PDA

View Full Version : On evil PCs



Damocles23
2015-07-11, 02:39 AM
Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts? Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"

If anyone is familiar with Marvel Comics, we know that's a bad idea if I ever saw one.

Seto
2015-07-11, 03:56 AM
I allow evil PCs in my game, on the OOCly-stated condition that they have to go along with the party's agenda (even if they have an additional one of their own) and that any intra-party conflict they cause must benefit the game. I also remind them that any form of PvP is banned in my game, unless the players agree on it before hand. Within these limits, they can go nuts.
I currently have a LE PC who's a human spy for the Drows (her father is half-Drow), and so far it's going well.

Then of course if everyone wants to run evil PCs, most of these limits become moot and I have no problem running an evil campaign. I tend to be sandbox-oriented anyway.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-11, 04:01 AM
Do you allow them in your games?I tend to play games without capital-G Good and capital-E Evil as proscriptive cosmological constants.

The PCs of my games are often heroic in the classic sense - larger-than-life, movers and shakers, out to do great and terrible feats and build legends that will live on for generations. Whether you see them as good or bad will depend on whether their deeds are to your benefit or not.

So, sorta?


Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?I don't demand good roleplaying from only one type of PC, no.


Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?Sorta middle of the road on this one; I talk to players extensively about their characters, both in terms of what they want out of it and what I think would make a cool story for them.

Then I throw 'em all together and let things shake out; our current game has Rule 63'ed Franken Stein teaming up with Heracles and PotC's Davy Jones to stop Skeletor from returning to power, then they're likely to build up an army in Hell to kick out the Roman Empire.*

*Some exaggeration has been employed.


Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"Sounds like you should've hashed that out before you started playing.

Guran
2015-07-11, 04:08 AM
I have allowed players to play evil characters twice and actually regretted it both times. Not because I believe that an evil character can't work. It is more the case that said players weren't able to play evil characters in a credible way. Either resorting to burning babies or charming everyone with magic and being a total douche to the other characters. To bluntly say it, its a miracle that these characters have reached the age that is on their character sheet without getting executed.

As we play games focussed heavily on roleplaying, character development and story, evil behaviour like that simply does not end well.

On the example about the supervillain that wants to fight the party, I would not allow. I am thinking that, when things are not going according to the lone troublemakers plan, he will get annoyed. This will show and will annoy the other players.

It is possible for a player to play an evil character, if that player knows what he is doing. Personally, as a player I don't like playing evil characters. As a DM it is very fun though to go haywhire with insane villains. What you should realise though is that villains are an obstacle. They are usually an obstacle because they are evil. When a player plays evil, he can become an obstacle for the game and people's enjoyment of said game. So if someone wants to play an evil character, be sure to ask him how he is planning to play said character.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-11, 05:22 AM
It is my experience that most players over-estimate their roleplaying "chops"

Playing an Evil PC is not an easy gig.

Players tend to start out by trying to be Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs, but end up being Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

My house rule is that if you want to play an Evil PC, show me you can play a Neutral PC first. If a player is disruptive without an Evil PC, I don't even want to know what he'd be like with one.

The players who want to play evil PCs the most are the players who, generally, shouldn't get the greenlight too quickly.

Damocles23
2015-07-11, 06:19 AM
Sounds like you should've hashed that out before you started playing.

Thing is, we had everything ready beforehand. He's the kind of players who changes his mind a lot. But that ended pretty quickly. Doctor Doom incinerated him.

dream
2015-07-11, 07:31 AM
Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

Red Fel
2015-07-11, 08:09 AM
Do you allow them in your games?

Oh, goodness yes. Heck, take it a step further, I am them in my games.


Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?

Assuming it's a game that requires strong roleplaying, I require it from everyone, regardless of alignment. If it's a sillier or one-shot campaign, I don't. I don't demand it of anyone more than anyone else.


Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

Neither. In-character conduct carries in-character consequences, and my players know it. I don't railroad if it is at all possible to avoid doing so. And if my PCs go nuts - any PC, regardless of alignment - either the other PCs will take him down, or the NPCs will react appropriately.


Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

The problem there isn't an evil PC. It's a troublemaking player. And that's not an in-character issue, it's an out-of-character issue, which needs to be addressed out of character. Players who like to make trouble will do so regardless of PC alignment.

And that's the point. PCs, roleplaying, and general table cohesion function irrespective of alignment (absent the absurd restrictions on certain classes which will remain nameless about with whom they may work). If your players enjoy working well together, the rules don't change just because one or more of them have an E instead of a G on a piece of paper.


Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

Oh, you are just a treat.

boomwolf
2015-07-11, 08:23 AM
I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.

Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.

MrStabby
2015-07-11, 08:23 AM
I have played a couple of Evil PCs. The first one was a disaster. Basically I fell into all the problems discussed here and, if I am honest, probably spoiled the fun for a couple of the other players. Somehow, with the same group they let me have another go and I think I got it to work.

I was an evil knight type character who had sold his soul for power to protect his lands. His personally story was trying to find redemption but, finding himself in more and more dangerous situations as the plot progressed always made him need more power. The more bad things he did to survive the more he feared death and the greater lengths he would go to. As his hopes of redemption were closely tied to the party he was with he could never afford to betray them and whilst he was cruel and uncompromising it was always for a purpose.

dream
2015-07-11, 08:42 AM
I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.

Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.
Evil's morality is "me first". Even with organizations like the Mafia where evil people work together, there's tons of back-stabbing, to the point they had to make rules like "you can't kill this guy because he's with so&so family. IF you feel the need to kill that guy, we need to talk about it first & you better have a good reason."

Still back-stabbing. To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all. That good PCs have the ability to spread righteousness with their actions, so also evil characters will spread corruption with theirs. It's deeper than the "I'm evil so I eat babies" thing.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-11, 09:20 AM
To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)This seems familiar. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

You're seriously going to suggest that an orphanage-arsonist isn't evil if he prioritizes saving his skin over backstabbing his buddies?

goto124
2015-07-11, 09:31 AM
Note the title of this post ^

Demand fleshed-out characters that go beyond the two capital letters written on the character sheets.

Neither 'Good' nor 'Evil' people are -just- good or evil. In what way is your char good or evil? Surely she doesn't go around backstabbing people and eating babies for the heck of it?

Don't forget the Lawful Stupids.

Don't tell yourself your character is Evil. Instead, think of your char as pragmatic- and oftentimes, doing the neutral or good thing is just less troublesome/stupid/etc.

What's the point of stabbing and eating babies in broad daylight? They're so bony, you're not that hungry, and a lot of people hate you now.

I personally find that the alignment system, at least the DnD one, encourages pigeonholing a bit too much. Do away with the alignment-specific spells already, as 5e has done IIRC.

boomwolf
2015-07-11, 09:42 AM
To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all.

No,it means he is practical.

There is no point in backstabbing those who you know are "good guys" who will not betray you first. Gaining and keeping their trust is 99% of the time simply more convenient and efficient in the long run than whatever gain is to be made by backstabbing.

Evil CAN have friends. For selfish reasons. A smart evil realises that being in a party of generally good guys gives him some sort of blanket protection as long he does not go too far.

And then he can afford himself a growing level of cruelty and evilness towards the rest of the world, as the goid guys around him have their boundaries pushed slowly into accepting his quirks, not noticing the subtle escalation of his behavior.

My current evil characters runs in a party consisting among others a cleric of behemoth, a paladin and a "folk hero" bard. None of them is even aware if just how evil the char really is, because she keeps her evil action under a guise of misunderstandings, cultural differences and doing things away from their sight. (the fact the other two members use questionable methods for decent goals helps blending in)

Not all evil is chaotic stupid by default.

Jormengand
2015-07-11, 09:56 AM
Evil PCs can potentially work:

"What? I'm not doing this because I like you!" (NE antihero)
"Well, of course I'm going to save the world: I live in the damned thing!" (Any evil PC)
"So, how much am I getting paid for this?" (NE mercenary)
"I like you guys... that's why I'm not going to stab you." (CE psychopath)
"I am many things, but a traitor is not one of them. Of that, you have my word." (LE Paladin of Tyranny).
"Wait, so you want me to burn things this time? I'm in." (CE sorcerer)
"Why don't I hurt you, you ask? Uhm, because you're my friends, and I kinda like you?" (Any evil PC)
"If that's your command, I have no choice but to obey." (LE character who holds authority in high esteem)

Necroticplague
2015-07-11, 10:03 AM
Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

To answer these questions in order:yes, only as much as I do as everyone else, same as the previous.

That being said, while I am highly tolerant of evil (especially given that, in the system I most play, Evil and Good are cosmic forces with sometimes alien views on the issues), I am not of being a disruptive bag of phalli. Evil is about 'screw you, got mine'. However, an evil person who isn't a complete morons should probably realize its far better to play nice and get the benefits of that that to just shank everyone they meet. No man is an island, after all. Screwing other people over can end up screwing yourself, and the opposite (helping others can end up helping yourself) is also true. I won't tolerate one using their alignment as an excuse to be disruptive. This goes for Good characters who feel the need to police everyone else's actions up to their standards just as much as it does Evil ones who would raze a city out of boredom.

goto124
2015-07-11, 10:11 AM
"What? I'm not doing this because I like you!" (Tsundere)

Fixed that for you :smalltongue:

I find that in actual gameplay, pragmatism works the best. But I've never ran into morality issues in actual gameplay either, so I can't speak for those.

And again:

"However, anyone who isn't a complete moron should probably realize its far better to play nice and get the benefits of that that to just shank everyone they meet."

Now, where's that neat post on why 'sticking to character' does not mean 'inflexible'. It's in another thread, and I should sig it, but meanwhile...


"Your blood tastes nice and sweet. I'll stick by and make sure you stay alive." (Vampire)

Red Fel
2015-07-11, 10:59 AM
Evil's morality is "me first". Even with organizations like the Mafia where evil people work together, there's tons of back-stabbing, to the point they had to make rules like "you can't kill this guy because he's with so&so family. IF you feel the need to kill that guy, we need to talk about it first & you better have a good reason."

Still back-stabbing. To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all. That good PCs have the ability to spread righteousness with their actions, so also evil characters will spread corruption with theirs. It's deeper than the "I'm evil so I eat babies" thing.

