to continue the clan.

*edit* The character existed in the backstory before she was made a vampire. But in my DM's setting vampire's lose all their memory upon transformation unless they are considered to be a powerful soul. (read higher than about 6th lvl) She wasn't just birthed into being by Vecna, but she was transformed by him.

SowZ

2013-06-18, 01:36 AM

You mean Darken (http://darkencomic.com/).

That's right, thanks. It's been years.

Mystral

2013-06-18, 03:10 AM

Adventuring for personal gain sounds perfectly neutral to me.

CRtwenty

2013-06-18, 03:32 AM

I'm actually playing a PC in an evil campaign right now, so I'm getting a kick out of this. A PC being evil doesn't have to be a problem, so long as he isn't stupid about it and is still relatively loyal to the party. Even a CE character will recognize the power of a group, and the advantages that go with having people willing to watch his back.

The problem occurs when players decide that evil means they have a blank check to screw the party over (for instance I DMed a game where the NE Rogue would constantly screw the party over when it came to divying out loot. Eventually the party caught on and "forgot" to heal him during a big fight) or just cause general mayhem and carnage for no reason and hold up the game (DMed a CE Barbarian in a game that went out each night when the party was sleeping and murdered random NPCs for fun. He eventually got killed by an angry mob along with two innocent PCs who happened to be near him).

Make sure you let your player know that if he's going to be evil, he needs to be intelligent about it. If he can't handle that then don't let him play an evil PC.

Talya

2013-06-18, 10:38 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 03:51 PM

Political assassination is weighted by the politics. Sneaking into the castle and shanking the brutal half-mad despot in his sleep to free the people from his tyranny is definitely -not- evil and is probably good.

As for the other items there, the minor evil they represent has to be weighed against the good the character also does e.g. defending their friends at great risk simply because they're friends or consistently showing mercy by not murdering everything that gets in your way if you can instead bypass that creature or force it to withdraw.

Disclaimer: The following is a subjective evaluation using my judgement as a DM:

She's definitely on the lower end of the good-evil spectrum but it's tough to say whether she's south of the neutral/evil line. If I were the DM I wouldn't declare her neutral when she put LE on the sheet at this time but a string of decidedly good acts would make me start to question it.

Serin

2013-06-18, 04:26 PM

Disclaimer: The following is a subjective evaluation using my judgement as a DM:

She's definitely on the lower end of the good-evil spectrum but it's tough to say whether she's south of the neutral/evil line. If I were the DM I wouldn't declare her neutral when she put LE on the sheet at this time but a string of decidedly good acts would make me start to question it.

Out of curiosity Kelb, as a DM do you ascribe to the idea that all acts are inherently good/evil or that the intent behind the act matters?

Example: If you are building up a city and supplying healing, potions, food, water, defense, etc to the people with the intention of endearing them to you that way when you later commit the evil you are planning (maybe murdering someone important out of greed or ambition or possibly putting the populace to work committing genocide) they defend you and love you anyway?

Is that evil to you or does it balance out to neutral?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 04:36 PM

Out of curiosity Kelb, as a DM do you ascribe to the idea that all acts are inherently good/evil or that the intent behind the act matters?I stick as close to RAW as I can, which says that intent and immediate consequence is all that matters. Also, though it's not explicit in RAW, a character is only responsible for his own actions. If someone does evil in response to your character's choices, especially in the case of ultimatums against hostages, that evil is on them, not your character.

There are only a handful of acts that are nearly always aligned one way or another.

Example: If you are building up a city and supplying healing, potions, food, water, defense, etc to the people with the intention of endearing them to you that way when you later commit the evil you are planning (maybe murdering someone important out of greed or ambition or possibly putting the populace to work committing genocide) they defend you and love you anyway?

Is that evil to you or does it balance out to neutral?

Good acts with evil motives; neutral. Organizing a government and building up a community like that are lawful. The more systemic the operation, the more lawful it'd be.

I'd call such a character LN without knowing more detail about the "evil" intended. (Hint; if it's the genocide thing, that'd probably push the character well into evil by itself.)

Serin

2013-06-18, 04:46 PM

I stick as close to RAW as I can, which says that intent and immediate consequence is all that matters. Also, though it's not explicit in RAW, a character is only responsible for his own actions. If someone does evil in response to your character's choices, especially in the case of ultimatums against hostages, that evil is on them, not your character.

There are only a handful of acts that are nearly always aligned one way or another.

Good acts with evil motives; neutral. Organizing a government and building up a community like that are lawful. The more systemic the operation, the more lawful it'd be.

I'd call such a character LN without knowing more detail about the "evil" intended. (Hint; if it's the genocide thing, that'd probably push the character well into evil by itself.)

