PDA

View Full Version : Which is worse, the lawful evil or the chaotic evil player?



A Tad Insane
2013-07-29, 02:49 PM
Or to be more verbosed, the player that works through the metagame, slowly growing in power until it reaches the point were they could destroy your entire game beyond repair without suffering reproccusions, or the one that murders almost literally everyone they come across, making so the only opinion is to ban them entirely?

Hyena
2013-07-29, 02:50 PM
I am a little bit confused. Are we talking about evil characters or evil players?

The_Snark
2013-07-29, 02:55 PM
The first one, I should think. If their OOC goals differ from everyone else's, then that's an issue, but if nobody minds that PC X wants to conquer the world it can make for an interesting game. Either the rest of the PCs join in, which will probably change the direction of the campaign but won't necessarily ruin it, or they add "overthrow PC X" to their list of things to do.

Whereas the second one is never going to be anything but disruptive.

A Tad Insane
2013-07-29, 02:55 PM
I am a little bit confused. Are we talking about evil characters or evil players?


They generally a both at the same time, though it is possible to be different character alignments, where the players are ones I'm refering to.

Joe the Rat
2013-07-29, 03:19 PM
Oh, the chaotic evil one. The Lawful Evil player will actually play the game, whereas the Chaotic Evil player will at best be convinced to fake it if he doesn't want to be kicked out of the house. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) As a rule, I try to avoid inviting omnicidal maniacs to my games. It tends to cut down the player base.

More seriously, Power/Meta Gaming Meltdowns can be an interesting thing to watch happen - but the question here is on motivation. Are they seeking attention? Are they trying to push the rules to their limits? Do they think you're a hack writer of a GM, and want to see you fail spectacularly? Do they want to ruin everyone else's game?

And why are there no repercussions? If disrupting the game has no consequences, then either nobody was bothered, or nobody is putting their foot down about not putting up with antics that destroy everyone else's fun. The same goes for the Chaotic Stupid player as well.

Raine_Sage
2013-07-29, 05:00 PM
I'd have to say Chaotic evil, Lawful evil can work depending on how the player chooses to interpret "lawful" in their moniker.

You could theoretically play a very nice person who is lawful evil because they have a contractual obligation to do evil things and they refuse/are unable to go against it. Or see TVtropes pages "affably evil" and "punchclock villain" respectively. Doesn't make them less evil, does make them much easier to get along with.

If we're talking about player alignments, probably chaotic evil there too. It wasn't DnD but there was another rpg I played ages ago called Dragon Universe (more mmo, less tabletop) and the guys who lolkilled everyone were much more annoying than the guys who pretended to be good only to switch sides late in the game. At least the latter had the potential for compelling drama. The most fun I ever had on that game was when Earth's guardian went nucking futs and my character had to figure out a way to take him down before he became a threat to the universe.

A Tad Insane
2013-07-29, 06:49 PM
Oh, the chaotic evil one. The Lawful Evil player will actually play the game, whereas the [URL="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html"]
More seriously, Power/Meta Gaming Meltdowns can be an interesting thing to watch happen - but the question here is on motivation. Are they seeking attention? Are they trying to push the rules to their limits? Do they think you're a hack writer of a GM, and want to see you fail spectacularly? Do they want to ruin everyone else's game?

And why are there no repercussions? If disrupting the game has no consequences, then either nobody was bothered, or nobody is putting their foot down about not putting up with antics that destroy everyone else's fun. The same goes for the Chaotic Stupid player as well.

The reason I made this thread is I accidentally ended up controlling the game, just by making a lawful evil character in a good group. My character was in it for the loot, even if it was the evil mcguffing of doom the baddies were using, so, armed with a whole lot of foresight and maxed out bluff/diplomacy, I figured out ways to do basically what ever my character wanted, to the point where everyone started to hate all the sense motive and will save rolls they knew they would fail, were I could murder entire governments and the pcs would be powerless to stop me. It got to the point were I had to straight up ask the DM to help me kill this character that was snuffing out everyone's fun.

Medic!
2013-07-29, 06:54 PM
I've had LE PCs like that before...when the DM and players are able to detach themselves from the game it creates a great ex-PC villain. Especially when the original player can contribute to "What would he do in this situation or that situation?"