A character whose defining characteristic is "me first" isn't Evil. "Me first" is simply selfish. That's Neutral behavior. Evil is when you perform selfish acts at the expense of others. It can be argued, and has been, that the average adventuring party dances around Evil for that specific reason. ("Let's murder things that are ugly to us and take their stuff!")

A character whose defining characteristic is "compulsive backstabbing" isn't Evil, he's psychotic. More than that, he's unplayable in any context; he's a one-dimensional caricature, not a person. I feel genuinely sorry if that's been your only experience with Evil characters. As others have observed in this thread, however, and as I have frequently argued in these forums, there is more than one way to play Evil, and Chaotic Backstabbing is hardly the be-all and end-all of the alignment. Heck, even the Giant has written about this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html):
Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.
Now, in that segment, the Giant was discussing emotional reactions, as opposed to logical ones. But he makes a point: Just because a character is a villain (or Evil) does not mean that betrayal is his automatic response. Evil characters can and do work together; they can and do work with Good characters as well. Are they self-interested? Certainly. But it doesn't mean that they're incapable of showing loyalty, friendship, or emotional attachment, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're going to do something stupid like attempt to ruin a good thing. Look, if you're in an adventuring party, and you all work well together, why mess with it? The system works. The meat shields keep the squishies safe, the squishies make things explode, everybody works well together. Why would someone, alignment notwithstanding, do something stupid like ruin that simply because of a letter on a character sheet?

Darth Ultron
2015-07-11, 11:12 AM
Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts? Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...



Yes.

Always demand good role playing from everyone.

Always railroad, no nuts on board.


Though I will only allow some one I think is a good player to run an evil character. I really don't like the whole ''stupid evil'' way lots of players have characters act. Not that is causes too big of a disruption, as I'll just kill off the evil character after a round or two.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-07-11, 11:38 AM
But...all PCs are evil...

Keltest
2015-07-11, 11:55 AM
Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

An evil character will rarely betray the party if they can help if. If theyre with the party to begin with, they have some particularly compelling reason to follow them around, whether that be the accumulation of wealth, a personal stake in the outcome of their quest, or the fact that evil people can be pleasant, friendly, and have lots of friends.

Furthermore, a character with "evil" on their character sheet isn't necessarily going to actually be going around doing evil all the time, or even at all, because that's horribly inconvenient, both to them and their party (which, again, they want to travel with). An evil character, for example, would have no qualms against torture as a means of gathering information, but that doesn't mean they will jump at any excuse to torture someone. Sure you CAN play an evil character like that, but stupid anything will generally negatively impact the play experience.

Yora
2015-07-11, 12:46 PM
I am not telling anyone how they have to play their characters. But if one character becomes a burden or threat to the party, I will tell the players that they probably should get rid of that character at the first opportunity. They don't have to pretend to trust him or go along with him just because it's a PC. If they rather would prefer to not have the character around, they don't need to.

Hawkstar
2015-07-11, 03:52 PM
I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.This is true as well. A character of any alignment opposed to the general alignment of the party is likely to develop a strong IC-reason to backstab the party. Evil tends to backstab because it gets sick of a Good party being sanctimonious and condescending (I'm reminded of "The Sith Janitor"). Good tends to backstab because it realizes the party is a monstrous entity that needs to be put down, even if they were once friends (All those other monsters he's killed had friends too, and he's not going to put his friendships over the friendships of others). Lawful tends to Backstab chaotic parties out of an obligation to a higher authority. Chaotic will generally actually try to work around Lawful people, either sabotaging efforts to establish order when that order opposes their desire for freedom (releasing prisoners behind the party's back), or stabbing Law in the face when it finds itself cornered and needing to escape. (A pragmatic, but not evil act, as much as Lawful Good wants it to be.)


Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.
I'm gonna have to disagree here. [url=http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnoll.htmSome evil really is just bald-faced, baby-eating psychopathy[/url]. And, they don't have to be corrupting or treacherous.

Cluedrew
2015-07-11, 04:15 PM
I guess I only have one thing to add.

If you want to play an evil character I would recommend giving him/her at least one redeeming characteristic. Loyalty to friends is a good one to cut out party conflict. Other things like honesty or being nice around children may also make the character less... flat I guess. It is also a good way to check for the "Bwah ha ha, I'm so Evil" thing if you are not playing the character.

Geddy2112
2015-07-11, 04:22 PM
Do you allow them in your games?
Absolutely.


Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?
I want all my players to have good roleplay, but I won't be upset if they don't. Alignment is not really a factor here.


Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?
I try to never railroad any player, regardless of alignment. I do enforce the consequences of actions though. If a player jumps off a cliff and falls, they take falling damage. If a player kills somebody in the street and guards see, the guards respond accordingly. If a player donates gold to a temple, the temple, faith, and possibly deity respond accordingly.



Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...
Problem players are problematic regardless of alignment. Or perhaps they are not problem players, but their character concept is problematic for X reasons(usually overly dogmatic, narrowminded, 2 dimensional or something). Most recently, the problem player at my table was the most goody 2 shoes NG of the group. He retired his PC for something less dogmatic and now everything is gravy.


Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"

Simply don't make characters in a vacuum. There is nothing wrong with either playstyle, but they won't gel well in most games. The most upright LG do right straight laced hero and the most CE babyeating murderhobo can both work as concepts, but usually don't do so well in the same party. This is a group game, so regardless of alignment, philosophy etc. If the group can work together, then work together. It may mean the player who wanted to play a villain plays something less villainous, or perhaps the hero plays something a bit less heroic. Or maybe they agree to both respect each other and work together, even if there will be a bit of (constructive) tension sometimes.

Kriton
2015-07-11, 04:36 PM
But...all PCs are evil...

Yes! That... So much THAT!

The system I've been running for years, does not mechanically represent a character's alignment, instead the players get to set goals and beliefs for their characters and then try to stay true to them.

This has resulted in characters that are usually evil(even by DnD standards) for some reason, I can't remember a party that didn't contain at least one evil character on my table, for the last ten years maybe. The how disruptive each player has been to the game, had nothing to do with the how many babies their character would eat for breakfast.

Fyndhal
2015-07-13, 01:24 PM
Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

I disagree. *Stupid* Evil PCs cannot work.

Two of my best characters have been Evil (Lawful Evil, both times.) In the later case, the rest of the party thought I was *good* because I stuck to the letter of my contract perfectly. I profited quite a bit so I had no need to betray the group. Sure, I was a bit more brutal than one would expect from a "good" character, but the other players never twigged to it. My most "evil" actions were reserved for "off-camera" times and generally involved eliminating witnesses after the fact.

icefractal
2015-07-13, 02:07 PM
One thing I've noticed - it's not a 100% guarantee or anything, but evil tends to spread. You start out with one evil character in a party, and a few levels later you've got the majority of the party engaged in highly dubious, if not outright evil behavior, and the rest either condoning it or needing to act blind to it.

Doesn't apply if the evil character is completely hiding it, obviously. But once they reveal I'd expect the same thing to happen starting from that point.

So I'd allow it as long as I was ok with this becoming an evil campaign, and not otherwise.

illyahr
2015-07-14, 10:11 AM
I once ran a LE wizard that the group agreed was very well played. He just came off as kinda creepy IC so the rest of the group asked if I could switch characters. He specialized in the perfection of self so experimented with potions, tonics, and spells to get the best interaction that would make him the perfect being (think Orochimaru from Naruto crossed with Franken Stein from Soul Eater)

For example, this was an interaction with the party's kitsune bard:

kitsune: Hey, you brew potions and stuff, right? Could you provide me with a supply of Eagle's Splendor and Cat's Grace potions?
me: Perhaps. My services aren't free, however. I am already providing magical support for a share in the treasure and a claim on any magical texts we find. Wait, your people are naturally dextrous. If you would provide me samples of fur to study and experiment on, I will provide you with magical potions.

Using kitsune fur to augment it, he actually got his potions of Cat's Grace to provide a +6 bonus instead of +4. He also used zombie flesh to make an elixer that provided a temporary DR 5/slashing to anyone who drank it. When one of the party was killed by a wraith, he removed the party member's eyes, implanted one into his own eye socket and used the other as a remote scrying device that could fly around and see things for him. He did this using the ectoplasm of the wraith that killed the party member so the eyes were still connected by residual life energy.

mephnick
2015-07-14, 10:13 AM
My rule is "Everyone is evil, or no one is evil."

I like running evil campaigns. I hate having evil characters in a mixed party.

dream
2015-07-14, 11:05 AM
This seems familiar. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

You're seriously going to suggest that an orphanage-arsonist isn't evil if he prioritizes saving his skin over backstabbing his buddies?
Using people IS evil, so yeah, in that example, manipulating the party to save one's skin fits what I'm suggesting. Eventually, the "wicked" evil you're talkng about will manifest. And if it doesn't, that PC isn't evil.


No,it means he is practical.

There is no point in backstabbing those who you know are "good guys" who will not betray you first. Gaining and keeping their trust is 99% of the time simply more convenient and efficient in the long run than whatever gain is to be made by backstabbing.

Evil CAN have friends. For selfish reasons. A smart evil realises that being in a party of generally good guys gives him some sort of blanket protection as long he does not go too far.

And then he can afford himself a growing level of cruelty and evilness towards the rest of the world, as the goid guys around him have their boundaries pushed slowly into accepting his quirks, not noticing the subtle escalation of his behavior.

My current evil characters runs in a party consisting among others a cleric of behemoth, a paladin and a "folk hero" bard. None of them is even aware if just how evil the char really is, because she keeps her evil action under a guise of misunderstandings, cultural differences and doing things away from their sight. (the fact the other two members use questionable methods for decent goals helps blending in)

Not all evil is chaotic stupid by default.
As posted above, manipulating people is evil. Evil PCs need not slaughter their associates immediately; milk them first for whatever can be gained & when the target becomes useless, they get thrown away. That's textbook Lawful Evil.

Your current evil PC is practicing deceit, which is an evil act. What happens when the (I'm assuming 'Good') Paladin finds out & will you be able to deal with it?


A character whose defining characteristic is "me first" isn't Evil. "Me first" is simply selfish. That's Neutral behavior. Evil is when you perform selfish acts at the expense of others. It can be argued, and has been, that the average adventuring party dances around Evil for that specific reason. ("Let's murder things that are ugly to us and take their stuff!")