Your positions on Lawful I totally agree with. In general I also agree with the idea that good and evil is sort of a balancing act, "more than 51% evil actions makes you evil."

I do find the section I emphasized particularly interesting. If you'll allow me a reduction to the absurd? It seems to suggest that if a character were to hold a knife to a person's back and tell them murder this random child or I will CdG you right here, that you would say the murder of the person via CdG goes against the character as evil but if the person did as ordered the murder of the child would not?

Or did I misunderstand that?

hamishspence

2013-06-18, 04:52 PM

Personally I think the balance model is overly simplistic.

A lifeguard who risks their life every day for strangers- yet is also secretly a serial killer- I'd see as Evil, regardless of the balance of lives saved to lives murdered.

SiuiS

2013-06-18, 05:05 PM

Sure but "Good" and "Evil" to the degree that it is supernaturally relevant is far more extreme that what a lot of people seem to play.

Are you a serial killing rapist? No, then odds are that you aren't even close to rating the "Evil" tag. Well unless you are Bernie Madoff or something similar.

That doesn't bear out from the mechanics, though, does it? This is like those ability score debates; one side says "18s are rare, so most people for 10-11 because that what the base is supposed to be" and one side says "odds of one 18 are 1/216, and you get six chances. They aren't that rare.", and both are right.

For the view that the fluff takes precedence, yeah. Most people are neutral and alignment is a bell curve. But from the view o mathematical compiling, it's much easier to register an alignment because actions called out as evil, tag you as evil. It's like handling radioactive material. You aren't radioactive, but you measure on a Geiger counter so the paladin gets +level damage against you.

Actually, by RAW just doing a few evil acts now and again can turn you evil. Cast Deathwatch too much and you could count as evil. Evil doesn't mean "Muhahahahaha I'm EVIL!".

Basically.

Except for the other RAW that says most everyone is neutral and that Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic is a big time thing that is only generally reached by PC adventurers and similar mortals.

Even WotC can't decide what they want alignment to mean.

That may have been intentional to allow room for both types of gameplay. Alignment is only a big deal in games which feature it predominantly, otherwise it's a mechanical tag and no one cares. Most problems only arise when there is disagreement, but that disagreement is as much the DM and player playing different games as it is alignment itself.

Side note:
Using Ravages is a good act. For reasons not fully understood by scholars, poisoning people with a poison called a ravage causes you to exemplify love and tolerance.

Ravages cannot poison just anyone. A ravage can only harm someone who is evil, and the removal of evil is a good act.

In fact, slapping someone with an affliction is a GREAT act! Afflict the entire town. Good people are still carriers, for a while. Anyone who falls sick is evil. Convince them to recant their wickedness and join a good cause and they are suddenly both [Good], and cured!

hamishspence

2013-06-18, 05:10 PM

A ravage can only harm someone who is evil, and the removal of evil is a good act.

This is rather context-sensitive. Even killing an evil person can qualify as murder- absent certain mitigating factors like self-defence, it being an execution for known crimes, and so forth.

If violence, even against evil, requires further justification (as BoED suggests), then this means all violence- including the use of ravages.

ArcturusV

2013-06-18, 05:27 PM

Actually I'd say that Good Acts for Evil Intentions are, by RAW, Evil.

Otherwise Devils and Demons would typically be Neutral. Those Faustian "I will give you what you want/need..." deals are exactly a case of doing "good" for the cause of Evil, which ultimately is evil.

hamishspence

2013-06-18, 05:30 PM

Most of those are "trades" rather than "personal sacrifices"

BoED suggests that helping someone at no cost to yourself, and helping someone in a way that benefits yourself, are both Neutral rather than Good.

ArcturusV

2013-06-18, 05:54 PM

Yeah, but the books are always kinda screwy on the line between Evil and Neutral. Not to mention I'd think of the Faustian Deals, or the example of "Helping people out to ingratiate them to you so you can subtly enslave their whole society" more a case of "Helping people so that you can hurt them later for your own benefit".

And hurting people for your own benefit is pretty much as universal textbook as you can get for Evil in DnD until you get into pedantic arguments about things like killing monsters and taking their loot versus killing a villager to take their loot.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 05:59 PM

Your positions on Lawful I totally agree with. In general I also agree with the idea that good and evil is sort of a balancing act, "more than 51% evil actions makes you evil."

I do find the section I emphasized particularly interesting. If you'll allow me a reduction to the absurd? It seems to suggest that if a character were to hold a knife to a person's back and tell them murder this random child or I will CdG you right here, that you would say the murder of the person via CdG goes against the character as evil but if the person did as ordered the murder of the child would not?

