It Feels so Good to be Bad: A question for those who RP evil

[Grim Portent]

A question for my fellow roleplayers out there who favor playing the vile, the villainous, the corrupt and the wicked. What is it about evil that you enjoy playing? What draws you away from playing the hero in shining armor?

Personally I've always found good fails to hold my attention long. Ever since I was a child I found myself drawn to the nasty and the savage, villains cliched and nuanced alike. Evil, portrayed well, always seemed to hold the promise of power, of change and of freedom. When I play an evil character I scheme and plot, I weave PC and NPC alike into a tapestry of malevolent plans. My goal varies from character to character, but I always find myself trying to manipulate events in game to serve my own ends. Evil seems to promise my characters more than just retiring someday to run a tavern or marry their sweetheart. Evil gives me choice, as long as I'm willing to take it.

[BWR]

I find evil fun for the same reason I find good fun, or playing borderline psychopathic suicidal tomb robbers fun, or playing anything: it's fun to create a character and play extremes to the hilt without any real world morality or consequences. I can be evil and not harm anyone. I can be the daredevil and not risk my neck. I can be the goody-two-shoes with less effort than is required in the real world.

I prefer good or at least not particularly evil characters, but the odd evil person is fun every now and then.

[Airk]

I can't really play "traditional" evil of the "delights in the suffering of innocents" sort of deal. It just sounds absurd, lacks nuance and makes me hate the character.

I can, however, occasionally play "self serving" characters, which D&D tends to categorize as "evil" and I play them because.... sometimes that an interesting character to explore.

If you have problems with Good, I feel you are not doing a good job of exploring. There is a lot of variety there.

[Red Fel]

I find Evil enjoyable because it's so nuanced. Really, there are more shades of Evil than there are shades of red - and I know how many of those there are, because I did research when decorating. (I settled on a deep vermillion with hints of burgundy.)

Good is nice, and all, but when you peel the onion back, there are only so many styles of it. There's the shining knight, the morally ambiguous rogue, the morally ambiguous jaded warrior, the iceberg with a good heart, and the exceptionally violent yet friendly barbarian. We get it, you're all lovely snowflakes. (I know, I'll get letters.)

But Evil? You can do anything with Evil, in part because Evil refuses to be limited by silly things like morality. You want to be bloodthirsty? We've got that. Ruthlessly pragmatic? Got that too. Evil always dresses better. Evil has the best speeches, the best weapons, the sexiest women and the most majestic men. Evil has the best castles, the finest interior decorators, the smartest engineers and the most brutal minions.

When a good guy is friendly, that's nice. Cute. See it every day. When a villain invites you to join him for tea, it chills you to the bone. When a good guy is violent, he's just being a murderhobo. Happens all the time. When a villain gets violent - really violent - it's stomach-turning. When a good guy tries to woo someone, it's friendly, or awkward, or sweet. When a villain does it, it's alternately horrifying ("I made this half-pony half-monkey monster to please you") or stunning ("When I hand her the keys to a shiny new Australia") or truly sweet ("It gets so lonely being evil,/ what I'd do to see a smile,/ even for a little while,"). Did I mention villains also get the best songs?

Villains can do anything heroes can do, and more. There are lines that heroes can't cross; villains can. Villains can kill a surrendered enemy. Villains can alter the deal (pray that we do not alter it any further). Villains can use sneaky legalese to wriggle out of their obligations. Villains can take hostages, kidnap damsels, and even intimidate other villains. And when there are lines that a villain will not cross, he becomes even more awesome. Suddenly, he is principled evil, and twice as terrifying.

My favorite villains are everything I've discussed, and more. They're smarter than the heroes, better prepared. They have power, wealth, and influence. They have the law of the land on their side; the heroes are powerless to stop them because they're not doing anything criminal, even if it is sinister and villainous. Their minions truly adore them, because they recognize the value of happy minions. David Xanatos comes to mind.

I'd go on, but it would just turn into a villainous love-fest. And we don't want that. Not after last time. The police had to be called in. To save the police who had previously been called in.

... Good times...

[Grim Portent]

I find Evil enjoyable because it's so nuanced. Really, there are more shades of Evil than there are shades of red - and I know how many of those there are, because I did research when decorating. (I settled on a deep vermillion with hints of burgundy.)

I must confess that I love your delivery on the subject of evil. Your posts on the matter are always delightful to read.

[Terraoblivion]

Honestly, it sounds less like evil has more freedom than being good and more like you've had a very limited exposure to media, Red Fel. Either that or come from a very rigid ethical background that allows for little wriggle room before you cease being good, though you also seem to confuse being honorable for being moral. I can name quite a few examples of unambiguously good guys who change deals or use loopholes to get out of unpleasant or morally offensive obligations. Similarly, I can think of a wide variety of individual personalities that people who are clearly good people have.

[Hyena]

While I prefer good parties to the evil, being bad sometimes feels so good. There are no moral corundrums that ******* DM can put you in. If you face a dilemma, you can solve it with murder. Constant insults from NPC? Sorry, not going to take it, you die. Incompetent higher-ups? We just replace them with much more competent ourselves. Highly spiritual elves that are so much better then you? Burn.
Evil party can lie, cheat, steal, complete coups, murder - and it's not like they can't do good, if it benefits them. They simply have more options. Every time I play a good character, I need to remind myself: "Wait, my character, she's a paladin. As much as I want stab that guy in the face right now, I'm supposed to take it." or "Oh, right, I am good. I can't get nice things, because they belong to someone else".

[Airk]

Honestly, it sounds less like evil has more freedom than being good and more like you've had a very limited exposure to media, Red Fel. Either that or come from a very rigid ethical background that allows for little wriggle room before you cease being good, though you also seem to confuse being honorable for being moral. I can name quite a few examples of unambiguously good guys who change deals or use loopholes to get out of unpleasant or morally offensive obligations. Similarly, I can think of a wide variety of individual personalities that people who are clearly good people have.

This. Red Fel, your post just reads as "I am going to lump all the 'good' possibilities into a few very broad buckets and then really drill down to individual traits for Evil."

It's like saying "There are so many different kinds of fruits, but all vegetables are either green and leafy, or grown in the ground." :P

[Red Fel]

I must confess that I love your delivery on the subject of evil. Your posts on the matter are always delightful to read.

It's always a pleasure to be both educational and enjoyable. I sincerely hope that people who read my posts on my favorite subject will be encouraged to create rich, complex, and truly villainous characters in future campaigns.

I find that it helps to read my posts as being voiced either by Christopher Lee or by Anthony Hopkins. If nothing else, it helps my ego.


Honestly, it sounds less like evil has more freedom than being good and more like you've had a very limited exposure to media, Red Fel. Either that or come from a very rigid ethical background that allows for little wriggle room before you cease being good, though you also seem to confuse being honorable for being moral. I can name quite a few examples of unambiguously good guys who change deals or use loopholes to get out of unpleasant or morally offensive obligations. Similarly, I can think of a wide variety of individual personalities that people who are clearly good people have.

Quite the contrary. However, as my most commonly-played system is D&D, and there are rigid ethical constructs that allow for little wriggle room before you cease to be good, that has become my most common frame of reference.