A character whose defining characteristic is "compulsive backstabbing" isn't Evil, he's psychotic. More than that, he's unplayable in any context; he's a one-dimensional caricature, not a person. I feel genuinely sorry if that's been your only experience with Evil characters. As others have observed in this thread, however, and as I have frequently argued in these forums, there is more than one way to play Evil, and Chaotic Backstabbing is hardly the be-all and end-all of the alignment. Heck, even the Giant has written about this (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/XbsQgS9YYu9g3HZBAGE.html):
Now, in that segment, the Giant was discussing emotional reactions, as opposed to logical ones. But he makes a point: Just because a character is a villain (or Evil) does not mean that betrayal is his automatic response. Evil characters can and do work together; they can and do work with Good characters as well. Are they self-interested? Certainly. But it doesn't mean that they're incapable of showing loyalty, friendship, or emotional attachment, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're going to do something stupid like attempt to ruin a good thing. Look, if you're in an adventuring party, and you all work well together, why mess with it? The system works. The meat shields keep the squishies safe, the squishies make things explode, everybody works well together. Why would someone, alignment notwithstanding, do something stupid like ruin that simply because of a letter on a character sheet?
If someone's allowed to play an evil PC, betrayal isn't a stupid thing to do; it's the MOST LOGICAL thing, based on the alignment (and thanks for bringing up logic); being evil is very logical. Survival is the key action for the living and if I can have more than others, I increase my chances of survival. And why work for it when, if I'm able, taking from others is quicker, normally. Can evil people have healthy relationships? Sure, but only in as much as "normal" falls under the selfish codification of how evil thinks.

Most people are Neutral; driven by the moment. We're capable of both evil and good depending on the situation. EVIL people are more inclined towards self-gratification and anything that interferes with that is discarded or eliminated. A thing is either THIS or THAT, but never both, and show me an evil person who does anything "out of the kindness of their heart" and I'll show you a white raven.


An evil character will rarely betray the party if they can help if. If theyre with the party to begin with, they have some particularly compelling reason to follow them around, whether that be the accumulation of wealth, a personal stake in the outcome of their quest, or the fact that evil people can be pleasant, friendly, and have lots of friends.

Furthermore, a character with "evil" on their character sheet isn't necessarily going to actually be going around doing evil all the time, or even at all, because that's horribly inconvenient, both to them and their party (which, again, they want to travel with). An evil character, for example, would have no qualms against torture as a means of gathering information, but that doesn't mean they will jump at any excuse to torture someone. Sure you CAN play an evil character like that, but stupid anything will generally negatively impact the play experience.
Sure. Evil PCs will use associates to get what they want. That makes sense. But eventually, the evil nature is exposed. Then what?


I disagree. *Stupid* Evil PCs cannot work.

Two of my best characters have been Evil (Lawful Evil, both times.) In the later case, the rest of the party thought I was *good* because I stuck to the letter of my contract perfectly. I profited quite a bit so I had no need to betray the group. Sure, I was a bit more brutal than one would expect from a "good" character, but the other players never twigged to it. My most "evil" actions were reserved for "off-camera" times and generally involved eliminating witnesses after the fact.
Sure. You deceived the party, which is an evil act. That you (as far as I know because I wasn't in your game) never betrayed the party is heart-warming and also out of character for the alignment.

For the point of this discussion, I'm using the trad D&D Alignments (http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html) as the baseline. Take a close look at how evil is described and tell me again how you were playing an evil PC :smalltongue:

Play your PCs however you like. That's your pleasure, but, the discussion here is the nature of evil PCs, not how you choose to play them. If I portray Superman as a bank-robbing, drug-dealing criminal, is that an accurate depiction of a superhero?

The Fury
2015-07-14, 11:23 AM
Most of the DMs I've played with allow Evil PCs situationally. If an Evil PC can potentially work with the group dynamic or the campaign, generally it's a go. I have met some DMs that outright ban Good-aligned PCs in their games though.

Jormengand
2015-07-14, 11:32 AM
If someone's allowed to play an evil PC, betrayal isn't a stupid thing to do; it's the MOST LOGICAL thing

How is betraying a group of people whose combined CR is about three higher than yours and who are the only thing getting you through your adventuring career, for no particular reason or gain, a good idea?

anti-ninja
2015-07-14, 11:50 AM
For me it really depends on the player,i have one who I would never in a million years let him play an evil character ,cause i now the orphanage burning human sacrificing path he will gleefully charge down. But there are others i would trust to play smart evil.

dream
2015-07-14, 11:51 AM
Most of the DMs I've played with allow Evil PCs situationally. If an Evil PC can potentially work with the group dynamic or the campaign, generally it's a go. I have met some DMs that outright ban Good-aligned PCs in their games though.
Great post & I ban them when I run games. The original intention of D&D was an adventuring party of heroes, not villains. Evil PCs pose too many threats to party continuity and the greater adventure being presented by the Gamemaster, IME.


How is betraying a group of people whose combined CR is about three higher than yours and who are the only thing getting you through your adventuring career, for no particular reason or gain, a good idea?
I've seen it done by players; it's called planning and the comments posted by players who've had evil PCs are proof that a PC with the proper motivation, resources, and planning can find a way to betray their comrades. That they didn't do it (yet) doesn't mean they aren't capable. That's exactly why I don't entertain evil PCs when I GM.

But, if you enjoy playing or allowing them to be played, please enjoy :smallwink:

illyahr
2015-07-14, 11:59 AM
Using people IS evil, so yeah, in that example, manipulating the party to save one's skin fits what I'm suggesting. Eventually, the "wicked" evil you're talkng about will manifest. And if it doesn't, that PC isn't evil.

"Evil" in D&D is defined by a lack of respect for the lives of others. Just because a character doesn't care whether another lives or dies doesn't mean he will go out of his way to kill them. That's stupid, especially since they might be useful in the future.


As posted above, manipulating people is evil. Evil PCs need not slaughter their associates immediately; milk them first for whatever can be gained & when the target becomes useless, they get thrown away. That's textbook Lawful Evil.

Your current evil PC is practicing deceit, which is an evil act. What happens when the (I'm assuming 'Good') Paladin finds out & will you be able to deal with it?

Or don't kill them. They were useful before, they could be useful later. Or maybe they won't but they aren't important enough to kill. Evil isn't defined by killing or backstabbing. It's defined by taking delight in that killing.


If someone's allowed to play an evil PC, betrayal isn't a stupid thing to do; it's the MOST LOGICAL thing, based on the alignment (and thanks for bringing up logic); being evil is very logical. Survival is the key action for the living and if I can have more than others, I increase my chances of survival. And why work for it when, if I'm able, taking from others is quicker, normally. Can evil people have healthy relationships? Sure, but only in as much as "normal" falls under the selfish codification of how evil thinks.

How is it the most logical? The most logical thing to do is determine how useful they might be and to what ends. Dexter in the TV show is definately Evil. Not evil, Evil. He takes delight in the artistic way he kills. Does that mean he betrays his friends at the most convenient opportunity? No, he actually likes his friends and keeps his activities a secret so he won't have to kill his friends.


Most people are Neutral; driven by the moment. We're capable of both evil and good depending on the situation. EVIL people are more inclined towards self-gratification and anything that interferes with that is discarded or eliminated. A thing is either THIS or THAT, but never both, and show me an evil person who does anything "out of the kindness of their heart" and I'll show you a white raven.

Driven by the moment is Chaotic, not Neutral. Yes, Evil people are more inclined towards self-gratification, even at the expense of others. Spawn is evil, but protects the innocent. You seem to be under the false impression that Evil can't do good deeds out of kindness. If we reversed that, then that means that Good people can't perform Evil deeds for evil reasons. There are hundreds of examples in media where this isn't true.


Sure. Evil PCs will use associates to get what they want. That makes sense. But eventually, the evil nature is exposed. Then what?

Go through a period of growth as a group?


Sure. You deceived the party, which is an evil act. That you (as far as I know because I wasn't in your game) never betrayed the party is heart-warming and also out of character for the alignment.

There (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon) are tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards) for that (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoNonsenseNemesis).


For the point of this discussion, I'm using the trad D&D Alignments (http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html) as the baseline. Take a close look at how evil is described and tell me again how you were playing an evil PC :smalltongue:

Play your PCs however you like. That's your pleasure, but, the discussion here is the nature of evil PCs, not how you choose to play them. If I portray Superman as a bank-robbing, drug-dealing criminal, is that an accurate depiction of a superhero?

There is no one standard for evil, just as there is no one standard for good. The person who stays home and feeds orphans out of their own pocket is just as Good as the person who goes into the lair of the demon to destroy it.

The one who slaughters all he comes across is just as evil as the one who slaughters no one but uses everyone as pawns to fulfill his own ends. In fact, the second guy will last longer. The first guy will be killed as soon as he crosses someone stronger than he is.

Red Fel
2015-07-14, 12:05 PM
If someone's allowed to play an evil PC, betrayal isn't a stupid thing to do; it's the MOST LOGICAL thing, based on the alignment (and thanks for bringing up logic); being evil is very logical.

Slight correction - being Evil isn't necessarily logical, but it can be (and often is) pragmatic. The term "rational self-interest" comes up a bit in discussions on the subject, and for good reason - successful Evil is less interested in the morality of acts than the success thereof, and the benefits they can enjoy.


Survival is the key action for the living and if I can have more than others, I increase my chances of survival. And why work for it when, if I'm able, taking from others is quicker, normally. Can evil people have healthy relationships? Sure, but only in as much as "normal" falls under the selfish codification of how evil thinks.

Let me pause you here for a moment, because I think I see something. It seems you're viewing Evil as prescriptive - that is, when a character has an E on his sheet, he is obligated to act, or prevented from acting, in a certain way by nature of his alignment.

However, it is frequently - and correctly - argued that alignment is not a straightjacket; it is descriptive, not prescriptive. Alignment describes how you act, rather than mandating how you must act. A quick comparison: Descriptive: You betrayed your friends, therefore you are Evil. Prescriptive: You are Evil, therefore you betray your friends.
See the difference? An Evil character is necessarily ruthlessly self-interested, but this does not require them to engage in every Evil act available, such as betrayal. In fact, any Evil character with the ability to look in the long term will recognize the value of allies (or rubes, or minions, or loosely-affiliated associates-for-the-moment); betrayal, while fitting an Evil character, generally only offers short-term gains.