Maybe instead of killing him, you could turn him into a villain to be remembered!

kyoryu
2013-07-29, 07:25 PM
The reason I made this thread is I accidentally ended up controlling the game, just by making a lawful evil character in a good group. My character was in it for the loot, even if it was the evil mcguffing of doom the baddies were using, so, armed with a whole lot of foresight and maxed out bluff/diplomacy, I figured out ways to do basically what ever my character wanted, to the point where everyone started to hate all the sense motive and will save rolls they knew they would fail, were I could murder entire governments and the pcs would be powerless to stop me. It got to the point were I had to straight up ask the DM to help me kill this character that was snuffing out everyone's fun.

I don't know. What bugs me is players that set out to be deliberately disruptive.

It doesn't sound like you set out to be disruptive, and when your character ended up *being* disruptive, you took steps to correct the issue.

Jay R
2013-07-29, 09:47 PM
Neither the Lawful Evil character nor the Chaotic Evil character is worse, for the same reason that the place at 90 degrees W on the Equator is not further west than the place at 90 degrees west on the Arctic Circle.

But you didn't ask about characters; you asked about players.

And the straightforward answer is that neither Lawful Evil nor Chaotic Evil describes real-world people. They are D&D constructs that are not simulations of real-world positions.

The worst player is the one who doesn't fit into the game. That could be the one playing a random murderer in a civilized world, or the one carefully plotting to destroy the plans of the rest of the party, or the one who wants to play a Paladin in an evil party.

The worst player is the disruptive one.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-07-29, 10:18 PM
The worst player is the one who doesn't fit into the game. That could be the one playing a random murderer in a civilized world, or the one carefully plotting to destroy the plans of the rest of the party, or the one who wants to play a Paladin in an evil party.

The worst player is the disruptive one.
This. Also character limits.

Fighter1000
2013-07-30, 12:15 AM
I would say the Chaotic Evil type is worse in the short-term, while the Lawful Evil type is worse in the long-term.

Black Jester
2013-07-30, 02:55 AM
I personally think that lawful characters are almost always preferable to chaotic ones. I'd rather have a lawful evil character than a chaotic good one in a group. They are usually less disruptive and are easier to integrate into social norms.
Especially characters who follow the "end justifies any means" type of lawful evil are completely unproblematic in my experience (they are likely to create strive and conflict, but that is intentional and conflict is good.) I have made much worse experiences with chaotic characters of any flavor. Chaotic evil ones aren't even the worst characters. The worst are definitely chaotic neutral ones who use their alignment as an excuse for disruptive stupid and irrational behavior

So, I'd rather ban chaotic characters than evil ones.

Alcopop
2013-07-30, 03:42 AM
If we're talking players then lawful evil is the worst, or at least, the most difficult to deal with.

Chaotic evil players are usually stupid and can be dealt with in a pretty straightforward manner. Lawful evil however are players that are trying to disrupt or "win" the game by knowing the rules inside out, players that are willing to put there own enjoyment beyond everyone else and players that can manipulate the games social dynamic outside of the game itself.

Chaotic evil is as dangerous as the player's character is strong.

Lawful evil is as dangerous as the character's player is clever.

I can make a strong character weak but I can't make a smart misanthrope dumber. Not without alcohol anyway.

boomwolf
2013-07-30, 07:00 AM
Personally I find no issues with either, as long the DM makes sure actions have consequences.

You see, if a CE guy kills randomly, law enforcement will come after him, or even just vengeful family members/friends.

A LE manipulator is less easy to have consequences for but you can always have others playing the same game he does. remember-its a world where magic and monsters are common, the various lords and kings must have SOME means to keep themselves at power rather then being shoved off when someone with some power shows up.


It all comes up to the GM remembering one fact, your PCs are probably just a few on many people of their power scale out there, and quite a few stronger. reach out too far, and you WILL attract unwanted or lethal attention. he just needs not to go too far too quickly, but keep it within the realm of rational response. (though, ANOTHER CE with his own irrationality might be part of it!)

And once you really ARE the strongest people in the world, capable of squashing any resistance, defeating any monster and out-scheming various powers who where there before you, some may be thousands of years old worth of power-gathering, once you can take down all of these, isn't ruling the world a proper reward?
And even then, there is always a stronger opponent.