Or did I misunderstand that?As unfortunate as it is, yes, that's how I'd rule it. However, the character making the threat is guilty of corrupting an innocent, so he's still performing an evil act in this scenario.

That's before we deconstruct the problems with the scenario. In the first place, CdG doesn't work that way. So even if the clearly evil figure does attack it's not guaranteed to kill the target -if- it connects. He's ceded suprise so if the hostage decides to resist initiative would be rolled and the villian's attack may well miss. Assuming the hostage is a level 1 commoner he'd likely choose to simply flee via the run action while screaming for help. If the hostage wins initiative the villian gets -one- AoO then has to either chase the guy down or melt into the shadows.

Then there's the matter of how the villian is supposed to keep the knife on the hostage -while- he does the killing and the fact he must arm his hostage, giving that hostage a means to fight back, in order to actually complete the task.

In short; it's a contrived situation that has several non-evil solutions for the hostage, who has no way of guaranteeing that the villian will actually spare him even if he does comply. He's comitting an evil act for what most would consider a pretty solid reason, but it's still an evil act.

Actually I'd say that Good Acts for Evil Intentions are, by RAW, Evil.

Otherwise Devils and Demons would typically be Neutral. Those Faustian "I will give you what you want/need..." deals are exactly a case of doing "good" for the cause of Evil, which ultimately is evil.

Devils never give those boons with good intentions which prevents even the nicest thing they do from being a good act. Moreover, they also do their damnedest (forgive the pun) to make sure they get your soul as cheaply as possible, so the evil of damning your soul easily outweighs whatever good the boon they grant -might- do.

Combined with the fact that most people that -would- sign pacts certain aren't even getting a boon that's actually something good, rather it's usually something selfish, you get a net evil 99.99995% of the time.

Pacts insidious are one boon for several acts of evil and law, again; net evil.

Serin

2013-06-18, 06:42 PM

As unfortunate as it is, yes, that's how I'd rule it. However, the character making the threat is guilty of corrupting an innocent, so he's still performing an evil act in this scenario.

That's before we deconstruct the problems with the scenario. In the first place, CdG doesn't work that way. So even if the clearly evil figure does attack it's not guaranteed to kill the target -if- it connects. He's ceded suprise so if the hostage decides to resist initiative would be rolled and the villian's attack may well miss. Assuming the hostage is a level 1 commoner he'd likely choose to simply flee via the run action while screaming for help. If the hostage wins initiative the villian gets -one- AoO then has to either chase the guy down or melt into the shadows.

Then there's the matter of how the villian is supposed to keep the knife on the hostage -while- he does the killing and the fact he must arm his hostage, giving that hostage a means to fight back, in order to actually complete the task.

In short; it's a contrived situation that has several non-evil solutions for the hostage, who has no way of guaranteeing that the villian will actually spare him even if he does comply. He's comitting an evil act for what most would consider a pretty solid reason, but it's still an evil act.

Hence why I said it was a reduction to the absurd. I was more interested in who you assigned the evil points for the murder of that innocent to. The way you've explained it here makes sense to me now though.

The murder of the innocent is blamed on the peasant who actually wielded the knife, and the villain still earns evil points for the corruption of the peasant. All other outcomes aside *if* it happened that way then it seems like you've got a pretty well reasoned approach to it to me.

It seems to me like it would actually be difficult playing a truly evil character in your games. It sounds like in order to qualify for the [Evil] tag, PC's in your world would have to really be rather villainous at heart and able to lie about it and cover it up without doing too much good to polish up their public reputation.

It sounds like characters could be very dark or anti-heroic in your games without actually having an evil alignment. Which seems just fine to me.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 07:03 PM

As long as you do more evil than good you'll gradually get to evil if you didn't start there. Alignment is about behavioral patterns. Individual acts don't (usually) carry much weight by themselves but eventually that weight adds up.

A good character would have to do something mind-bogglingly atrocious to fall straight to evil; like push the button to genocide an entire intelligent species or sign a pact certain.

Likewise with evil characters having to do something absolutely saintly to jump across neutral to good; like jumping into the abysall gate to banish the army that's already come through knowing it'll mean being Grazz't's personal chew-toy for a few millenia. (Character's not necessarily dead in that case and a subsequent side-plot and/or rescue mission for the rest of the party may follow.)

Rubik

2013-06-18, 07:30 PM

Likewise with evil characters having to do something absolutely saintly to jump across neutral to good; like jumping into the abysall gate to banish the army that's already come through knowing it'll mean being Grazz't's personal chew-toy for a few millenia. (Character's not necessarily dead in that case and a subsequent side-plot and/or rescue mission for the rest of the party may follow.)That sounds like you're screwed either way. If you're protecting something important enough to you that suffering for it is worth it in your worldview, I could see even unrepentantly evil characters doing something like this. After all, it benefits them to do so, even if it is at a horrible cost. (Which they'd be likely to pay anyway, so they might as well go out with a bang.)