Further, it is possible for an Evil character to have a healthy relationship, even given his unique worldview. This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?424716-Alignment-and-Sexuality) went into some excellent discussion of the fact that, while alignment may color how you approach a relationship - be it friendship or romance or what-have-you - it does not define or prevent your ability to have a relationship.

In a conversation about Evil in relationships in that thread, it was observed (by me, among others) that Evil is all about power, and so one way that Evil might approach a relationship is with shows of lavish wealth, authority, and power, and that Evil could become disproportionately protective of its precious people.

The same is true of friendship as of romance. Evil is capable of having friends. Friends are valuable. True friends, people you can trust - even if you don't trust others - are priceless, particularly to someone who anticipates having many enemies. There is nothing logical about betrayal, except in a narrow-minded, short-term view.


Most people are Neutral; driven by the moment. We're capable of both evil and good depending on the situation. EVIL people are more inclined towards self-gratification and anything that interferes with that is discarded or eliminated. A thing is either THIS or THAT, but never both, and show me an evil person who does anything "out of the kindness of their heart" and I'll show you a white raven.

Evil isn't precluded from having a pet-the-dog moment. Even a villainous virtue. There are villains, for instance, who won't kill children, or for whom certain crimes or offenses are taboo. That doesn't make them less villainous, it makes them more complex. Just as Good characters can have their vices, Evil characters can have their virtues. The important thing is the overall person. Take, for example, the villain who wants to annihilate the world out of revenge, but has created a base safe from his assault, wherein he has gathered an abandoned society of exiles and a small community of faeries. The former he has gathered both because they, like he, seek revenge and because they are loyal to his cause; the latter he has gathered because they are nigh-extinct, tragic, and beautiful. (Some of you can spot the reference.) He is still a villain - there is no question of that, he wants to destroy civilization and remake the planet in his own image - but he is allowed this small tenderness for the weak and downtrodden.


Sure. Evil PCs will use associates to get what they want. That makes sense. But eventually, the evil nature is exposed. Then what?

Then they make it not matter. That's why you make friends. That's why you earn the party's trust, and learn to care (just a little) about them as well. Because when your true colors show, you want them to say, "Sure, he's a monster. But he's our monster."


Sure. You deceived the party, which is an evil act. That you (as far as I know because I wasn't in your game) never betrayed the party is heart-warming and also out of character for the alignment.

See, there it is again. You make it sound as though an Evil character has to engage in a daily betrayal or else lose their membership. And that's just not true.


For the point of this discussion, I'm using the trad D&D Alignments (http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html) as the baseline. Take a close look at how evil is described and tell me again how you were playing an evil PC :smalltongue:

You want to use EasyDamus? Okay, I'm game. How about this quote from the home page (http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html)?
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Let's take it piece by piece. "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity." It's a tool, not a mandate; it is designed to give you guidelines and to describe their conduct and worldview. "It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character." This is key. Alignment is not designed to preclude you from actions or emotions, but to help put them into context. "Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other." In other words, when you say "Evil PCs act like this," the correct phrasing is "Some Evil PCs act like this," because each character is a distinct, unique person. "In addition, few people are completely consistent." In other words, nobody acts 100% within the precise definition of their alignment 100% of the time. People are not robots, and alignment is not an absolute mandate; people are irrational and alignment is a broad guideline.


Play your PCs however you like. That's your pleasure, but, the discussion here is the nature of evil PCs, not how you choose to play them. If I portray Superman as a bank-robbing, drug-dealing criminal, is that an accurate depiction of a superhero?

Nor is the discussion about how you choose to play them. And I remind you that the Punisher is a "superhero" whose entire concept involves shooting lots and lots of people to death while chomping on a cigar. In what universe is wholesale slaughter an heroic act?

Characters are complicated. That is the nature of Evil PCs, and of all well-written PCs.

Jay R
2015-07-14, 12:07 PM
Evil people don't commit every type of sin or crime available. There isn't time in a single lifetime. It's possible to be loyal to the party and still be evil. If somebody wanted to do that, fine.

Similarly, I've sometimes had to explain to the DM that my character was obeying the law for practical reasons, not because he was Lawful. In one game, the DM kept trying to turn my 2E Thief Lawful, and I kept telling him, "The only reason that Ornrandir isn't stealing from people is that he finds traveling with a paladin more lucrative than theft, so he isn't going to violate her principles in front of her."

illyahr
2015-07-14, 12:13 PM
Similarly, I've sometimes had to explain to the DM that my character was obeying the law for practical reasons, not because he was Lawful. In one game, the DM kept trying to turn my 2E Thief Lawful, and I kept telling him, "The only reason that Ornrandir isn't stealing from people is that he finds traveling with a paladin more lucrative than theft, so he isn't going to violate her principles in front of her."

This. So much this. Immediate gain vs. long term gain.

dream
2015-07-14, 12:25 PM
Red, I'll admit something: I love your mind :smallbiggrin: We could discuss philosophy at length and perhaps run this thread for pages. I wont because you've identified a key difference;

Your definition of alignment is something that is malleable; it can be THIS at one moment and THAT the next, possibly scene to scene (?)

My definition of alignment, when running systems that have it, falls under the original "Gygaxian" mind-set; alignment is not chosen by a player, but is something that is assigned by the DM/GM once the PC's behavior has been identified. Less a straight-jacket and more a suit that's fitted to the wearer. If a PC is played as an evil SOB, he/she gets the "evil" tag. That tag/alignment can change, based on how the player portrays the PC in future sessions. So, an evil PC can change, if the player desires, to good. But, until that change is DEMONSTRATED by the player in a CONSISTENT manner, the PC remains evil. Alignment's just a marker; it lets the GM & other players know what to expect from the PC/player, an clear expectations are the foundation of fun adventures.

Like many things, D&D Alignment has changed over the years, to accommodate new gamers. I agree with the late E.G. Gygax that players running evil PCs is not the best thing, especially when one considers the impact an evil PC's actions can have on the party as a whole. At the end of the day, it's difficult for me to reward a player for being evil, even if it is just "fantasy". But, again, if that's your idea of fun, huzzah!

Elderand
2015-07-14, 12:32 PM
Evil people don't commit ever type of sin or crime available. There isn't time in a single lifetime. It's possible to be loyal to the party and still be evil. If somebody wanted to do that, fine.

That's why the smart villain goes for some form of immortality. :P

Red Fel
2015-07-14, 12:38 PM
Red, I'll admit something: I love your mind :smallbiggrin:

As do I. I should keep better track of it, though; I tend to lose it from time to time.


My definition of alignment, when running systems that have it, falls under the original "Gygaxian" mind-set; alignment is not chosen by a player, but is something that is assigned by the DM/GM once the PC's behavior has been identified. Less a straight-jacket and more a suit that's fitted to the wearer. If a PC is played as an evil SOB, he/she gets the "evil" tag. That tag/alignment can change, based on how the player portrays the PC in future sessions. So, an evil PC can change, if the player desires, to good. But, until that change is DEMONSTRATED by the player in a CONSISTENT manner, the PC remains evil. Alignment's just a marker; it lets the GM & other players know what to expect from the PC/player, an clear expectations are the foundation of fun adventures.

This is my position as well; I'm glad that we're on the same page. Yes, alignment should reflect a PC's actions.

The thing is, it's complicated. As I've often expressed, Good cannot consistently perform Evil acts and remain Good; there is no world in which, for example, a hero can throw babies off of a roof and remain a hero. By contrast, Evil can consistently perform Good acts, for an Evil purpose, and remain Evil. Look at any corporate or political movie villain; he inevitably supports charities, dedicates libraries, funds orphanages, and other noble pillar-of-the-community stuff. But that's just to allow him to move unnoticed in the darker corners of society. That charity distracts the public from his drug deals; that library has a basement where he stores smuggled arms; that orphanage indoctrinates people in the teachings of Cthulhu. He's doing Good things, but for Evil purposes; he remains Evil.

And that's my point. Evil is able, even consistently, to perform certain non-Evil acts, even certain Good acts, and remain Evil. It depends on the overall person.


Like many things, D&D Alignment has changed over the years, to accommodate new gamers. I agree with the late E.G. Gygax that players running evil PCs is not the best thing, especially when one considers the impact an evil PC's actions can have on the party as a whole. At the end of the day, it's difficult for me to reward a player for being evil, even if it is just "fantasy". But, again, if that's your idea of fun, huzzah!

And this is a totally fair position. I happen to love playing Evil, but I readily acknowledge that it creates wrinkles and complications aplenty. And not just because there are certain classes (looking at you, Paladin) that are written in such a way as to make a mixed-alignment party almost impossible. And not just because there are some sides of Evil that can cause people - myself included - to cringe in a big way. (My Evil has standards. That's sadly not a universal rule.)

Evil has different goals, and different ways of pursuing them. A DM of a Good party can try to rely on the party's morality, can offer them moral conundrums and dilemmas which add complexity and challenge to the narrative. Adding Evil to the mix is like adding a shortcut that can deflate the tension. And it's hard to talk about acts of noble heroism when you have a murderous, sadistic, manipulative, awesome monster working with the shining paragons of justice. And it's hard to consider them shining paragons of justice when they tolerate the presence of the everything-I-just-said monster.

It's not wrong for a DM to want only non-Evil PCs, to run non-Evil games, to ban certain alignments. That's the DM's prerogative. That's also why we can have threads like this, where people can discuss the merits and flaws of the position. And in my experience, while I agree that there are plenty of ways Evil can be played in a disruptive manner, it's possible to play them in a way that enriches the table instead.

That's all I had to say about that.

Fyndhal
2015-07-14, 12:46 PM
Sure. You deceived the party, which is an evil act. That you (as far as I know because I wasn't in your game) never betrayed the party is heart-warming and also out of character for the alignment.

Why is it out of character?

* I had a contract, that I followed to the letter, twisting the wording when it would be restrictive.

* I had no need to sell out or betray the party because they were useful tools allowing me to further my goals. Not once during the campaign were my actions hampered by them, and several times I managed to stay alive through their actions. Reliable minions are a goldmine and worth at least some effort to protect.

The thing about alignment is that it is never an all or nothing affair. Good characters are not always good, evil characters are not always evil. Neutral characters sometimes do good. When it comes down to it, "Alignment" just isn't that big of a deal; play your character so they are true to themselves. The Alignment label determines where you lay on the grid on average, but it doesn't mean you must always and only act one way. That's boring role playing and excludes a vast swath of human (or demi-human) interaction.