As long the GM remembers there is always a higher scale, and that stirring too much trouble would rationally attract their attention-there cannot be a disruption-the "balance of powers" the world should have will always push back.

Sebastrd
2013-07-31, 03:34 PM
The reason I made this thread is I accidentally ended up controlling the game, just by making a lawful evil character in a good group. My character was in it for the loot, even if it was the evil mcguffing of doom the baddies were using, so, armed with a whole lot of foresight and maxed out bluff/diplomacy, I figured out ways to do basically what ever my character wanted, to the point where everyone started to hate all the sense motive and will save rolls they knew they would fail, were I could murder entire governments and the pcs would be powerless to stop me. It got to the point were I had to straight up ask the DM to help me kill this character that was snuffing out everyone's fun.

This implies you were using such skills on PCs, which is explicitly forbidden in in the rules.

Alex12
2013-07-31, 07:06 PM
This implies you were using such skills on PCs, which is explicitly forbidden in in the rules.

Diplomacy, sure, but Bluff is perfectly fine. Otherwise why have PCs even take ranks in Sense Motive?
Furthermore, Diplomacy doesn't give a Will Save. If the DM houseruled that Diplomacy worked, but allowed a Will Save, then that's okay

Paseo H
2013-07-31, 11:24 PM
I've had LE PCs like that before...when the DM and players are able to detach themselves from the game it creates a great ex-PC villain. Especially when the original player can contribute to "What would he do in this situation or that situation?"

Maybe instead of killing him, you could turn him into a villain to be remembered!

Could work, but depending on the situation it might just be rewarding bad behavior. I refer you to Tarquin's little lecture. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)

Felhammer
2013-08-01, 12:03 AM
Who would you rather adventure with - Ra's al Ghul or the Joker?

Ra's al Ghul may be evil but at least he won't randomly stab you in the back and laugh about it in your face.

Kane0
2013-08-01, 12:28 AM
Lawful evil will play along with your game and will either beat you at it, cheating or no, or twist the game to play for him.
Chaotic evil has no concern for your petty notions of morality, and does whatever it wants for whatever reason it pleases.

I like to think of it this way:
Lawful evil is Renegade Shepard.
Chaotic evil is a honey badger.

Felhammer
2013-08-01, 12:44 AM
Chaotic evil is a honey badger.

Dun Dun Dun Dun Dun HONEY BADGER!

Lorsa
2013-08-01, 06:29 AM
Truly evil players are bad regardless of if they are lawful or not. The lawful one might function better in a group though (unless everyone else is chaotic). But overall I would never want to associate with people that would fall under "evil" in the D&D alignment spectrum. I don't really want to associate with neutral people either but I really don't have much of a choice there.

Sebastrd
2013-08-01, 10:00 AM
Diplomacy, sure, but Bluff is perfectly fine. Otherwise why have PCs even take ranks in Sense Motive?Furthermore, Diplomacy doesn't give a Will Save. If the DM houseruled that Diplomacy worked, but allowed a Will Save, then that's okay

So they can tell when an NPC is lying, or to ascertain emotional state or demeanor.

Also, keep in mind that a successful bluff check does not automatically convince the target you are being truthful. It simply indicates that they can't tell whether you're lying or telling the truth. It's an important distinction. I may not know someone is purpously lying, but that doesn't mean I have to believe them.

Kalmageddon
2013-08-01, 10:01 AM
This implies you were using such skills on PCs, which is explicitly forbidden in in the rules.

Exactly.
That's your problem, it should have been roleplayed instead of rolled.

kyoryu
2013-08-01, 01:13 PM
Truly evil players are bad regardless of if they are lawful or not. The lawful one might function better in a group though (unless everyone else is chaotic). But overall I would never want to associate with people that would fall under "evil" in the D&D alignment spectrum. I don't really want to associate with neutral people either but I really don't have much of a choice there.

I'd prefer to think of it as "disruptive players".

And don't play with them. They're there explicitly to harm your experience. How they do it is pretty irrelevant.

Raimun
2013-08-01, 03:32 PM
I've actually played a Lawful Evil character. He was reasonable, well mannered, willing to work with others, could make compromises, respected other people and their right to their beliefs and found needless bloodshed distasteful.