It would depend entirely on the 'why' of it here. Sure, for everyone else, it's a good act, but for him it might be a selfless act for selfish reasons. If this turned the person in question Good, then you'd expect him to continue to perform selfless acts if he managed to get out of the punishment, or if he was freed before his soul was corrupted by fiendish forces. I certainly wouldn't expect an entire personality shift like that from someone with even a modicum of a realistic personality, unless he had some sort of revelation hit him, and hard.

It's why this is such an oft-debated topic, and why things tend to never wrap up neatly.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 07:41 PM

That sounds like you're screwed either way. If you're protecting something important enough to you that suffering for it is worth it in your worldview, I could see even unrepentantly evil characters doing something like this. After all, it benefits them to do so, even if it is at a horrible cost. (Which they'd be likely to pay anyway, so they might as well go out with a bang.)

It would depend entirely on the 'why' of it here. Sure, for everyone else, it's a good act, but for him it might be a selfless act for selfish reasons. If this turned the person in question Good, then you'd expect him to continue to perform selfless acts if he managed to get out of the punishment, or if he was freed before his soul was corrupted by fiendish forces. I certainly wouldn't expect an entire personality shift like that from someone with even a modicum of a realistic personality, unless he had some sort of revelation hit him, and hard.

It's why this is such an oft-debated topic, and why things tend to never wrap up neatly.

I chose that example more for its magnitude than its specifics. Coming up with a good example of something so monumentally good is difficult.

That example -is- an undeniable example of martyrdom, one of those rare always aligned acts.

I have to ask though, what possible reason could someone have to take that particular action that -wasn't- selfless? It's nearly certain death from which you really can't gain anything for yourself.

Rubik

2013-06-18, 07:58 PM

I chose that example more for its magnitude than its specifics. Coming up with a good example of something so monumentally good is difficult.

That example -is- an undeniable example of martyrdom, one of those rare always aligned acts.

I have to ask though, what possible reason could someone have to take that particular action that -wasn't- selfless? It's nearly certain death from which you really can't gain anything for yourself.He's there alone, so he can't trick or force someone else to do it. He doesn't care much at all about the world, but he hates demons with a driving passion due to getting screwed over in his younger days thanks to a demon tricking his clan into killing each other, and is willing to do nearly anything to spite them in revenge, so (knowing he's fubar'd either way), he does the only thing he can do to screw them over in return, and seals the portal. He sacrifices himself, not for the good of the world, but in revenge for the pain he suffered. It's not a Good deed, or even a Neutral one. It's one birthed in hatred and malice so great that he'd be willing to destroy himself to stop them from getting their way.

No, not a Good act at all regardless of the outcome for everyone else.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-06-18, 09:18 PM

He's there alone, so he can't trick or force someone else to do it. He doesn't care much at all about the world, but he hates demons with a driving passion due to getting screwed over in his younger days thanks to a demon tricking his clan into killing each other, and is willing to do nearly anything to spite them in revenge, so (knowing he's fubar'd either way), he does the only thing he can do to screw them over in return, and seals the portal. He sacrifices himself, not for the good of the world, but in revenge for the pain he suffered. It's not a Good deed, or even a Neutral one. It's one birthed in hatred and malice so great that he'd be willing to destroy himself to stop them from getting their way.

No, not a Good act at all regardless of the outcome for everyone else.

Alright, I'll grant that under such specific circumstances it wouldn't be good, but it's not evil either.

Vengeance isn't evil, in and of itself. It's a common motivation for evil deeds. Also, regardless of motivation, he's stopping the hordes of the abyss from dragging the whole world into darkness.

In a nutshell; good deed with dark but not evil motivations: neutral.

Still a really specific case though.

Rubik

2013-06-18, 09:37 PM

Alright, I'll grant that under such specific circumstances it wouldn't be good, but it's not evil either.

Vengeance isn't evil, in and of itself. It's a common motivation for evil deeds. Also, regardless of motivation, he's stopping the hordes of the abyss from dragging the whole world into darkness.

In a nutshell; good deed with dark but not evil motivations: neutral.

Still a really specific case though.All cases explaining motivations like this would be specific, and it did answer your question of:

"...what possible reason could someone have to take that particular action that -wasn't- selfless? It's nearly certain death from which you really can't gain anything for yourself."

It's definitely a selfish motivation, based in his hatred of all things demonic. He didn't do a good deed, though good did come out of it. He did a selfish deed that happened to have good consequences.