I acknowledge the existence of morally questionable heroes and their morally questionable antics. Indeed, I find antiheroes (and antivillains) really quite enjoyable. But the idea of the "hero" - the protagonist who is both morally noble and ethically fair - is by its nature constrained. You can abandon either or both of those, of course, and start swaying into gray territory. But what truly defines a hero is that which he will not do - the lines that he will not cross. Batman, for example, does not kill, does not carry a gun, and generally does not take the criminal justice system into his own hands. Superman has so many moral constraints he might as well wear armor made out of babies. But villains are defined by a profound lack of these limitations - they have only those limitations they impose upon themselves, and only for as long as they adhere to them.

You suggest that I confuse being honorable for being moral. I do not. There are honorable and dishonorable villains, as there are honorable and dishonorable heroes. But honor for a hero is a feather in the cap, a nice little notch on the belt. Honor for a villain is something magical and majestic, something that makes them at once more human and more terrifying. Any virtue a hero can possess, a villain can, and he'll be infinitely more exceptional for it. By contrast, vices are used to show that heroes are imperfect or more human; a vice in a villain makes it clear just how evil he is.

And I told you I'd get letters.

[Terraoblivion]

But if honor is that part of being moral, then using deceptions and legal loopholes has no bearing on whether or not a character is a hero or not. Heroes lie, deceive and blow off obligations all the time in media without falling into the antihero category unless you consider honor an essential part of morals, making it amoral behavior for them to engage in it and thus sliding into a more ambiguous category.

Also, you listed a total of five categories of heroes possible, which are frankly absurd. You'd have to engage in extreme reductionism to fit most heroes into one of them, just like they don't even seem to cover the whole spectrum of overused heroic stereotypes. Where's the hapless everyman who rises to the challenge? Or the gentle giant? Or the overly passionate, shouting idiot who everybody inexplicably loves? Or the cynical, but highly moral veteran cop? Just as a few obvious examples. And even so, a lot of characters will have to lose a lot of individual traits to defined purely by a single archetype. Not all, of course, some characters are flat and generic, but that includes both heroes, villains and characters outside heroic fiction where those archetypes apply.

Also, the difference between morally and ethically is an arbitrary creation invented by D&D writers who have not actually engaged with the philosophical discipline of ethics or with basic etymology. The words are synonymous everywhere except for the D&D alignment chart.

[Red Fel]

But if honor is that part of being moral, then using deceptions and legal loopholes has no bearing on whether or not a character is a hero or not. Heroes lie, deceive and blow off obligations all the time in media without falling into the antihero category unless you consider honor an essential part of morals, making it amoral behavior for them to engage in it and thus sliding into a more ambiguous category.

Again, when did I say that honor is part of being moral? I specifically said that there are honorable and dishonorable villains, just as there are honorable and dishonorable heroes. Where are you getting that I equated them?


Also, you listed a total of five categories of heroes possible, which are frankly absurd. You'd have to engage in extreme reductionism to fit most heroes into one of them, just like they don't even seem to cover the whole spectrum of overused heroic stereotypes. Where's the hapless everyman who rises to the challenge? Or the gentle giant? Or the overly passionate, shouting idiot who everybody inexplicably loves? Or the cynical, but highly moral veteran cop? Just as a few obvious examples. And even so, a lot of characters will have to lose a lot of individual traits to defined purely by a single archetype. Not all, of course, some characters are flat and generic, but that includes both heroes, villains and characters outside heroic fiction where those archetypes apply.

I listed illustrations, albeit somewhat sarcastically, to make a point. A point that I fear I was inartful in making, as it seems people are more interested in dissecting my failure to abstract heroic nuances - a point not relevant to the original post - than in exploring the contrasting nuances of villainy.

Yes. I'm aware that I oversimplified. I never said that my list was exclusive. My oversimplification was a deliberate attempt at contrast.


Also, the difference between morally and ethically is an arbitrary creation invented by D&D writers who have not actually engaged with the philosophical discipline of ethics or with basic etymology. The words are synonymous everywhere except for the D&D alignment chart.

"The difference between morals and ethics is that the ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife, whereas the moral man doesn't cheat on his wife." That's a quote from Dr. "Ducky" Mallard, hero, doctor, and ethicist. There is a difference between morals and ethics, and it is not one arbitrarily invented by D&D writers. They are not synonymous, but their distinction is not particularly germane to the key topic, which is: "What is it about evil that you enjoy playing?"

Tell me, Terra, what is it about evil that you enjoy playing?

[Terraoblivion]

Ethics and morals, the plural nouns, are different things, but the adjective forms are synonyms. Also, the difference between them is completely different from the one D&D writers use, so using the D&D distinction as a meaningful analytical category is wrong either way. Ethics are the pursuit of logically consistent frameworks for judging the moral value of actions and what would be the most morally appropriate choice in a given situation. Morals are the fundamentally fuzzy term for good behavior.

And the "that" in that first sentence I wrote should have been a "not". My point was that there is no moral value to using loopholes or altering deals unless you consider honor an essential part of morals. You're saying that they aren't, yet you used examples of the superior diversity of evil characters that they would engage in dishonorable behavior.

Also, I do believe that debating the claim that evil is obviously more stylish, interesting and diverse than good is rather relevant to the topic at hand. Because they're not and making sweeping claims simplifying either just muddies the waters and makes you come off as immature and failing to understand the nuances. That said, I consider evil to be a rather simplistic, cartoonish term that I find frankly uninteresting to deal with when it comes to either roleplaying or fiction. Once somebody is labeled as evil discussion stops and things get reduced to a simplistic conflict. For that matter, creating somebody with an initial goal of being "good" without a clear, consistent and detailed set of ethics under which they're judged to be self-evidently good does not produce interesting results either. Both terms are too reductionist to be of any real use unless you're intentionally going for a simplistic system of black and white morality which doesn't interest me.

[Amidus Drexel]

I like playing evil because it gives me a chance to scheme, backstab, indiscriminately slaughter, and generally engage in activities that I'm not allowed to do in real life. Playing good characters doesn't really hold my interest, and they tend to slide from good, to neutral, to evil over the course of a given campaign.

--
Regarding the debate about good vs. evil:

As I see it, in general, you have four different categories of characters:

Good actions, good intentions: Unambiguously Good - almost always heroes. Technically could include some villains, but they'd still be "good" characters, just opposed to the protagonists.
Evil actions, good intentions: Morally ambiguous - Includes anti-heroes and misguided/knights templar-esque villains. Usually not good overall, though.
Good actions, evil intentions: Mostly Evil - almost always villains. Possibly anti-heroes, but not particularly likely. Definitely not good overall.
Evil actions, evil intentions: Unambiguously Evil - almost always villains. Technically could include some anti-heroes, but if they're doing evil things with evil intentions, I'd hesitate to call them heroes at all.

There can, of course, be all sorts of characters for both heroes and villains, but good characters fall into one (and sometimes two) of the four categories, while evil characters fall into two (and sometimes three) of these categories. Therefore, I conclude that there are more kinds of evil characters than there are kinds of good characters.

[Fortuna]

I like playing evil because it gives me a chance to scheme, backstab, indiscriminately slaughter, and generally engage in activities that I'm not allowed to do in real life. Playing good characters doesn't really hold my interest, and they tend to slide from good, to neutral, to evil over the course of a given campaign.