Of course, he was also a necromancer who sought to conquer the lands and/or engineer catasthropes, not necessarily in that order. But that's long term.

kyoryu
2013-08-01, 04:05 PM
They generally a both at the same time, though it is possible to be different character alignments, where the players are ones I'm refering to.

Heh. A Lawful Good paladin is probably one of the most effective tools of an Evil player :)

neonchameleon
2013-08-01, 04:38 PM
You can play an excellent game with a Lawful Evil player in most RPGs. (I wouldn't recommend 3.X, Exalted, Nobilis, or anything with a broken power curve). Things get intense, interesting, and challenging, and they are part of the framework.

Chaotic Evil players on the other hand aren't interested in playing. And the game won't last past session 2 without heavy handed DMing.

Zonbitara
2013-08-01, 06:43 PM
Chaotic PC's just do not give a ****. "Oh, you're in melee range with a lich? Here's a fireball, that'll help!" "Yes, he is for sale, how much are you bidding?" "No, I will not give you my Heal Potion, you shouldn't have used yours when you were at 15 HP."
Lawful evil have some sense of loyalty to the party, even if he will ultimately betray them. Chaotic are just spastic, crazy, spontaneous, balls of aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH--
But they're never dull, so given the choice, I'd go with chaotic.

Mando Knight
2013-08-01, 10:00 PM
But they're never dull, so given the choice, I'd go with chaotic.

On the contrary, I find chaos quite dull... or rather, more annoying than interesting.

Most Chaotic Evil players in my experience do so without even a touch of foresight or cunning, and do nothing to endear the other players to the character, and is likely to betray the others when it seems convenient or amusing, like some kind of crazed animal in human form. A Lawful Evil player is more likely to actually have goals and character. Someone who plays a character rather than a thing that follows only its base desires is much more interesting to play with.

On the other hand, it's easier to control such a Chaotic Evil player. You can usually expect when they'll "randomly" betray you, and such attempts will usually assume success. A Lawful Evil player is more likely to be the one who will betray you only when any outcome will advance their plan (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit), and thus harder to keep in check... since much of the time, when they're working with you, they're working with you, even if it advances their goals as well in the end.

In my experience, no, I haven't yet been in a game with a player who can play any other kind of CE character. Such people seem to prefer other alignments and/or DMing.

Force2Reckon
2013-08-04, 07:16 PM
Most Chaotic Evil players in my experience do so without even a touch of foresight or cunning, and do nothing to endear the other players to the character, and is likely to betray the others when it seems convenient or amusing, like some kind of crazed animal in human form.

I hate those people >_>

I've been told I play a good chaotic evil character, though I've only ever done so once, and that was in an evil campaign. But from what they said I was the best they'd played with, though the GM "hated" me.

I turned a game from "assassinate the king" to "impersonate the king, flush out the royal funds to ourselves and use that to buy a mercenary army while simultaneously convincing EVERY nobleman that THEY should be ruling not the king, sending the kingdom into a spiraling civil war than conquering it all so we didn't run the risk of getting caught impersonating a king."

Err... that's the general gist of what happened... we never really got round to the hiring of the mercenaries or conquering of the kingdom as I absconded with the money at the end of the campaign... no one, not even the DM saw it coming. DM called the campaign there, I'm making a Dhampir hunter for the new one and joining up with them to hunt down my sorcerer from this last one to get our totally legitimately acquired gold back.

Mando Knight
2013-08-04, 08:35 PM
I hate those people >_>

Unfortunately, those people tend to stick out like sore thumbs since that's the only thing they seem to play, and the people who can do it better tend to not play CE characters unless specifically called on to do so.

MukkTB
2013-08-04, 09:18 PM
I've spend a good deal of time playing a chaotic evil character. If you're in with a group of murderhobos it's not much of a stretch. The basic procedure of wandering around beating the **** out of anything that your group happens to not like is just fine for a C/E character. My DM has forgotten my alignment on occasion because I don't always stand out as being particularly bloodthirsty. Evil doesn't have to mean baby eater. It just means that you put your own goals and desires above the well being of others to a fairly high degree, and you're willing to do anything if it comes to it.