Seto
2015-07-14, 12:58 PM
Your definition of alignment is something that is malleable; it can be THIS at one moment and THAT the next, possibly scene to scene (?)

I don't think I've seen that idea anywhere on this thread. We need to make a few distinctions :
- between aligned actions and overall character alignment. If my character is Evil, it does not mean they cannot perform Good acts. It just means they're unlikely to, or that it's rare, or that they're not central to the character. "Scene by scene" would mean that, if Bob the Tyrant who spends his life torturing innocents occasionally feeds a poor family, he's Evil, then Good and then goes back to being Evil at his next kill ? Red Fel hasn't said that, nor has anyone else.
- between characteristic traits of an alignment and character personality. Your use of Easydamus raises that issue. The fault is on them, they should have made clear that when they said "a Lawful Evil character does this and that", it didn't mean "every LE character has to do this", but "these are traits characteristic of a LE character". Meaning that a LE character doesn't have to have all those traits, and doesn't have to have nothing but those traits. If you take the Easydamus description and build a character solely on that, you'll obtain (arguably) "Lawful-Evilness personnified", a character who's defined only by their alignment. In other words, "Devil morality", since "Devils are the epitome of Lawful Evil". A character who doesn't exhibit any of the definition's traits is most certainly not LE. But a character can have enough of these traits that they are LE, and still differ significantly from the description.
For example, if Alignment were sports, "Natation" could read "A swimmer holds her breath for such a number of seconds, moves in such-and-such a way. She swims crawl as well as butterfly strokes, turtle strokes, breast strokes etc.". It doesn't mean that I can't be a swimmer if I know only half of these techniques. Neither does it mean that using dog paddle from time to time (the usual water movement for non-swimmers) changes me from being a swimmer into being something else.


My definition of alignment, when running systems that have it, falls under the original "Gygaxian" mind-set; alignment is not chosen by a player, but is something that is assigned by the DM/GM once the PC's behavior has been identified. Less a straight-jacket and more a suit that's fitted to the wearer. If a PC is played as an evil SOB, he/she gets the "evil" tag. That tag/alignment can change, based on how the player portrays the PC in future sessions. So, an evil PC can change, if the player desires, to good. But, until that change is DEMONSTRATED by the player in a CONSISTENT manner, the PC remains evil. Alignment's just a marker; it lets the GM & other players know what to expect from the PC/player, an clear expectations are the foundation of fun adventures.

That's descriptive alignment as Red Fel tried to explain it. Most people here (or those experienced with alignment debates, in any case) have the same view on alignment as you do, except that players often choose their character's alignment from the beginning. But that's not a big difference. They still have to actualize it if they mean it to be more than just letters on a sheet.

Segev
2015-07-14, 01:19 PM
It is my experience that most players over-estimate their roleplaying "chops"

Playing an Evil PC is not an easy gig.

Players tend to start out by trying to be Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs, but end up being Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

My house rule is that if you want to play an Evil PC, show me you can play a Neutral PC first. If a player is disruptive without an Evil PC, I don't even want to know what he'd be like with one.

The players who want to play evil PCs the most are the players who, generally, shouldn't get the greenlight too quickly.

Heh. As long as you don't tell me, "You're [alignment], so you wouldn't do that," I do not care what you call my alignment. Yes, if my Paladin stops being LG because I keep doing Chaotic actions (or, worse, neutral-with-an-evil-slant actions), he loses his powers. I appreciate you warning me that my alignment may change if I make a habit of behaviors in which I am having him engage. But unless I am depending on my alignment being something for a mechanical reason, I probably won't let it bother me. My alignment can slip wherever you like based on my IC actions.


My signature character is one that sadly hasn't gotten to be in a long-lasting game yet. (They always end as the DM disappears or moves away or the other PCs lose interest...and no, it's only ever been my fault once, and that was entirely OOC issues involving my leadership position in ANOTHER organization in which the DM's wife was a member.) He is Segev Stormlord, and I took his name for my online monicker (rather than naming him after my online handle). He's a necromancer. I usually peg him as NE. He's the cold, pragmatic, cynical type of evil that doesn't mind hurting others to get what he wants, but (as Red Fel notes) is big on enlightened self-interest. He actively prefers hanging out with Good people and parties, because they have a tendency to win (genre savvyness may be a sin, but Seg IS evil...) and people tend to give them things as rewards rather than being angry at them for taking them by force.

However, Segev is a necromancer, and will absolutely use undead minions. He respects people's rights to their dead bodies only insofar as they can be enforced against him (though that pragmatism kicks in such that he's not going to blatantly piss off people if he can find raw materials in less contested ground). This will, by the rules, push his alignment towards "evil" as he does canonically evil things, like creating and binding undead and keeping sapient undead slaves.

He's not about to backstab the party nor go out and perform evil for the (literal or figurative) hell of it. But he's definitely not going to let "that's evil!" be a reason not to do something he feels would profit him.

And if you insisted I play him as neutral, first, I'd write "TN" on his character sheet, and then play him as I play him and let you move his alignment to wherever you felt was fitting. (I've had people tell me he's LE, NE, and even LN or TN.)

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 01:36 PM
Most of the time I've played in games where it's allowed only if the whole party was evil or neutral-leaning-evil. Unless you're really good at roleplaying there's way to much potential for violent, party-ending PvP in any other kind of setup.
The one and only time I played an evil character in a not-evil party was when I was basically hired-help (because of in-story reasons) and so the other PC's where essentially my bosses. I was evil because I was willing to commit horrific acts for the smallest amount of convenience but I was cool with not doing it too if the other PCs vetoed it.

Segev
2015-07-14, 02:07 PM
Hey guys, I think the rules about real-world morality arguments apply to all the subforums (I spend most of my time in Homebrew, so I could be wrong). Just be careful you don't inadvertently get the thread locked please.

Er, I don't think that was a discussion of real-world morality, so much as a questioning of the wisdom of destroying your own assets. It certainly wasn't "real-world" any more than anything else we've discussed; he's talking about adventuring parties. We don't exactly have many of those in the real world.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 02:15 PM
Er, I don't think that was a discussion of real-world morality, so much as a questioning of the wisdom of destroying your own assets. It certainly wasn't "real-world" any more than anything else we've discussed; he's talking about adventuring parties. We don't exactly have many of those in the real world.
My bad, then I apologize. I only skimmed some of the whole discussion and I thought I knew where it was going.

Jormengand
2015-07-14, 03:49 PM
I've seen it done by players; it's called planning and the comments posted by players who've had evil PCs are proof that a PC with the proper motivation, resources, and planning can find a way to betray their comrades. That they didn't do it (yet) doesn't mean they aren't capable. That's exactly why I don't entertain evil PCs when I GM.

But, if you enjoy playing or allowing them to be played, please enjoy :smallwink:

Right, but what purpose does it serve? Why would you betray your meat shield, blowy-uppy-dude and walking band-aid dispenser and go it solo when doing so is far more dangerous? Further, what leads you to conclude that it's always the correct course of action for an evil person to take?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 04:31 PM
Heh. As long as you don't tell me, "You're [alignment], so you wouldn't do that," I do not care what you call my alignment.


I wouldn't do you like that.

I swear to you, on the First Edition of the DMG, I wouldn't do that to you or any other player.



My signature character is ... Segev Stormlord, ... He's a necromancer. I usually peg him as NE.
...
Segev ... will absolutely use undead minions.
...
[H]e does canonically evil things, like creating and binding undead and keeping sapient undead slaves.

He's not about to backstab the party nor go out and perform evil for the (literal or figurative) hell of it. But he's definitely not going to let "that's evil!" be a reason not to do something he feels would profit him.

And if you insisted I play him as neutral, first, I'd write "TN" on his character sheet, and then play him as I play him and let you move his alignment to wherever you felt was fitting. (I've had people tell me he's LE, NE, and even LN or TN.)

Before I gave you the greenlight to play Segev, I would need you to play someone else first.

I need you take at least one non-evil character and level that character up to... the point where I was satisfied that you are not an inherently disruptive player.

I consider that to be nothing more than due diligence on my part.

I don't have a fixed timeline, but I'd say I need you to give me at least a dozen four hour game sessions to establish whether or not I can give you the greenlight on a character like Segev.

I am optimistic, based on your entire online persona, that you are not a disruptive player and so I would be able to greenlight Segev after I've performed my due diligence.

After you get the greenlight to play Segev, and before you bring Segev into play, you and I will come to an understanding.

This understanding will include the following non-negotiable clauses:


Unless I specifically rule otherwise, the fair targets for Segev are listed in the following chronological order:


Every other creature in the world.
The Tarrasque.
The other PCs in the Cast.


Once everything else in the world is dead, then you have my standing permission to initiated an unprovoked attack on another player character.


And if you didn't accept this non-negotiable Term of Service, then you don't get to play Segev at my table.

I can't enable you to have your fun at other player's direct expense, and claim to be doing my job as DM. Not if I want anyone else to make time to take a seat at my table for the next session.

Without a functional campaign, Segev has no environment in which to develop.

As to the notion of "I'll just write Neutral on my character and then just play him as I see fit..."

I'm sure you are precisely as clever a player as you claim to be.

I regret to inform you that you're not the first player to cook up that particular cunning plan.

And my first dungeon crawl may have happened at night, but it didn't happen last night.

One of my players is intensely interested in playing Evil PCs.

This is a dear friend of mine. I've known him since high-school. I'd bail him out of jail. I'd 'drive the Bronco' for this guy. I'd give this guy the shirt off my back. I'd give him my last dollar.

I have yet to give him the greenlight to play an Evil PC.

His favorite alignment is Chaotic Neutral.

Or, as I call the way he plays it, Chaotic Nincompoop.

This guy can't refrain from being disruptive. It just isn't in him. This guy is such an habitual power gamer that the only thing that sets him apart from a Munchkin is earnestness and a conspicuous absence of malice and my vigilance.

I've seen him destroy entire campaigns in a single session.

He's played in my campaign for five years, and that campaign remains playable.

This guy does not have the role-playing chops to play an Evil PC.

If I gave him the greenlight to play an Evil PC, my campaign would sink like a stone.

A DM who blindly allows a new player to play an Evil PC starting at Session Zero deserves to have his campaign founder.

A DM who knowingly lets a disruptive player play an Evil PC deserves to have his campaign founder.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 04:36 PM
I wouldn't do you like that.