--
Regarding the debate about good vs. evil:

As I see it, in general, you have four different categories of characters:

Good actions, good intentions: Unambiguously Good - almost always heroes. Technically could include some villains, but they'd still be "good" characters, just opposed to the protagonists.
Evil actions, good intentions: Morally ambiguous - Includes anti-heroes and misguided/knights templar-esque villains. Usually not good overall, though.
Good actions, evil intentions: Mostly Evil - almost always villains. Possibly anti-heroes, but not particularly likely. Definitely not good overall.
Evil actions, evil intentions: Unambiguously Evil - almost always villains. Technically could include some anti-heroes, but if they're doing evil things with evil intentions, I'd hesitate to call them heroes at all.

There can, of course, be all sorts of characters for both heroes and villains, but good characters fall into one (and sometimes two) of the four categories, while evil characters fall into two (and sometimes three) of these categories. Therefore, I conclude that there are more kinds of evil characters than there are kinds of good characters.

I'd just like to say that your argument hurts my brain through its abuse of logic. This is roughly parallel to 'Either it will happen, or it will not, so the chance of it happening is 50%', and just as valid.

For myself, I play evil because I like winning. Not just triumphing, but winning, crushing, destroying. Playing evil is a good way to get that out of my system - sometimes playing chess against a suitably inferior opponent does the trick, but there's nothing quite like good old-fashioned villainy for purging those moods. Outside those moments, I tend not to think in terms of good and evil, but in terms of power and those too weak to seek it specific goals for a character, and what lines they will and will not cross in pursuit of those goals - from which a perception of 'good' or 'evil' tends to arise organically.

[TheCountAlucard]

I don't play alignments; I play characters.

[Coidzor]

A question for my fellow roleplayers out there who favor playing the vile, the villainous, the corrupt and the wicked. What is it about evil that you enjoy playing? What draws you away from playing the hero in shining armor?

Personally I've always found good fails to hold my attention long. Ever since I was a child I found myself drawn to the nasty and the savage, villains cliched and nuanced alike. Evil, portrayed well, always seemed to hold the promise of power, of change and of freedom. When I play an evil character I scheme and plot, I weave PC and NPC alike into a tapestry of malevolent plans. My goal varies from character to character, but I always find myself trying to manipulate events in game to serve my own ends. Evil seems to promise my characters more than just retiring someday to run a tavern or marry their sweetheart. Evil gives me choice, as long as I'm willing to take it.

People don't complain nearly so much about the bad guys having MINIONS, so there's that. And you don't have to argue against DM prejudices when you want to make a couple of meat puppets, you just do it.

[Grim Portent]

I don't play alignments; I play characters.

But do those characters primarily display traits you would consider positive or negative? Do they do things that are nice or nasty? When you look at a character after they reach their end one way or another do you remember them as someone that you would befriend or one you would avoid at all costs?

I rarely play games with alignments, but I still think of many of my characters as offensive to my own personal morals and distinctly evil both in and out of their setting.

[Amidus Drexel]

I'd just like to say that your argument hurts my brain through its abuse of logic. This is roughly parallel to 'Either it will happen, or it will not, so the chance of it happening is 50%', and just as valid.

I don't quite follow, although I'd be willing to listen if you show me how I'm wrong.

I don't quite like your analogy - I think a better analogue to my argument would be more like this:

There are four coins in a box. Each side of each coin is coloured either red or blue. The coins are coloured as follows:

1. Red/Red
2. Red/Blue
3. Blue/Blue
4. Blue/Blue

If I pick a coin at random, what are the chances of at least one side of the coin being red? (50%). What are the chances of at least one side of the coin being blue? (75%). There are more coins that have at least one blue side than at least one red side, therefore I conclude that there are more "blues" than there are "reds".


People don't complain nearly so much about the bad guys having MINIONS, so there's that. And you don't have to argue against DM prejudices when you want to make a couple of meat puppets, you just do it.

Indeed. No DM is going to be too worried about an evil guy burning down an orphanage, but for some reason, the good guys aren't supposed to do that. :smalltongue: :smallamused:

[TheCountAlucard]

But do those characters primarily display traits you would consider positive or negative?They possess traits that they themselves see as positive and/or negative, which don't necessarily synch with the ones that I see as positive and/or negative, which don't necessarily synch with what others may see as positive and/or negative.


Do they do things that are nice or nasty?Whether what said character does is nice or nasty is gonna depend on the beholder, but in general, they do both.


When you look at a character after they reach their end one way or another do you remember them as someone that you would befriend or one you would avoid at all costs?I think this, too, is something that can by and large be divorced entirely from any sort of alignment. There've been characters I'd like to sit and watch movies with, and there've been ones I'd cross nine states to get away from should they move in next door; none of them corresponded to any particular alignment.


I rarely play games with alignments, but I still think of many of my characters as offensive to my own personal morals and distinctly evil both in and out of their setting.I, too, rarely deal in games with alignment, but even in a game where objective alignment exists, I do my best to consider these things more organically.

[BrokenChord]

I like playing Evil characters for all the same reasons as Red Fel mentioned, but I am very constantly struggling to fight the slippery slope towards neutrality, because the only characters I really play are Evil Heroes. Who despite being horrifyingly Evil by strict reading of the rules are seen as really, really good people by my DMs.

[Fortuna]

I don't quite follow, although I'd be willing to listen if you show me how I'm wrong.

I don't quite like your analogy - I think a better analogue to my argument would be more like this:

There are four coins in a box. Each side of each coin is coloured either red or blue. The coins are coloured as follows:

1. Red/Red
2. Red/Blue
3. Blue/Blue
4. Blue/Blue

If I pick a coin at random, what are the chances of at least one side of the coin being red? (50%). What are the chances of at least one side of the coin being blue? (75%). There are more coins that have at least one blue side than at least one red side, therefore I conclude that there are more "blues" than there are "reds".

Basically, your argument works on dividing up characters based on two sets of criteria, then claiming that each of the four divisions thus formed contains roughly the same number of kinds of characters. That claim is unfounded, and its failure renders your argument invalid. To take the analogy to the coins, it's not reasonable to assert there are exactly four coins divided in exactly even proportions between the four kinds, so you can't find those probabilities.

[Slipperychicken]

People don't complain nearly so much about the bad guys having MINIONS, so there's that. And you don't have to argue against DM prejudices when you want to make a couple of meat puppets, you just do it.

Who says the good guys can't have minions too? Almost any method of getting minions can be replicated by a hero.


A good guy can even pull a few mind tricks and get the bad guys to right their wrongs. Nothing says justice like getting the villain to clean up his own mess :smallbiggrin:

[Jacob.Tyr]

I've played characters that were D&D standards "evil" but I can't really imagine a character thinking of their self as evil. It just comes off as silly and childish to be "Muahaha I'm evil". Characters have goals and perspectives. No one thinks their goals are bad-wrong when viewed through their own perspective. You're only really evil when someone else has the perspective that your goals are evil.