So my character is just about as tolerable as the next one around the table. However, if an opportunity arises to advance, he'll weight the option, and if it looks good he'll go for it. Breaking and entering, theft of property, drug dealing, slaving, confidence tricks, raiding, and slaving have all been on the menu at times. Other times saving the city from a vampire, exposing a corrupt politician, and breaking the back of a thieves guild were the things on the menu. Whatever pays in loots and XP.

There are a core number of things that I would give as advice for the kind of chaotic evil character that doesn't love baby eating:

#1 Cooperate with the other players. There is a world of people out there that can be screwed over. The PCs represent the most powerful agents in the world bar none. Pick on somebody else.

#2 If you're going to lay down with some guy, kill him. Either everything is nice and cordial or someone needs to be dead. Don't screw around.

#3 If you're going to screw someone over and he won't be dead at the end of the process, it really helps if he doesn't know you're responsible, or even that something happened.

#4 Just because your options are unlimited by morality, it doesn't mean you shouldn't think about consequences. Just because you won't hold to a set of rules, it doesn't hurt to have some guidelines (like these) as a handy tool. Break them for a good reason, not just because you need to break something.

#4B There are always caveats for any of these things. Its impossible to go into detail like, 'except when charged by an angry Rhino ridden by a Kobold Bard.' You just understand how the game works and then you play it by ear. If you find the angry Kobold Bard Rhino you deal with it as it comes up. If you come into a situation where one of these applies you have a default action that you can do as a no brainer.

#5 The Joker is arguably chaotic evil, but what makes him threatening is his planning and preparedness, things you might associate with law.

#6 Going up against the law can be inconvenient. When you do be ready for war. Before you do make sure its worthwhile. There's no point in getting into a scrape with the police over some minor thing when you're in it for the big payout. Get in a scrape with the police when you're tearing your way out of the city after you robbed the magic shop.

#7 Actually don't hit the magic shop. The bank, the jewelry shop, the noble's house, these are good things to hit. Once you knock over the magic shop the DM is going to come after you.

#8 Its nice to have friends. Its nice they don't think you're about to stab them in the back at any moment.

#9 The narrative is important. There's a world of difference between, "We beat the **** out of some guy and took his stuff," and "We fought a bandit in the woods." Pick the one that makes you sound good. Don't include the fact that the bandit was 5 levels lower than the party and trying to feed his family.

#10 Go read the evil overlord's list. Break it whenever you want, but know what you're doing.

#11 If the party has goodies in it, its not that hard to keep your projects out of their face. Its also not that hard to keep the Paladin happy if hes going to run straight at the dragon when it becomes time to fight it. Adventuring is a high pay job, good or evil. Getting it right is first priority.

#12 The fringe of civilization is a good place for all kinds of unsavory things.

#13 There won't be that many people around who can say exactly what happened down in that dungeon...

#14 Don't squick out the DM. Explaining how you gut the girl and dance around wearing her organs like a hat isn't necessary. "I mutilate the corpse," entails the exact same act without generating the same level of hate.

#15 When the DM isn't looking over your shoulder all kinds of wonderful opportunities arise. A big part of the railroad experience is that L/G characters will be constrained to follow the lines. The C/E guy can break out any time. Do it when the payoff is best.

#16 In other words don't go randomly smashing the railroad with a hammer. Carefully break the tracks. Pick a new course and set it up. Then steal the train.

Force2Reckon
2013-08-05, 07:37 AM
Awesome Mukk, love the list, I'ma put that down somewhere and hand it to anyone who tells me they're playing an evil character. By overlord list do you mean the pretty well known
100 tips to being an evil overlord? I love that list :P

But yeah, I was asked multiple times by people when I was playing Siegfreud (my CE sorc) if I was sure I wasn't LE just because I was prepared for things... or more specifically was able to react well. Though when it came to more important things I would get really prepared before ever acting. Was fun... especially near the end.