I swear to you, on the First Edition of the DMG, I wouldn't do that to you or any other player.



Before I gave you the greenlight to play Segev, I would need you to play someone else first.

I need you take at least one non-evil character and level that character up to... the point where I was satisfied that you are not an inherently disruptive player.

I consider that to be nothing more than due diligence on my part.

I don't have a fixed timeline, but I'd say I need you to give me at least a dozen four hour game sessions to establish whether or not I can give you the greenlight on a character like Segev.

I am optimistic, based on your entire online persona, that you are not a disruptive player and so I would be able to greenlight Segev after I've performed my due diligence.

After you get the greenlight to play Segev, and before you bring Segev into play, you and I will come to an understanding.

This understanding will include the following non-negotiable clauses:


Unless I specifically rule otherwise, the fair targets for Segev are listed in the following chronological order:


Every other creature in the world.
The Tarrasque.
The other PCs in the Cast.


Once everything else in the world is dead, then you have my standing permission to initiated an unprovoked attack on another player character.


And if you didn't accept this non-negotiable Term of Service, then you don't get to play Segev at my table.

I can't enable you to have your fun at other player's direct expense, and claim to be doing my job as DM. Not if I want anyone else to make time to take a seat at my table for the next session.

Without a functional campaign, Segev has no environment in which to develop.

As to the notion of "I'll just write Neutral on my character and then just play him as I see fit..."

I'm sure you are precisely as clever a player as you claim to be.

I regret to inform you that you're not the first player to cook up that particular cunning plan.

And my first dungeon crawl may have happened at night, but it didn't happen last night.

One of my players is intensely interested in playing Evil PCs.

This is a dear friend of mine. I've known him since high-school. I'd bail him out of jail. I'd 'drive the Bronco' for this guy. I'd give this guy the shirt off my back. I'd give him my last dollar.

I have yet to give him the greenlight to play an Evil PC.

His favorite alignment is Chaotic Neutral.

Or, as I call the way he plays it, Chaotic Nincompoop.

This guy can't refrain from being disruptive. It just isn't in him. This guy is such an habitual power gamer that the only thing that sets him apart from a Munchkin is earnestness and a conspicuous absence of malice and my vigilance.

I've seen him destroy entire campaigns in a single session.

He's played in my campaign for five years, and that campaign remains playable.

This guy does not have the role-playing chops to play an Evil PC.

If I gave him the greenlight to play an Evil PC, my campaign would sink like a stone.

A DM who blindly allows a new player to play an Evil PC starting at Session Zero deserves to have his campaign founder.

A DM who knowingly lets a disruptive player play an Evil PC deserves to have his campaign founder.

Lets be honest here though, a disruptive player is going to be disruptive no matter what you make them write on their character sheet. It is quite easily possible to play any alignment in such a way that nobody would want that person in their party.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 04:41 PM
Lets be honest here though, a disruptive player is going to be disruptive no matter what you make them write on their character sheet. It is quite easily possible to play any alignment in such a way that nobody would want that person in their party.

True. And those are the players who don't get to play Evil necromancers at my table.

Why hand a toddler a Zippo lighter and point him towards a pile of oily rags?

Keltest
2015-07-14, 04:44 PM
True. And those are the players who don't get to play Evil necromancers at my table.

Why hand a toddler a Zippo lighter and point him towards a pile of oily rags?

But why is an Evil Necromancer any worse than a Lawful Stupid Paladin?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 04:50 PM
Why hand a toddler a Zippo lighter and point him towards a pile of oily rags?
Because it's hilarious! I knew one GM who would keep at least 2 separate campaign world's going, one for serious, long, complex campaigns, and one expressly for people to go nuts in. The game became a version of "how long can you survive before I find a way to kill you?"


But why is an Evil Necromancer any worse than a Lawful Stupid Paladin?
Well, I'd say that evenly when poorly played, a good and/or lawful aligned character would have more behaviors you could argue that are out of place for them. It seems like while you don't want to tell anyone why their CHARACTER wants to do, an evil character has a lot more leeway in "I do it because I want to", and is much harder to get a handle on if they start to go off the rails.

dream
2015-07-14, 04:58 PM
It's obvious there's disagreement & that's cool. There's more than one way to game. I'm leaving things at that since this can only turn into a tangled philosophical debate that has no place on this site.

Great topic! :smallsmile:

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 05:18 PM
But why is an Evil Necromancer any worse than a Lawful Stupid Paladin?

A player who chooses to play a paladin, also chooses to enter into a binding social contract to have his character adhere to a code of conduct. A Paladin is much more self-regulating than any given Evil PC. More self regulating than even a LG Cleric.

It takes some good role-playing chops to play a Paladin, too.

A player who can't play a Paladin without being disruptive is unlikely, in the extreme, to be able to play an evil character without being disruptive.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-14, 05:29 PM
If someone cannot refrain from being a disruptive idiot ruining everyone's fun with one alignment, why would I expect anything different with a different alignment? If I don't trust the player with evil player characters, then I probably would not invite them in the first place. Writing evil on the character sheet does not usually turn a good player into a troll.

Also, I do not expect good role playing from any player. I don't like to run role playing competitions, nor do I think my players want to adjust their role playing to suit my tastes. Instead, I ask players with concepts that might be hard to RP with to put in more effort to gel with the group and communicate with other players so everyone has fun.

I tend to ask parties to pick an alignment, goal or something to unify them, but if they are okay with an evil chatacter, I don't care.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 05:33 PM
A player who chooses to play a paladin, also chooses to enter into a binding social contract to have his character adhere to a code of conduct. A Paladin is much more self-regulating than any given Evil PC. More self regulating than even a LG Cleric.

It takes some good role-playing chops to play a Paladin, too.

A player who can't play a Paladin without being disruptive is unlikely, in the extreme, to be able to play an evil character without being disruptive.

I think youre missing my point. What is it about evil characters that make them so much more disruptive and harder to shut down in the hands of the same disruptive player? Why would you trust them to play a paladin, who easily has the potential to be lawful stupid, but not an evil necromancer?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 05:46 PM
It's obvious there's disagreement & that's cool. There's more than one way to game. I'm leaving things at that since this can only turn into a tangled philosophical debate that has no place on this site.
I dunnoh, I think it's more about practicality than philosophy. For whatever reason, people who put "evil" on their character sheet tend to be more disruptive, and people who who formerly helpful players seem to slide in the same direction.

1 out 10 people who wants to play an evil character because they want to explore a complex tail of morality, survival, and justifiable extremes in a darker campaign setting. The other 9 want to try it because they think it will let them do whatever they want with absolutely no repercussions. That's not a scenario for long-term stability within the group.



I think youre missing my point. What is it about evil characters that make them so much more disruptive and harder to shut down in the hands of the same disruptive player? Why would you trust them to play a paladin, who easily has the potential to be lawful stupid, but not an evil necromancer?
Because the GM has fewer tools to guide them back onto the right path. If a paladin is being lawful-stupid then the GM can still control the laws of the campaign world. If a good character isn't acting good you can inform them of such and ask them to try harder to abide by the established rules of the game-world.

The only things you can really threaten an evil player with is the destruction of their character. It's a lot easier for an evil character to do things that are detrimental to the group, while still being "in character".

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 05:48 PM
I think youre missing my point. What is it about evil characters that make them so much more disruptive and harder to shut down in the hands of the same disruptive player? Why would you trust them to play a paladin, who easily has the potential to be lawful stupid, but not an evil necromancer?

The Paladin might ride into town with his special mount. The mount might take an enormous dump in the street.

The necromancer might ride into town on a carriage powered by conga line of commanded undead, sending every commoner and their half-elf uncle into a panic.

I find latter to be inherently more difficult to manage than the former...

...there are other things, but we will start with that for now.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-14, 05:55 PM
If a player is disruptive, it doesn't matter what is on their character sheet. They won't just have their mount poop. They will poop in the well and execute the guard that comes to arrest them and then demand that the barmaid loves them now because of a high charisma score. I have seen a paladin player rape people and kill children. Giving these players a paladin won't fix a thing.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:05 PM
If a player is disruptive, it doesn't matter what is on their character sheet. They won't just have their mount poop. They will poop in the well and execute the guard that comes to arrest them and then demand that the barmaid loves them now because of a high charisma score. I have seen a paladin player rape people and kill children. Giving these players a paladin won't fix a thing.
Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 06:05 PM
Because the GM has fewer tools to guide them back onto the right path. If a paladin is being lawful-stupid then the GM can still control the laws of the campaign world. If a good character isn't acting good you can inform them of such and ask them to try harder to abide by the established rules of the game-world.

The only things you can really threaten an evil player with is the destruction of their character. It's a lot easier for an evil character to do things that are detrimental to the group, while still being "in character".

the GM needs exactly one too to guide them onto the right path, and that is to tell them to quit being disruptive. Trying to use in-character solutions to out of character problems is a recipe for badness.


Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

A DM can also say "Youre being disruptive, quit it or we will stop playing with you."

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:09 PM
the GM needs exactly one too to guide them onto the right path, and that is to tell them to quit being disruptive. Trying to use in-character solutions to out of character problems is a recipe for badness.
....
A DM can also say "Youre being disruptive, quit it or we will stop playing with you."
But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-14, 06:09 PM
Yeah, but the GM can say "you're not acting like a paladin would act, as detailed in the rulebook". You fall, lose your abilities, and everyone comes to kill you. Everything you described would be totally in character for a evil Necromancer.

And then what happens? Regardless of the class or alignment, the player usually just complains and keeps on being trucking. So maybe the problem isn't the alignment, but the person behind the character.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 06:12 PM
But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

then the GM can throw a rulebook at them for pulling out what is basically code for "I know im doing a bad thing". If the only way they know how to play a necromancer is legitimately to ride into a village, kill everyone and their cats, then animate the bodies into an unliving toilet for them to use, then they should reassess what theyre doing there.

Also, im fairly certain that is decidedly not a fact.

Amphetryon
2015-07-14, 06:15 PM
Apparently, some folks in this thread don't find a Lawful Good Paladin digging her heels in and refusing to go on the adventure the rest of the (non-Evil) party is interested in, on the grounds that she needs to go right the wrongs of the world instead of [X], to be disruptive.