That being said, RP'ing evil characters can be great when you turn the standard hero tropes on their heads. "I must avenge my family, brutally slain while I was a child. Yes, those terrible knights in shining armor killed everyone in a raid while freeing our hard-earned slaves!" Sure, this character is evil from our perspective, but honestly 200 years ago they would have been "Good" in quite a few places. Playing evil really shines when they make sense, and without our own ethical and moral baggage you could see how the character is Good by their own worldview.

[Red Fel]

Who says the good guys can't have minions too? Almost any method of getting minions can be replicated by a hero.


A good guy can even pull a few mind tricks and get the bad guys to right their wrongs. Nothing says justice like getting the villain to clean up his own mess :smallbiggrin:

Correction: Good guys can have sidekicks, employees, subordinates, allies, comrades, even friends. But when you start calling them minions, they start getting cross, and forming unions... All the paperwork.

And good guys apparently have issues killing off minions who demand dental benefits. You'll have your dental when I have my world domination, and not a moment before, now get back to work on my death ray! Unless you want to end up like Bob! You remember Bob? Well, if you forget, take a look at what's left of him in the gallery. And in the conservatory. And hanging from the balcony. Speaking of, send someone to clean up the gallery, conservatory, and balcony; that carpet is expensive and viscera is a pain to clean out.

See? Heroes generally don't do that.

[Amidus Drexel]

Basically, your argument works on dividing up characters based on two sets of criteria, then claiming that each of the four divisions thus formed contains roughly the same number of kinds of characters. That claim is unfounded, and its failure renders your argument invalid. To take the analogy to the coins, it's not reasonable to assert there are exactly four coins divided in exactly even proportions between the four kinds, so you can't find those probabilities.

Hrm... yeah, I see that now. In order to determine if my original logic holds water, we need to establish a rough proportion to the amount of characters that fit into each category, then re-evaluate.

Would it be reasonable to assume that the human imagination is capable of producing an arbitrarily high amount of characters that match a given criteria?

If so, I would then argue that each category contains the same (arbitrarily high) amount of possibilities, and the original logic follows.
If not, I would ask you what limitations there are that would make one category contain more or less possibilities for characters than another, and how best to take that into account.

[Fortuna]

Two arbitrarily high numbers are not necessarily equivalent or equal. I think it's probably true that each category contains more possibilities than we can readily document, but it doesn't follow from there that they contain the same number of characters or character types, and nor does it follow that the sum of two is greater than any given other one.

[russdm]

It feels more to me here that Players have suffered from "Good is boring" versus "Evil is Cool/Fun" because when you play good characters and find it boring, then you will find playing evil characters fun.

I personally come up more motivations and goals for evil characters since its more required than for good characters. I also tend to disallow evil characters because I have seen some characters being played stupid evil. Oddly, I have seen supposedly good characters played as stupid evil or nearly so (Murderhobo moments).

The default attitude seems in my experience to default to Stupid evil/Chaotic evil and played for silliness rather than seriousness. Yes, its a game but choosing to act evil means accepting that you have a character that will act as bad as Darth Vader and that means being able to handle it with seriousness. Evil is not a toy in D&D games, while in others its treated differently completely.

Very few players in my experience will bother to give their evil characters motivation beyond being jerks and given that is nearly completely how they plead their good characters it meant nothing. Granted, this was my real life group not one from the boards.

I think that the level or degree/kind of evil needs to be more unique than just 3 alignments of Chaotic Evil, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil because they limit things down to what kinds of evil conduct is available. You can have evil characters that actually draw from all three. A good example would be Tom Hiddleton's movie Loki or Benedict Cumberbatch's Khan. Both employ things from all three alignments in their actions but can only fit under one in D&D because it doesn't allow multiple alignments as that defaults to Neutral. So in theory, someone who rides the evil alignments is supposed to be Neutral.

I find it hard to play evil mainly because I tend to make characters that are pragmatic and who act in ways like being to kill evil-doers even for a paladin. Good is not nice, you don't have to play a good character like a goody two-shoes, you can have paladin who just smites everyone. That paladin is acceptable and encouraged by the game.

For example, If I am playing a Jedi, that Jedi is still going to be more than willing to kill someone and sure I will take the dark side hit, but it means getting the job done. If I have to kill people to save people as a Jedi, then I am willing to take as many dark side hits as needed. Same for a paladin or any other character I would play. Evil must be stopped even if it means using deadly force, or why give a Jedi/paladin access to death-dealing weapons? If you don't want someone to kill, then require them to swear a vow against killing; its easy enough.

After all, I don't believe in the whole garbage of "If you kill him, you will be like him" because the villain would kill his minions as carelessly as nearly heroes that encounter this cliché do. By the time that hero has reached the villain, they only differ in intentions but have committed nearly the same acts already. The hero killed minions with no concern/remorse; the villain would do exactly the same and probably has. So what is really so bad about killing the villain, hero? just think of him/her as being the same as all of the mooks/minions you killed to reach him/her.

There, that wasn't so difficult now was it? And look, you haven't changed a bit. So what was the big concern about here?

[Gamgee]

I find Evil enjoyable because it's so nuanced. Really, there are more shades of Evil than there are shades of red - and I know how many of those there are, because I did research when decorating. (I settled on a deep vermillion with hints of burgundy.)

Good is nice, and all, but when you peel the onion back, there are only so many styles of it. There's the shining knight, the morally ambiguous rogue, the morally ambiguous jaded warrior, the iceberg with a good heart, and the exceptionally violent yet friendly barbarian. We get it, you're all lovely snowflakes. (I know, I'll get letters.)

But Evil? You can do anything with Evil, in part because Evil refuses to be limited by silly things like morality. You want to be bloodthirsty? We've got that. Ruthlessly pragmatic? Got that too. Evil always dresses better. Evil has the best speeches, the best weapons, the sexiest women and the most majestic men. Evil has the best castles, the finest interior decorators, the smartest engineers and the most brutal minions.

When a good guy is friendly, that's nice. Cute. See it every day. When a villain invites you to join him for tea, it chills you to the bone. When a good guy is violent, he's just being a murderhobo. Happens all the time. When a villain gets violent - really violent - it's stomach-turning. When a good guy tries to woo someone, it's friendly, or awkward, or sweet. When a villain does it, it's alternately horrifying ("I made this half-pony half-monkey monster to please you") or stunning ("When I hand her the keys to a shiny new Australia") or truly sweet ("It gets so lonely being evil,/ what I'd do to see a smile,/ even for a little while,"). Did I mention villains also get the best songs?

Villains can do anything heroes can do, and more. There are lines that heroes can't cross; villains can. Villains can kill a surrendered enemy. Villains can alter the deal (pray that we do not alter it any further). Villains can use sneaky legalese to wriggle out of their obligations. Villains can take hostages, kidnap damsels, and even intimidate other villains. And when there are lines that a villain will not cross, he becomes even more awesome. Suddenly, he is principled evil, and twice as terrifying.

My favorite villains are everything I've discussed, and more. They're smarter than the heroes, better prepared. They have power, wealth, and influence. They have the law of the land on their side; the heroes are powerless to stop them because they're not doing anything criminal, even if it is sinister and villainous. Their minions truly adore them, because they recognize the value of happy minions. David Xanatos comes to mind.

I'd go on, but it would just turn into a villainous love-fest. And we don't want that. Not after last time. The police had to be called in. To save the police who had previously been called in.