Lorin
2013-08-05, 01:51 PM
Well, in general, lawfull evil characters are better - they have standards, rules, and can be restrained by them for a greater good. Chaotic evil characters, in general, are out of controll omnicidal maniacs. Though i have one character, who averted this fate. Lirkus De Vill (Like Cruella, yeah), he was my home project at making chaotic evil character beneficial and ultimately not disruptive to a party. Scheming, amoral bastard who had only one criteria: "Amusement". But he have high standarts for his amusement. He didn't like random killing and destruction: it is dull, you know. He was more of a "Why, yes, let's kill the bandits. Also. I have an idea. Let's drop treausure chest on their leader's head, ironic, is not it? Well, we can also bribe his henchmen, it would be also quite poetic." He was quite powerfull, but also indepted to party: they saved him once, sort of. Also, they have tendency to gent into an world-changing troubles. Amusing, isn't it? So he sticked wit them, watching them changing the world and doing quite interesting things, which he would never see if he stay the way he was. It was ultimately "amusing" to him and so he wanted to assure the party's well-being. I tried really hard to make sure his actions would not trouble party in any significant way and it was a success, this character quickly became a party's favorite and i have had great fun playing him.

kyoryu
2013-08-05, 02:42 PM
The requirement for an Evil character is pretty easy - don't be stupid. You're in it for yourself, and it's pretty easy to realize that not pissing the party off is a good way to keep yourself on the good side of these powerful, but stupid people. Which will help you get more for yourself. This can be true for Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil.

Think Jayne in Firefly.

The OP asked about LE or CE *players*, though, to which I immediately reinterpret that as "disruptive players" and say "don't game with them".

StreamOfTheSky
2013-08-05, 05:29 PM
Chaotic Evil, no contest.

I'd actually go so far as to say in general, LE can get along with a typical party better than even CN (often the "we weren't allowed to be evil..." alignment) or LG. As well as the old school literal version of True Neutral (chronic backstabbing disorder; feels compelled to hel out the losing side in order to maintain balance, no matter how many face/heel turns that involves), but I don't think anyone actually plays TN that way anymore.

LE can easily stay with the party the entire campaign as long as it furthers his goals and not cross them at all. And if he does cross them much later on? At least we got a good long running campaign with a dramatic end that will be remembered.

Lorsa
2013-08-07, 06:19 AM
Why did this degrade into which character was worse? That has too much to do with group composition (although Jay R is arguing the same is true for players) to be able to give a clear answer.

Maybe we should discuss which is worse, the lawful evil GM or the chaotic evil GM?


I've been told I play a good chaotic evil character

Isn't that some form of oxymoron?

Force2Reckon
2013-08-07, 09:06 AM
Why did this degrade into which character was worse? That has too much to do with group composition (although Jay R is arguing the same is true for players) to be able to give a clear answer.

Maybe we should discuss which is worse, the lawful evil GM or the chaotic evil GM?



Isn't that some form of oxymoron?

Why yes... yes it is xD
Ok, I've been told I play Chaotic Evil well.

Anyways like Lorsa said, it comes down a lot to group composition and the player who's playing the evil character. Lawful evil characters are just as backstabbing as chaotic evil just not as upfront about it. But a terrible player can make either one horrible. If you've got a murderhobo he just needs to stop or the character dies. Unless there is a good reason for a murderhobo (Belkar, controlled by the group)



Being "lawful" does not necessarily imply that you are obeying the laws of society either, just that you obey your own moral code and conduct, although lawful evils will abuse and use the societal laws and rules to improve their standings they don't necessarily adhere to them (well they do physically, but what are underlings for if not to break the laws?)




Being chaotic does not mean you DON'T follow laws, it means that you don't care if what you do breaks a law as long as it benefits yourself, an evil character, in this way, is likely to, yes, be the murder-hobo we all know and hate, but they're just as likely to be a self centered egotist with know moral bounds, out for their own gain not caring who they hurt, these ones are the ones I like to see played because they will work with a group but try and control the groups goals to match his own but without subtlety, and when it most benefits him (usually when the only thing he'll get for staying with the group is less beneficial than anything that could happen if he left) he'll break away from his group, often damaging them or leaving them in disarray.

My favorite example of a well played chaotic evil character is my friends card caster (homebrew class), the evil ones can capture non monsters in their cards if the target is unconscious or asleep, if only asleep the target gets a will save. He worked with the party and used them to try and "stop" the demon lord he was working for, he then captured one of them every few nights (or tried) and even attempted to capture himself a few times (his will was high enough that it didn't matter what he rolled at that point) and he purposefully ignored one other player, the whole idea that if they ever thought it was one of them they'd think it was that guy. In the end when they were up against the BBEG (the demon lord) and his generals my friend decided to go out and "speak" with the demon lord, to try and appease it or such, the group agreed it was worth a shot. But when he got out there, he turned around and summoned the captured characters (who level with him and become his controlled persons). Didn't take long for the demon lord to win there, but my friend then stabbed the demon in the back and took control of his domain. He became a demon lord. Was a pretty good play by him.