Most of the complaints against Evil Characters listed thus far are answered by the "My Character WOULD Do That!" article from several years ago, because the disruptive behavior has almost nothing to do with the PC being Evil, and almost everything to do with the Player being immature/selfish or otherwise acting out.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 06:18 PM
But an evil character can reply "I'm just doing what my character would do! Why did you tell me I could play an evil character if you won't let me do anything?"

It's not a question in my mind of potential- it's a fact that "evil" characters always seem to cause a lot more problems than "good" ones do.

Problems of what nature?

A Carriage pulled by Congoing-undead? Have the town guards kick him out of town. Have the town have a very faithful church that burns any undead entering town via Faith alone. Have the town be celebrating it's version of Halloween, so that it loves the fact there are Spooky Scary Skeletons shimmying up the gate.

Player kills too many NPCs? Throw him in jail, then set the bail for other players to pay at a moderately high cost. You just forced your players to come to the conclusion of "Is this guy and his shenanigans worth us losing a Magic Item/time?" and if they DO pay it, suddenly whenever he starts getting stupid you have every other player saying "Are we going to have to bail you out again?"/"I am NOT bailing you out this time."

Player gets too feely with the other party members/NPCs (As detailed in a LOT of Worst player posts in that thread)? Have them contract a divinely afflicted disease that heavily punishes that character, exponentially as time goes on, and give them a quest for redemption. That much of a detour is going to get really old, FAST, especially if you force them to give up items/experience in order to do it.


Saying "You can't do that because your code says so" is lazy DMing, IMHO.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:22 PM
then the GM can throw a rulebook at them for pulling out what is basically code for "I know im doing a bad thing". If the only way they know how to play a necromancer is legitimately to ride into a village, kill everyone and their cats, then animate the bodies into an unliving toilet for them to use, then they should reassess what theyre doing there.
Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?


Also, im fairly certain that is decidedly not a fact.
It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 06:24 PM
Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?


It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

Since the rest of the party was Chaotic, wouldn't that be the LG players fault? Even if he/she wasn't a Lawful-Stupid character, they were still the outlier.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 06:26 PM
Not really sure what you're referring to here- my point was that "evil" characters in a non-evil campaign setting need to have the book thrown at them far more than not-evil characters.

In essence, it's easier to not wreck the campaign world and stay within the boundaries that a GM has designed for a good character than an evil one. If you can't/won't play a good or neutral character, why should I trust you with a an evil character?


It's a fact in the sense that it's what my experience tells me. If you say "well I can play an evil character without doing X..." that's all well and good, but it still might not set the right tone, and this argument isn't really about you and me. Almost EVERYONE is going to think "sure I can play an evil character well". It's about what a GM either know his players can handle or what he wants to risk for unknown players.

I've seen it happen- I was in a party once that almost came to blows because of differences between 1 LG character (and not a lawful-stupid one at that), and the rest of the party which leaned heavily towards chaos. Not even evil-chaotic, just CN with a little CG.

Ok, so obviously, if the player is going in trying to play an orphanage arsonist in a generally heroic campaign, they need to have their expectations adjusted.

However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers. If you have seen more evil characters go wrong than good ones, it seems highly probable to me that it is because you have participated in more heroic campaigns than neutral or villainous campaigns.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:30 PM
Player kills too many NPCs? Throw him in jail, then set the bail for other players to pay at a moderately high cost. You just forced your players to come to the conclusion of "Is this guy and his shenanigans worth us losing a Magic Item/time?" and if they DO pay it, suddenly whenever he starts getting stupid you have every other player saying "Are we going to have to bail you out again?"/"I am NOT bailing you out this time."

Player gets too feely with the other party members/NPCs (As detailed in a LOT of Worst player posts in that thread)? Have them contract a divinely afflicted disease that heavily punishes that character, exponentially as time goes on, and give them a quest for redemption. That much of a detour is going to get really old, FAST, especially if you force them to give up items/experience in order to do it.
Yeah, but my point is that a player playing a Good or Neutral character well is less likely to be than a player for whom all those things have no moral boundaries.

Essentially, if a character is being played poorly then they can cause problems. But even when played well evil characters cause more problems than good characters. Good characters have both their own morals and GM-displeasure holding them back, while evil-characters have only 1 of those.


Since the rest of the party was Chaotic, wouldn't that be the LG players fault? Even if he/she wasn't a Lawful-Stupid character, they were still the outlier.
Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 06:36 PM
Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.

Jay R
2015-07-14, 06:39 PM
Er, I don't think that was a discussion of real-world morality, so much as a questioning of the wisdom of destroying your own assets. It certainly wasn't "real-world" any more than anything else we've discussed; he's talking about adventuring parties. We don't exactly have many of those in the real world.

We don't? Oh, man - I've been taking the wrong approach all the way through. No wonder the committee at my job isn't taking any of my suggestions.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:42 PM
Ok, so obviously, if the player is going in trying to play an orphanage arsonist in a generally heroic campaign, they need to have their expectations adjusted.
I'm all for GMs and their players sitting down and talking out expectations for a game or campaign before character creation, let alone before everyone sits down to play. Assuming that everyone is on the same page as you is one of the most common (if not the single greatest) source of unnecessary inter-group drama, and that's applicable to both players and GMs.
If a GM doesn't volunteer certain information I'll ask, and if they refuse to provide it then that's a major red flag.

If I show up to your campaign with an orcish berserker and you've planned an adventure full of stealth, intrigue, investigation, and politics, then I'm going to either sit there with nothing to do or I'm going to use my one and only skill set and hit your campaign like a rampaging elephant in a ward for children with brittle bone disease.

If a group of players came to me and said "we want to be allowed to play evil characters" my first question would be "why?" and the followup would be "given total freedom, what do you plan to do?" If they just want to **** around and kill stuff, I don't have a problem with that, but I want to design a separate world (a special little playpen) for them to do that in. I'm not going to slot in an evil character into a campaign that's already running unless I'm absolutely certain that no one is going to get upset by the fallout from that characters probable actions.


However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers. If you have seen more evil characters go wrong than good ones, it seems highly probable to me that it is because you have participated in more heroic campaigns than neutral or villainous campaigns.
Yes, that's true about my experiences, but the GM has the final say over what kind of game or campaign is being run. If you want to do something different, then you can either bow out for a few sessions, look for another group, or offer to run a campaign yourself.

I'm not saying that evil characters are impossible, I'm saying that it's much easier for them to cause problems and that there are fewer tools to discourage them without going OOC. And also that even taking absolute value into account and converting to a percentage of total games played, players playing evil characters seem to screw things up far more often.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 06:46 PM
I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.
No, what I'm saying is that when people play evil characters they end up being far more disruptive than when they are playing good characters. Good (as in skillful) players morph into bad ones when they change 4 letters on their character sheet.

If a player can't play a Good (capital G) character well, then that's a sign they are a bad player, not that I'm being overly restrictive with my alignment requirements. I've never seen a single example of someone playing poorly who suddenly morphs into a better who enhances the experience of the entire group when I start letting them get away with even more murder, theft, and betrayal than PCs typically comit.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 06:47 PM
Yeah, but my point is that a player playing a Good or Neutral character well is less likely to be than a player for whom all those things have no moral boundaries.

Essentially, if a character is being played poorly then they can cause problems. But even when played well evil characters cause more problems than good characters. Good characters have both their own morals and GM-displeasure holding them back, while evil-characters have only 1 of those.

Except those characters do have moral boundaries, just not the typical ones. They value gold, they value fame, they value themselves. Play into those things, and a evil character is no more disruptive than a normal one.

Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.


Even if you're going to assign blame, problems are not always the outlier's fault, and nor should a party be absolutely required to all fit in one alignment.

My point was mainly about possibly-irreconcilable alignment differences, and Good and Evil get along a lot less well than Law and Chaos. In this case, we WERE able to eventually reach an accord, mostly since the issue was a one-done-and-solved. But why should a good character agree to continuously travel alongside and cooperate with someone who routinely violates his every moral code? A "work together to save the world" scenario isn't always applicable can usually only keep a clash in check temporarily.

-Good character is trying to redeem bad guys. (Book from Firefly)
-Good character is good, but has a fatal flaw that allows him to travel with evil characters (Is a nice guy with the "wrong" crowd; too cowardly to stand up to peer pressure). (Robin, Villains by Necessity)
-Lawful Good Character is too naive to understand what they are doing is bad, and a higher authority exists than his brother/friend. (Simone, Gurren Lagann)
-Good character is apprehensive about what bad guys do, and is slowly redeeming himself (Kills because it's what his friends do, but only when his friends force him to do it and he's starting to realize it's wrong). (Wolverine from X-Men Origins Wolverine)


It's not really that hard to show why a good character would run with bad men.

Cluedrew
2015-07-14, 06:48 PM
However, the same goes for trying to play a paladin in a party of thieves and murderers.Now I want to play a paladin/rogue.

Personally, I think you can be disruptive with any type of character. My disruptive player stories have featured Lawful Good characters as often as it has featured any verity of evil character. (Equating alignment roughly, not all the games were D&D.)

Mind you I have had an experience with a regularly good role-player going off the wall and that involved an evil character. So maybe there is something else there but I'm not sure what it is.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 06:48 PM
I'm not saying that evil characters are impossible, I'm saying that it's much easier for them to cause problems, that there are fewer tools to discourage them without going OOC.

Ok, a problem character is an OOC problem and should be dealt with OOC. Trying to deal with it in character sends the signals that yes, it is successfully annoying you, and it is not annoying you to the point where you will force a confrontation over it. Both of those are signals of success to a disruptive player.

Sure, you will occasionally have an inadvertently disruptive player, but the solution, as it turns out, is still to step out of the game for a moment and make it clear to them that the disruption must stop.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 06:58 PM
I think youre confusing cause and effect here. The player is not disruptive because theyre evil, theyre evil because theyre disruptive. If you were to veto evil characters, they would find a different way to be disruptive. Theyre creating their character with the knowledge that it will end up creating problems, and no amount of DM restriction short of not allowing them to play is going to change that unless you confront them directly and tell them to quit doing that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of the thing that makes a good DM good is the ability to roll with the punches; allow the players to do whatever they want, but make sure a set, defined, and constant series of consequences are known.

To pull it out of the Good/Evil dynamic for a second, If you have your players go into a "highly suspicious, highly religious town that likes to burn witches", the players really have no one to blame but themselves if they start non-discretely using their magic and get burned at the stake. It then becomes a side mission that they have to free the witch and flee town, or lose the party member.