... Good times...
I know what you mean. A great villain is simply astounding. Villains also get all the roast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tytOwMLqufg).

[JellyPooga]

My roleplaying group is pretty traditional and the other players tend to get a bit uppity and/or confused when anyone even suggests playing a character or game outside the murderhobo dungeon bash D&D stereotype. Having said that, I have managed to rock the boat a few times, even played evil characters. About the only way I've managed this and the most enjoyable way of doing so I've found is to play the "redemption" card. There's few character development stories better than the bad guy who 'finds the light' and (if you're that way inclined) gives ample opportunity for some OTT roleplaying down either the emo "I used to be evil and now I totally regret it" or the holier-than-thou "I used to be evil and now I'm going to convert you or you will die" routes.

My favourite example of one such character I played in a Warhammer Fantasy game (1ed), was Guntar Swartzbaum (my apologies to any German speakers for my hashed attempt at "Blacktree" as a surname); a Herbalist with an iron will, who was built like a bear (I had an awesome set of starting stats). I had originally intended for him to pursue the Druid career tree, but after getting his hands on a Necromancers evil doohicky-of-doom (some kind of Palantir-esque orb) by wresting it from the Necromancers control in a battle of wills and turning its dark power back on its former master, I couldn't help but explore the possibilities (with the collaboration of my GM, of course).

Corrupted by the power of the Orb he'd found, I had him delve into arcane secrets, research forbidden lore and the all the rest, sending him spiralling down the slippery path into madness and chaos, until he became truly evil. Whilst he was ostensibly helping the rest of the party stop the villainous plots of our rivals, he was really looking to usurp the villains power and increase his own. Behind the backs of his companions, he was killing and torturing, stealing and generally being a really nasty piece of work (I'll gladly admit that some of this was to the shock of my GM, who I don't think expected me to go as far as I did sometimes!). Come the end of our first big adventure arc, however, it was Guntar who stopped the ritual, rescued the girl and generally saved the day; nothing better than a heroic reputation to cover your tracks...

After that adventure, though, the GM (who, as I mentioned, is something of a traditionalist) was uncomfortable with me playing evil, so I pulled out the aforementioned "redemption card" (which I had always intended to do at some point anyway) and so began Guntars slow and painful climb back into the light. Still prone to evil acts, his conscience warred with his lust for power and the whispers of the Orb. Had the game gone on long enough, I was going to have him delve deeper into the necromantic arts before clawing his way out of the pit to become a Witch Hunter; using the enemies tools against them. On paper, he'd be a force for good, but there would always be the question of where his true loyalties lay and his methods would always be somewhat morally dubious. Unfortunately, the game didn't run long enough to realise this destiny, so I never got to see whether it would come to pass or not.

That's the kind of evil I like to play.

[Coidzor]

Evil is not a toy in D&D games, while in others its treated differently completely.

That's very much a dynamic that varies from group to group and system to system. There's many people who feel that the entire system they're playing in is basically a toy due to being a plaything.

Edit: Granted, that may be an in-game vs. out-of-game sort of thing.

[Gamgee]

Oh I will say I apologize for playing a pure asshat in my friends game once. I was definitely chaotic stupid. That was many years ago at the beginning of my player career. Now however everyone likes it when I play an evil character assuming they have some motivation. Though I'm not often going to play evil, only when I get a really good idea.

[Raimun]

Heh, anyone claiming that Good characters lack nuance clearly hasn't been paying attention to any stories or for that matter, to alignment rules.

It's like saying that all Evil characters are one of the three types: First there's the psycho killer who tries to kill you if you look him funny. Then there's the self serving assassin who would kill anyone if the price is right. Finally, there's the scheming would-be dictator who uses lies, deceit and political machinations to get ahead... and then kills people.

Also, any claim that Evil has no limits is just wrong. I could as well claim that Good characters always possess the heroic resolve and grand destiny to always triumph but I really don't believe in such cliched characterization. Otherwise, we should allow any mute Evil skulker with a mask and a blade the ability to teleport but only when no one is looking.

[Killer Angel]

A question for my fellow roleplayers out there who favor playing the vile, the villainous, the corrupt and the wicked. What is it about evil that you enjoy playing?

Because sometime is fun to play a sort of Edward the Longshanks, and say "we have reserves. Attack!"

[Grim Portent]

I've played characters that were D&D standards "evil" but I can't really imagine a character thinking of their self as evil. It just comes off as silly and childish to be "Muahaha I'm evil". Characters have goals and perspectives. No one thinks their goals are bad-wrong when viewed through their own perspective. You're only really evil when someone else has the perspective that your goals are evil.

The idea that someone cannot knowingly be evil is a rather flawed one, it avoids the possibility that the character has full understanding that what they do is wrong, but they continue to do it anyway because they're already damned.

If you've murdered and pillaged across a nation in the name of fun and profit and you start to feel a tinge of remorse it is entirely possible to shrug it off and keep going because there's nothing else you could do.

Sometimes the epiphany moment that makes someone realize their crimes and wrongs doesn't make them repent, it just makes them throw themselves wholly into further evils.

If there is no hope for redemption, no chance of forgiveness, then why not embrace damnation?

[Alberic Strein]

I'm on Red Fel's side for this one. A writer once said that we were all similar in our happiness, but individual in our unhappiness. And I think that goes for good-evil too.

On a more personal note, I personally play good characters, and when I roll an evil one, in the span of three sessions, he is good. A few notable exceptions come from the fact that in D&D, dissociating yourself from the moral compass means being evil, not neutral.

E.g : A cleric of Death whose job is to maintain the dissociation being the realm of the dead and the realm of the living. That goal is absolute. If he has to kick dogs to give himself the best odds of succeeding, he will.

Which, in D&D, is unquestionably evil. He is kicking dogs, he knows kicking dogs is wrong, and he is completely unrepentant about it. He might present his regrets to the particular dog, or his next of kin, but would do it all over again if he felt it was necessary.

Also, while I don't agree that you can't have the realization that you are evil on your own, I agree with the rest of Jacob Tyr's point. We don't see acts as good or evil, we don't deal in absolutes, a character choosing to do an evil act will most logically most often see it as being the "right" choice nonetheless. Also, we can know that we are doing some morally reprehensible acts without labelling ourselves evil.

So yeah, in D&D so many character concepts fall under the "evil" hat, that I really feel that more character concepts fall under that particular hat than good or neutral, leading to players playing "evil" characters since it's the de facto alignment of their concept.

Also, an incentive to playing an evil character is that when you decide that murder IS in fact the best solution, you don't get into an 2 hours long argument with your DM like "your character wouldn't do that"

Side point : "Well, I'm f***ing EVIL!" is a kickass retort.

[Red Fel]

Oh I will say I apologize for playing a pure asshat in my friends game once. I was definitely chaotic stupid. That was many years ago at the beginning of my player career. Now however everyone likes it when I play an evil character assuming they have some motivation. Though I'm not often going to play evil, only when I get a really good idea.

This is another great reason to play Evil - personal growth as a player.

Almost anyone who has played Evil has gone through the "chaotic stupid" or "stabbingly evil" phase. Myself included. It's like learning how to walk. But it offers such opportunities to advance your abilities as a roleplayer.