Jay R
2013-08-07, 09:42 PM
Maybe we should discuss which is worse, the lawful evil GM or the chaotic evil GM?

Any evil DM warps the game. So does a Good DM, or a Chaotic DM. An ideal DM is Lawful Neutral.

TuggyNE
2013-08-08, 03:52 AM
Any evil DM warps the game. So does a Good DM, or a Chaotic DM. An ideal DM is Lawful Neutral.

I probably won't like the answer, but … what's wrong with a LG DM?

Togath
2013-08-08, 04:13 AM
if the players are good enough, the alignment rarely matters
Case in point, I'm playing both a lawful evil and chaotic evil character right now, one a knight, the other a (naruto-style)ninja. One fights "for cooking!"(the chaotic evil knight), while the other fights "to bring eternal strife"(the naruto-style ninja).
One has allied with the group on promise of someday slaying and eating dragons, or even things such as angels and devils, while the other is helping them fight the BBEG, because his(the BBEG) goal of "brainwash the world" happens to run counter to my character's(who wants eternal strife so he'll get payed better, since he works as a mercenary).
Both get along just fine with the party, since I made their(my character's) goals not run counter to that of the other players:smallsmile:
Though the players only know the knight is evil, the other group might not have figured it out yet with the ninja.

MukkTB
2013-08-08, 08:23 AM
Best DM is probably L/G but not strongly so. Not too lawful he can't improvise interesting stuff while still preferring to stick to the rules. Good enough that he tries to make the game fun for the players without making it a cakewalk.

A L/E DM could be fun to run under as a form of hardcore mode.

A C/N DM could make for some fun freewheeling RP sessions but you'd have to give up on the mechanics entirely.

The ideal simulationist is probably T/N. Not trying to make it fun or terrible for the players. Not so wedded to the RAW to let silly things happen just because they're RAW but unlikely to make random stuff happen.

Mando Knight
2013-08-08, 11:07 AM
I probably won't like the answer, but … what's wrong with a LG DM?

They will find a way for the good guys to win and for the bad guys to get their comeuppance.

If you're an evil character in the game, that's a bad thing. :smalltongue:

Terazul
2013-08-08, 11:55 AM
Yeah, I really feel this is more a case of disruptive players than the alignment themselves; Though many players take the alignments as an opportunity to do all sorts of things, any alignment can be disruptive if put in a particular party scenario.

As Force2Reckon and MukkTB, there's so much more to a Chaotic Evil character than Evil for the Evilulz™. I'm currently playing a CE Bardblade in a group of other Neutral-evilish characters (we're all part of a particular army, in our own little brigade), and he's the highest ranking character in the group. My character's best friend and partner in command happens to be LE, and despite having the occasional spat, they get along fine: Despite having different methods and means, they both have similar goals and work to achieve them. My character has the charisma and bravado to get people to follow him, the willingness to try one in a million plans, and the resources to accomplish things. The LE buddy serves as a secondary source of reason, has the wisdom and intelligence for foresight and and planning, but all the charm of a sack of wet bricks. So they cover each other's weaknesses.

They worked together to storm a city, kill the head Paladin, sell his crazy artifact shield to the black market in town, and then when their superiors asked where the shield was, they managed to pin it on the black market dudes, and get off with /two/ rewards. The main point is just because he's CE, he doesn't play like he has an Int and Wis of 3. While he's incredibly boisterous, he knows when not to blow his cover, that not every person they meet needs to be brutally murdered (especially when you can get something out of them), and that while they /are/ planning on backstabbing the army and going off in their Mobile Oppression Palace (thanks Landlord!), that cooperating with them for the time being is in his best interest. He has many allies (Leadership!), that he could ultimately sacrifice if necessary, but that doesn't stop him from being benevolent towards them. Happy workers are good workers, yes.

Ultimately, it's easy enough to be Evil without constantly running counter to the party or anyone else's goals; Just don't make stupid decisions or rub everyone's nose in it.