There's a very good chance that most players will play characters who are ostensibly heroic. It's basically inevitable. You'll get a lot of experience playing "good guys" from doing that.

But to play a truly morally ambiguous character, someone who balances good and evil; to play a fallen hero who has given into the temptations of being evil; to play someone on a bloody quest for revenge; to play someone with ice in their veins and a pragmatically sadistic streak; to do any of this, you need practice. Practice makes perfect, as they say. And it's hard to get practice playing a semi-evil character. Hard, because you're constantly contrasting the two sides. Hard, because you're coming at evil actions from a primarily good perspective.

It's a lot easier to practice evil tendencies when you're playing an evil character. You remove the moral restraints and try on your brand new evil shoes. "Hmm. What motivates me to torture someone? To kick a puppy? Perform human sacrifice?" You can explore these motivations freely.

Your first few attempts may be clumsy. That happens. It happens when playing heroes, too, on occasion. But you grow. You learn. And soon, you can apply those lessons even when you're not playing a truly evil character.

From playing a tempter demon, you have learned how to make your noble soul wrestle with temptation. From playing an honor-bound swordsman-and-killer, you've learned how to play the revenge angle to the hilt. (Pun intended.) From playing a psychopathic murderer who wears his victims' flesh, you've learned how to play the slow descent into madness. From playing the Grand Inquisitor, you've learned how to perform a torture scene - and when it is and isn't appropriate to do so. By playing Evil, you can actually play Good characters with more variety and nuance.

See? Evil makes Good better. You're welcome.

[Terraoblivion]

I'm pretty sure that if you're engaging in pragmatism then it isn't sadistic. It can be cruel, brutal or horrifying, but the joy that sadism indicates seems to clash with pragmatism.

[Katuko]

Evil actions allow me to play out some things I might have enjoyed the thought of, but could never bring myself to do in real life. For example: I can enjoy a good plan of deception that leads to the perfect, untraceable theft of a great deal of money; or a kidnapping, or a murder. I enjoy having a character that don't always have to go the typical goody-good route of doing whatever other people tell you. Anti-heroes appeal to me, but so do anti-villains. Really, I enjoy the kind of characters who to stand in the face of others of their kin, whether that be by refusing to abide by the law or by wishing to quit the BBEG's army to live a quiet life.

I don't have experience with real tabletop gaming, but I have played in a few free-form forum RPGs, and I have played many video games. In video games, the path I walk depend on the setting. If the setting is nice and I enjoy the NPCs etc., then I will strive to play a Good route. I go Paragon Shepard in Mass Effect, for example, because even though Renegade Shepard can be cool, I just can't bring myself to play as such a jerk. In other games, where NPCs are less interesting or the setting itself does not lend itself to idealism, I tend to drift at the edge of good/evil. I will save the farmer's kidnapped daughter, but I will also rob the local shop. I will assassinate some otherwise friendly targets in their sleep if they have a good item and are unimportant to me and the plot. In sim games... I am quite vicious. They bore me, and I get a childish need for action, mayhem, and destruction.

Still, if I roleplay a good character, I will try to keep them on a righteous path even if I take some losses for it. If I roleplay evil, I will go against my typical notion of accepting anything from any NPC with a quest marker on them. Typically I play and "evil" character after I have already been through the game once, when I no longer care to explore everything and I start looking at the more fun and/or profitable ways of doing things.

In forum RPGs, I noticed that many people's characters - good or evil - were most often problematic due to typical Chaotic Stupid behavior. These were the players who took "no rules" way too far, and made their characters overpowered or completely ignorant of basic common sense. For example, I had what you might call a typical "Lawful Good" character in this game: Works as a low-ranking soldier in the local militia, distances himself from the civil war that is going on, and is unwilling to break his moral beliefs even when dealing with murderous criminals. However, faced with another player who just refused to call it quits even when the game has led his "super-evil!" character to be beaten down by several other players simultaneously, I as a player was happy to have a more morally ambiguous character on hand to just say "welp, I kill him now", despite being forced by my in-character persona to protest when it happened. The GM ruled that we could not kill a character without permission, but he did forcibly end the conflict (quite violently) and toss the offending character in time-out as a result of "Being beaten unconscious. Repeatedly."

With this in mind, I made a character in another RPG, who I described as Lawful Evil. I wished to use him to fulfill my needs of control over other players, to keep them dancing after my pipe. :smallsmile: This character had been a small-time criminal, now desiring to move up to bigger things. He wished for wealth and power, and this was the primary motivation for everything I had him do. He was willing to steal and kill, but he valued loyalty and would only stab someone in the back if it was absolutely necessary. Unlike other Evil characters in the RPG (and the BBEG himself), I wanted to make a villain who you could actually trust to not only keep his word, but also help you, so long as you did not make him mad. He only did it for personal profit, but on several occasions it made Good-aligned characters actually leap to his defense in arguments etc. It was quite brilliant.

I started the game by placing him in a small town, setting up a sign where he recruited people to take back the land from the Big Bad. Typical band of heroes, you would think, and that is actually what we acted as. Secretly (well, it was in-game thoughts that everyone knew OOC, though :smallwink:), I hoped to amass a band of loyal warriors who would help me control everything once the current plot was resolved. On the way I did some shady things along with a player on my team, such as stealing resources from another group and covering up the past of a murderer so he could join our troupe. We naturally got into conflict with other players, some who had been hunting said murderer and some who were nearby when resources vanished. Some simply did not trust us due to my rule that "anyone, regardless of past, may join". I kept the other PCs in line by being fair and ask for opinions, but still unwilling to let others take charge against my orders. It worked quite well, as my character became known as somewhat grumpy but a good authority figure. I very much enjoyed sprinkling my posts with IC thoughts of... future plans :smallbiggrin:

As a group we IC moved away from the lawful rule in the GM's established settlements, and built a stone wall and some huts for our warriors near a lake. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), many players found the prospect of a such a remote place to be exciting, and we soon had a group that officially had more than 20 PCs in it - far more than even the GM-official militia for the most popular town! Our base of operations was actually safer than the towns due to the big concentration of PCs in the area and the lack of BBEG attacks. Beyond the people who joined the group itself, many PCs passed by to converse and interact. The lake settlement became known as the biggest band of heroes in the game, despite being run by a man who only did it for personal gain. At one point, a heroic PC said we should attack one of the BBEG's monster lairs, the place where he produced swarms of enemies. It was a landmark in-game, and the official description made it clear that if you tried to go there, your PC would likely die. I contacted the GM and politely asked him if we could sack the place. He agreed, as he recognized our current foothold the game. Just a few days later, I was sitting in a forum topic with lots and lots of PCs and NPCs gathering to prepare for the assault. As a player, I had my control, and I reveled in it. It was perhaps the greatest battle in the game, at least as far as size goes.

Being Evil, I could justify my character sticking around to bark orders, but also not attack monsters etc. directly. Some PCs died. I think my character could have saved one of them had he chosen to do so, but since self-preservation was his #1 priority I pulled back instead. I got a small, sadistic glee out of it, as in any other game I'd likely have gotten my character maimed trying to help. In the rest of the game, I could freely interact with some other, more openly Evil characters, without worrying about how my character would need to sacrifice to "win". It was so simple; he didn't particularly care if a house got damaged in a fight, or if the hostage survived, or if the money we retrieved had to be given back to the original owners. He would gladly set a boat on fire to get rid of his enemy, or kill a civilian and blame it on them, or booby-trap his own office door with lethal results. A Good character could not do this. I could. It was wonderful.