Jay R
2013-08-08, 12:53 PM
I probably won't like the answer, but … what's wrong with a LG DM?

Exactly the same problem with having a referee who's a fan of one of the two teams playing in the game.

He wants a happy ending, in which the good guys win. That's exactly who I want designing the scenario, but the referee who's running it should be completely neutral, or it's not really a game.

Lorsa
2013-08-09, 04:25 AM
Any evil DM warps the game. So does a Good DM, or a Chaotic DM. An ideal DM is Lawful Neutral.

Personally I would prefer a Neutral Good inclined GM (and DM if we are D&D specific). That means he cares about the enjoyment of the players more than his own. This does not necessarily imply the "good guys will get out ahead". It means he (or she) will do everything to make it an enjoyable experience for the players.

A Lawful Neutral person will follow the rules and nothing but the rules. Rarely though are they internally consistent enough that this is a great idea...

Sebastrd
2013-08-09, 01:13 PM
A Lawful Neutral person will follow the rules and nothing but the rules. Rarely though are they internally consistent enough that this is a great idea...

As a Lawful Neutral DM, I can emphatically say that you are incorrect.

Jay R
2013-08-09, 08:11 PM
A Lawful Neutral person will follow the rules and nothing but the rules. Rarely though are they internally consistent enough that this is a great idea...

In most games, following the rules as written includes making judgment calls about when to modify the rules. That's in the rules for every game I've played. A truly Lawful person would obey this rule.

Mando Knight
2013-08-09, 11:50 PM
Being Lawful isn't about blindly following the rules any more than being Chaotic is about breaking every rule you can find. An intelligent Lawful Game Master who disagrees with the rules as written will recognize that he has authority over the rules as Game Master, and is capable of overruling the written rules of the game. Such a GM may attempt to understand the reasoning behind the rule before changing it (rather than simply changing the rule because they disagree) and will attempt to apply the rule change consistently.

Lorsa
2013-08-10, 07:10 AM
When you put it that way... unfortunately I am not a lawful GM. I sometimes cheat in favour of the players. Perhaps I could put this in the rules so it would be ok?

Jay R
2013-08-10, 04:38 PM
When you put it that way... unfortunately I am not a lawful GM. I sometimes cheat in favour of the players. Perhaps I could put this in the rules so it would be ok?

What game do you run. If it's D&D, it's already in the game. So it isn't cheating.

But I don't do it merely "in favor of the players". I have added challenges occasionally.

I once changed the villain's plan because I liked the way the players put the clues together better than the way I had. It wasn't easier or harder; it was a better story.

I also once let the giant spiders be killed with a single attack, when I saw that one player had a phobia and was reacting badly to the miniatures.

Lorsa
2013-08-10, 04:45 PM
What game do you run. If it's D&D, it's already in the game. So it isn't cheating.

But I don't do it merely "in favor of the players". I have added challenges occasionally.

I once changed the villain's plan because I liked the way the players put the clues together better than the way I had. It wasn't easier or harder; it was a better story.

I also once let the giant spiders be killed with a single attack, when I saw that one player had a phobia and was reacting badly to the miniatures.

Oh yes, I've done that too. Not the phobia thing because none of my players have expressed a strong phobia that way. But I've changed plans because the players came up with a better idea I hadn't thought of. Currently I am running a nWoD hunter-ish game. Could be that there's a rule for ST cheating in there too!

Alejandro
2013-08-10, 05:01 PM
In Star Wars Saga Edition, I have yet to see any player successfully play a Dark Side character without becoming insufferable to the other players. I think the 'quick and easy path' attracts, well, lazy gamers.

Bulhakov
2013-08-10, 05:29 PM
As a lawful good GM I admit I warp the game, but do so openly (houserules for balancing and making the game world more consistent) and for the better enjoyment of my players (who've only complained once or twice that I try too hard to make the challenge "just right", and that they can be sure their characters won't die unless they do something stupid).

With that said I'd much rather prefer LE characters over CE. From my experience all LE players I've played with were decent "team players" and could curb the evil side of their characters in order not to spoil the fun of the other players (seems to exactly be the case with the OP). Almost all CE characters my players made were typical "murder hobos", with the exception of a few that were more chaotic than evil, and introduced a fun random element into the game.