And still my group of loyal PCs was labeled Good. :D Some players who had characters in it were even unaware of my character profile, and reacted with a "wait, what?" to some of my IC thoughts when they started to realize OOC that something was up with this guy.

Sadly, due to players leaving, other players becoming nuisances, and the plot being GM-rigged to our disadvantage because we simply could not be allowed to disrupt the "reboot" of the setting that followed the BBEG being defeated (the perfect opportunity to realize my character's original plan, but alas!) the group eventually petered out and I withdrew from the game. That was one of my very few Evil characters, though, and I compared to the "limits" I have in a Good character I enjoyed every moment of it!


I think great care should be taken to not use an Evil character as an excuse for being disruptive. Far too often I saw a new player write something like "I walk into the tavern and toss oil on the floor, then light it!" If you set fire to a building IC just because you feel like it, you are most likely not playing a "proper" Evil character, but just a bland shell of a character that is only meant to enable you breaking the rules. If you can work out a very good IC reason for why your Evil dude needs to torch that building, however, then you can go ahead and do it. I play with such rules in my head, whether I am Good or Evil. Is there a reason for my character to do X?

Playing Evil characters in a video game, it doesn't matter. I do what I feel like doing. In a proper RPG, though, where I try to make a real character, I sometimes feel this comes up more often with Evil than with Good. For example: Often Good characters are somehow supposed to blindly accept quests? Even if I'm a Good Guy, I can see problems with fighting through dozens of bandits to retrieve a single stolen purse, for example. In fact, I sometimes feel that the RPG notion of killing X bandits to be rewarded Y money and XP makes me more Evil than Good, because I start looking forward to murdering more and more faceless bandits so I can level up!

[Knaight]

Most of my characters are good people, but occasionally I do find it fun to play those more on the antihero side of things - I don't play villains, as GMing 97% of the time really pretty much covers that for me. The appeal is mostly in trying to immerse myself in a philosophy that I think would actually be really destructive. So, for instance, I might play a character who is extremely dedicated to justice happening. They oppose the restraints on police-analog power, they're very much into the retaliation and retribution end of dealing with crime (as opposed to things like deterrence, removal, and rehabilitation), and little things like mercy are probably seen as a weakness. I can see why someone might have this view. I can see the visceral appeal of it. I also consider it dangerous, and because of those two things I find a character who engages in it fun to play. I might also play an overly devoted ideologue who's gone past the point of caring about actual people - again, it's something I've seen happen, and I can understand why it might. Again, it's something I consider dangerous, and because of that compelling for a character.

[MrNobody]

Playing an Evil character is a good way to "test" my imagination: how far can i go till i disgust myself, till i reach the extreme limit of what my mind can produce?
Playing the good guy is (somewhat) easier, because our society actively pushes us to be good. We all know what "being good" means, we know the meaning of kindness, self-sacrifice... For Evil (with capital E) it's totally different: we are talking about of thinking about actions that our education tried (and, i hope for everybody here, succeded) to erased from our mind. It's not simply "not being good", neither playing the classic psyco-guy that hates humanity because... because yes!
Playing evil is actively look for the nastier, the most corrupted and vile actions, digging deeper and deeper reaching the point of saying "i'm done, i can't think worse than this", and the pushing yourself over.

You want an idea of what i'm saying? Read "The 120 Days of Sodom" (Marquis de Sade). Every page is worse that the previous, everytime you think that i couldn't become worse, it does. Sometimes you just want to close the book but you cannot, you are mesmerized by all those black that keeps on blackening!

And this is true for every extreme alignement.

[A.A.King]

I enjoy playing the Evil characters because I feel those are more in control. When I think about creating interesting Good characters there is much more conflict to the character which is very difficult to nearly impossible to show. For example when you think about why it is interesting story wise then you realize it's about inner conflict which gets shown through an inner monologue or because the conflict rises from clashing ideals which can only happen if one of the other players or an NPC hold the other ideal and actually clashes. Having your character rethink his ideas, something which you hope happens because it's growth, is much more difficult when you are already on the right side of the argument. And in the end it also comes down to the fact that if you play with an alignment system then it's pretty well established what the "good" thing is to do. I find that most in-game issues you face have only one fairly obvious "right" or "good" way of going about it whereas there are always 7 different ways of doing it wrong.

[Adanedhel]

Because sometimes it's the goal that matters.

Because sometimes, one can win a war and ensure the safety of all, and all it costs is lying, cheating, bribing a man to cover the crimes of other man, and the murder of two insignificant peons, with their bodyguard, and the selfrespect of one supposedly honorable person. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

Because sometimes, it's easier to dispense with the proper procedures, and just do what must be done to save the world, with the least possible chance on failure, rather than doing the right thing, and hope that the universe conspires to make sure you still succeed.

Because sometimes someone must fall so that others might rise.


Or at least, those are my evilish characters.
I don't quite like playing characters who are selfish :p

[Raimun]

I guess I could tell you about a high level campaign where I played an Evil character.

Since me or my character weren't stupid, I played a typical scheming Lawful Evil, who could be described as affable. If being overtly Evil will get you killed, then it pays to be subtle, right? Motivation for anything was rather hard to come by. I admit, I kind of backpedalled, for OOC reasons, even when I had most of the campaign the means to utterly crush at least a nation or two... and in character, it was something he would have been totally ok with and actually looked forward to, even when he would drink tea or whatever with the citizens of said nation(s). I just thought it wouldn't be fun for other players and not dramatic enough for my tastes. You know, kind of like the villains always let the hero live for some reason, even if they destroy their hometown at the beginning of the story. :smalltongue:

Edit: Perhaps I was just disappointed that there was no big final showdown. At that point, my character would not have gained anything if I just fought for the sake fighting, so I did the smart thing and I just consolidated my power as the ruler of a hidden city and focused on raising monsters.

Overall, I actually found Evil alignment rather boring to play. I'm just not the kind of guy to whom Evil alignment has much to offer.
I find it much easier to play anti-heroes who are Neutral on Good-Evil-axis than out-right villainous characters. That way, it is possible to save the world and truly fight for brighter future of all sentient creatures... by any means necessary.

One further note. Many people have claimed that no character actually perceives themselves as evil. While it is true that there are well intentioned extremists, there are also characters all around the fiction who just revel in their wickedness. They know that killing someone is wrong and they don't care about that but instead take joy of their actions. Fictional characters like The Joker and Xykon certainly consider themselves evil. Moral relativism is all well and good but sometimes, I feel it obscures discussion about fiction too much.

You should read the OoTS-prequel Start of Darkness. There we see a mortal Xykon who is every bit the Evil dude he is in the webcomic as a lich.

[Thialfi]

Exploring something that resembles real world evil is intriguing. I have no use for the Snidley Whiplash or Iago evil that just messes with people for no real reason. Being evil for kicks is no fun for me.

I want to explore the evil that has something that they hold dear and would do absolutely anything to protect it. What George Lucas did so poorly, I want to do better. I want to play someone that hurts people only when they are motivated to do so. Someone that can be a good friend when you work with them, but a merciless cut throat when you cross them or stand in the way of what they want.

[Garimeth]

I just make a character and give him goals, and try to decide what, if any, his moral constraints are based off his background.

If your group usually plays DnD or other games with alignment and plays a game w/o alignment, its interesting to see the difference in how people play their characters.

[Raimun]

Exploring something that resembles real world evil is intriguing. I have no use for the Snidley Whiplash or Iago evil that just messes with people for no real reason. Being evil for kicks is no fun for me.


Most of the time, evil people will do evil stuff for somekind of benefit. If kicking a dog nets them power or wealth, they will just do that. A moral person might be tempted if the benefit would be huge but ultimately resist the temptation.

Thing is, one of the hallmarks of true evil is that they just might feel that the suffering of others benefits them. That is, they see "entertainment value" in the suffering of others and such vulgar displays of power feed their ego. People like that actually exist.

Of course, there are "well intentioned extremists" and brutally opportunistic varieties of evil, etc. but the above is an actual thing too.

In D&D-settings there are also anti-paladins who are evil for the sake of evil, since evil is a concrete force in D&D-settings.

[Segev]

To answer the OP's original question, I think what attracts me to the concept of the villainous character is what made me always more identify with them in cartoons as a kid: In fiction - and D&D is no exception - it is almost invariably the villain who is pro-active.

The heroes are hanging around, being nice to their neighbors in their peaceful villages and towns...and then the villain does something. And they have to stop him. Sure, they win in the end, but for a time the Villain is always a step or two ahead of them. The villain is the guy who decides what the plot is, who determines what the endgame will be, and who, if he wins, will actually accomplish something more than returning to status quo.

Leaving aside all the possible discussions about whether the status quo is something to preserve or overthrow, I find myself drawn to the idea of the pro-active world-shaker, even as my morals would lead me to prefer world-shaking for good (e.g. inventing the light bulb or breaking down the iron curtain) rather than the "traditional" fictional evil (e.g. "take over the world").

[Coidzor]

Most of the time, evil people will do evil stuff for somekind of benefit. If kicking a dog nets them power or wealth, they will just do that. A moral person might be tempted if the benefit would be huge but ultimately resist the temptation.

Thing is, one of the hallmarks of true evil is that they just might feel that the suffering of others benefits them. That is, they see "entertainment value" in the suffering of others and such vulgar displays of power feed their ego. People like that actually exist.

Of course, there are "well intentioned extremists" and brutally opportunistic varieties of evil, etc. but the above is an actual thing too.

In D&D-settings there are also anti-paladins who are evil for the sake of evil, since evil is a concrete force in D&D-settings.

Some variants are even compelled to do evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofSlaughterClas sFeatures) regardless of its utility (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/), IIRC.

[Jay R]

... you also seem to confuse being honorable for being moral.

He's not alone.

"Who sows virtue reaps honor." -- Leonardo da Vinci

"Honor is the prize of virtue, and is paid to none but the good." --Aristotle

"Since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and formulates them in our minds, honorable actions are ascribed by us to virtue, and dishonorable actions to vice; and only a madman would conclude that these judgments are matters of opinion, and not fixed by nature." -Marcus Tullius Cicero

One can be virtuous in some areas but not others, as a murderous villain who tells the truth. But to be honorable used to mean being virtuous in all positive virtues. Thus, the idea of an honorable villain is a very modern one, even though we include some very old villains in that category.

[Terraoblivion]

Partly that and partly because ideas of what's moral and what isn't have changed. Also the first two quotes seem to not treat honor as a moral category, rather focusing on virtue, but rather as a state achieved by acting virtuously, most likely the other meaning of honor, which is to say reputation and social standing. Really, these quotes make it amply clear that honor meant something different to the writers than it does to modern people. It doesn't make sense to say that if you act virtuously then you will be capable of acting out a specific set of virtues after all. That is both tautological and kinda weird. Also, keep in mind that all of those people were from warrior cultures, societies where honor is particularly central to ethical thought.

In any case, I honestly don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, a bunch of people centuries ago said that honor is a product of being moral, rather than a contributing factor to being it, but that contributes what exactly? Not only have I never heard anybody claim that Da Vinci and Cicero were great philosophers in the field of ethics or particularly moral people, Cicero is known as a major ******* and basically every corrupt lawyer stereotype ever, but they can still be wrong. After all, Aristotle who is a philosopher of great repute considered slavery moral and just and escaped slaves to act against the proper moral order of society, so great philosophers are pretty clearly capable of being wrong when it comes to morals which makes sense given that they're humans. And the moral dictates of honor clash pretty heavily with modern conceptions of morality. Just look at an Icelandic saga or the Iliad in case you're in doubt.

[Raimun]

And the moral dictates of honor clash pretty heavily with modern conceptions of morality. Just look at an Icelandic saga or the Iliad in case you're in doubt.

Indeed. An ancient hero was a man who killed many people and/or monsters. Violence was the only yardstick to measure heroes.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If you want to know how honor has nothing to do with being good, watch Hero.

[Seto]

I rather agree with Terra (at least for the 3 posts I've read from the first page before skipping to the end), but I have to say that, Red Fel, although they're too one-sided to be constructive, your posts are always kinda awesome and enjoyable to read :smallsmile:. I won't read you when I want to roleplay Good, but you're really good at Evil.
Just a thing - a detail, because I don't wanna get into big things right now - :


When a good guy is violent, he's just being a murderhobo. Happens all the time. When a villain gets violent - really violent - it's stomach-turning.

Depends. I find that's especially the case if the villain was friendly before (Tarquin style). But even then, stomach-turning horror is easily replaced by contempt if violence fails and the villain appears as just a manchild throwing a tantrum (again, Tarquin style). The good guy, on the other hand... Firstly, if he's a really good guy, he's not a murderhobo. But I'll tell you a story. I have a friend who's always quiet, peaceful, a friends-to-all-living-things kinda guy. When there's conflict in our group of friends, he always tries to understand people and talk things out. And then that one time, someone had gone too far, he got pissed off and lost it. Now that's shocking to see, I assure you. Not even the violence done, but the mere sight of such a guy getting violent, is stomach-turning - and even more so if he has reasons to be upset.
TL;DR : Both Good and Evil can suck or be marvellous depending on the situation and the execution. I don't think Evil has inherently better options, I just think they come across more easily as original, since Good is often played and has become more clichéd.

To answer the OP : I'm in a gaming group where complex ethical issues aren't a thing. I'd like to have them, but most of the group has more fun just fighting stuff and looking good. We're pretty much murderhobos. In that situation, instead of trying to play a Good character who constantly conflicts with the rest of the group and ends up frustrating when unable to stop the bloodshed, I thought I might as well make a character that would revel in it. It was an elf-eating (well, anything-eating really... but elves were his favorite dish) sociopathic, but rather naive, Lizardfolk ranger. It was awesome :smallamused:
In general, I like ambiguous characters and situations. Both dark and light grey are fine by me. Plus, Evil does have the upside of being able to be ruthless/mean without hurting anyone irl.