Give your player a warning, ENSURE they have the signs they need to pay attention to even if they don't, and punish them for going out of bounds.

I found that players mostly were discrete about it, rather than fireballing the town square and complaining about being staked after the first time. "I told you, these people hate magic. Roll a new character..."

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 07:04 PM
Except those characters do have moral boundaries, just not the typical ones. They value gold, they value fame, they value themselves. Play into those things, and a evil character is no more disruptive than a normal one.
The primary motivation most adventurers already have is to kill stuff, take its treasure, and become more powerful. Player's don't need to be evil to be mercenary.


Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.
An NPC shows up to a clandestine meeting with the party, bedecked in lots of shiny jewelry, as befits his status as the leading merchant-prince of the city. The evil character suddenly thinks his wallet feels a little light.


-Good character is trying to redeem bad guys. (Book from Firefly)
That only works up until a certain point- giving an irredeemable character an infinite number of do-overs is the hallmark of stupid good. What if the evil-player has stated he has no interest in ever being redeemed?
Pretty sure that Book would have dropped Mal or Jane in a second if they had actually comitted evil deeds in his presence. There was that one episode with the red-headed trickster lady and Book made sure to preemptively warn Mal away form any immoral hanky-panky.


-Good character is good, but has a fatal flaw that allows him to travel with evil characters (Is a nice guy with the "wrong" crowd; too cowardly to stand up to peer pressure). (Robin, Villains by Necessity)
Who did Robin Hood adventure with that was evil? He might have been chaotic good, but he wasn't evil, and I'm pretty sure both rape and murder were against the rules in his group.
In most versions of Robin Hood the Sheriff, the Prince, and anyone allied with them are Lawful/Neutral evil, and the first thing I'd expect an evil player to do is to look to either sign up with them or replace them, not hang out in the woods with a bunch of scrubby rangers.


-Lawful Good Character is too naive to understand what they are doing is bad, and a higher authority exists than his brother/friend. (Simone, Gurren Lagann)
I'm not even sure what this one means, unless you're saying I should tell the good player to just ignore the actions from the evil one.


-Good character is apprehensive about what bad guys do, and is slowly redeeming himself (Kills because it's what his friends do, but only when his friends force him to do it and he's starting to realize it's wrong). (Wolverine from X-Men Origins Wolverine)
I'd make the argument that so long as you're committing evil deeds then you're not Good. As soon as he started to question what was going on, Wolverine LEFT the bad guys. That's the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove.


It's not really that hard to show why a good character would run with bad men.
None of your example are the kind of thing I see very often in the actual D&D games though, and it's still putting all the pressure on the Good player to put up with the evil ones. If everyone wants to role-play equally, why doesn't this come to PvP (aside from GM fiat)?

Keltest
2015-07-14, 07:05 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. Part of the thing that makes a good DM good is the ability to roll with the punches; allow the players to do whatever they want, but make sure a set, defined, and constant series of consequences are known.

To pull it out of the Good/Evil dynamic for a second, If you have your players go into a "highly suspicious, highly religious town that likes to burn witches", the players really have no one to blame but themselves if they start non-discretely using their magic and get burned at the stake. It then becomes a side mission that they have to free the witch and flee town, or lose the party member.

Give your player a warning, ENSURE they have the signs they need to pay attention to even if they don't, and punish them for going out of bounds.

I found that players mostly were discrete about it, rather than fireballing the town square and complaining about being staked after the first time. "I told you, these people hate magic. Roll a new character..."

I don't generally consider ignoring the warning signs I put out as a DM to be the same thing as being disruptive. If theyre doing it deliberately to get the party in trouble, or after being repeatedly told by the party not to do it, that's one thing, but doing it out of a lack of paying attention is not generally disruptive unless they start really raising a fuss about it.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 07:08 PM
I don't generally consider ignoring the warning signs I put out as a DM to be the same thing as being disruptive. If theyre doing it deliberately to get the party in trouble, or after being repeatedly told by the party not to do it, that's one thing, but doing it out of a lack of paying attention is not generally disruptive unless they start really raising a fuss about it.

True, but I find that most people have a hard time complaining about "My character is acting in character, he can't be punished for this" when you can counter with "These NPCs are acting in character as well, and they are punishing you". Cuts that problem off at the head.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 07:16 PM
True, but I find that most people have a hard time complaining about "My character is acting in character, he can't be punished for this" when you can counter with "These NPCs are acting in character as well, and they are punishing you". Cuts that problem off at the head.
Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 07:20 PM
Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

most evil characters are perfectly capable of restraining themselves from going around doing things like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies unless its very clear they can do so consequence free. Those who do not are not going to be evil characters for very long.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 07:22 PM
most evil characters are perfectly capable of restraining themselves from going around doing things like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies unless its very clear they can do so consequence free. Those who do not are not going to be evil characters for very long.
What's the point of playing an evil character then? What actions do you think you can take that the GM would allow that you would want to refrain from as a good character?

Keltest
2015-07-14, 07:30 PM
What's the point of playing an evil character then? What actions do you think you can take that the GM would allow that you would want to refrain from as a good character?

Torture, for example? Murder? Remember, the key words above are "If they can get away with it". There are a great deal of things most PCs wont be able to get away with for one reason or another. There are an equally great deal of things where getting away with it is part of the fun. Assassination, for example. Torture.

You know what, someone shine the Evil Signal into the sky, Red Fel could explain this a lot better than this guy.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 07:31 PM
Yeah, but my issue is that with a good character played well I wouldn't have had to punish them at all. With an evil character I'm going to constantly having to create scenarios where that player can't/doesn't-want-to do what comes most naturally to them.

A good character rides into a village that prohibits magic and thinks "hmm, how can I solve this issue without using magic?"
An evil character rides into the same village and thinks "I'll have to kill anyone who sees me using magic".

A "Good" character might think the same thing, but it's more out of place for them. A good character does it and I can call them out on being a disruptive player. An evil character could easily make the argument that it should be allowed for what I already gave permission for when I let them right "evil" on their character sheet.

I guarantee you, after the first time you make someone lose their level 17 Warlock because THEY were being dumb and they reroll a new character at level 1, their thoughts are going to be less "I have to kill anyone who sees me using magic" to "How can I cast this charm person spell without being caught/seen".

You have to condition your players to not be Stupid Evil, to where they will drag someone into a dark alley and torture them for information rather than set them on fire because they can.

Just trust me; go the extra mile and allow your player to be evil, but not stupid. It won't be disruptive after they get the hint, and they will enjoy themselves a lot more.

People who play Evil characters are the kind who want to do something and get away with it. Make a game out of "Getting away with it", and both of you are going to have a fun time. Start with a simple Wanted Poster scenario, where if they show their face they get arrested, but can use a cloak/mask/back alley way to still navigate.




One thing I find funny is a lot of DMs say "Make sure to create encounters for each player's unique skills so they can dominate that one encounter", but never allow Alignment to fall into that category as well. It's so much fun to allow the Evil Character to get info/items through unsavory means without the party knowing about it, only to say "Are you sure you want to know?" when asked how they got that item/info.



Give me an example of an evil deed for an evil character to do (Don't even worry about being too over the top) and I'll show you how to roleplay that problem away. As long as you give appropriate consequences to all actions, you really don't have to worry about Fish-Malk syndrome.
An NPC shows up to a clandestine meeting with the party, bedecked in lots of shiny jewelry, as befits his status as the leading merchant-prince of the city. The evil character suddenly thinks his wallet feels a little light.


Sorry, didn't see.


Clandestine meeting with lots of shiny jewelry? Does this merchant-prince know what Clandestine means?

-Evil Character knocks out Merchant Prince and steals stuff. If they were smart enough to actually conceal their identity (Unlike the baka MP), give it to them, or have the Merchant Prince rescind on a payment/agreement. Nothing better than doing the job like normal and being thrown in the dungeon and the keys forgotten because you pissed off your client.
-Evil Character kills merchant and steals stuff. Ensure they know they lost out on a chance for greater loot, even if you had no such plans to give them such. Greedy Evil will stay its hand at that.
-Evil Character kills Merchant, is seen doing so by an unknown onlooker, and is arrested.
-Evil character attempts to harm merchant, a signal is given and guards come out of the woodwork to prevent it. Smiling to himself because MP is smart, he asks if PCs have any more questions.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 07:44 PM
You have to condition your players to not be Stupid Evil, to where they will drag someone into a dark alley and torture them for information rather than set them on fire because they can.
Why do I need to condition them at all? Lighting people on fire and not torturing them are already things Good players know not to do.


Just trust me; go the extra mile and allow your player to be evil, but not stupid. It won't be disruptive after they get the hint, and they will enjoy themselves a lot more.
There are no RP games I've ever played where I thought to myself "I could be having so much more fun if only this stupid alignment restriction weren't in the way".


People who play Evil characters are the kind who want to do something and get away with it. Make a game out of "Getting away with it", and both of you are going to have a fun time. Start with a simple Wanted Poster scenario, where if they show their face they get arrested, but can use a cloak/mask/back alley way to still navigate.
I'm already running one game, I don't want to have to create a whole separate list of situations and encounters just to keep one player out of several entertained.


One thing I find funny is a lot of DMs say "Make sure to create encounters for each player's unique skills so they can dominate that one encounter", but never allow Alignment to fall into that category as well. It's so much fun to allow the Evil Character to get info/items through unsavory means without the party knowing about it, only to say "Are you sure you want to know?" when asked how they got that item/info.
Even as the GM there's only so much I can control- what happens when one of the other party members starts questioning the evil player and won't just drop it after a few skill checks?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 07:48 PM
Clandestine meeting with lots of shiny jewelry? Does this merchant-prince know what Clandestine means?
He's rich and smart, but with low Wisdom. :smallwink:


-Evil Character knocks out Merchant Prince and steals stuff. If they were smart enough to actually conceal their identity (Unlike the baka MP), give it to them, or have the Merchant Prince rescind on a payment/agreement. Nothing better than doing the job like normal and being thrown in the dungeon and the keys forgotten because you pissed off your client.
-Evil Character kills merchant and steals stuff. Ensure they know they lost out on a chance for greater loot, even if you had no such plans to give them such. Greedy Evil will stay its hand at that.
-Evil Character kills Merchant, is seen doing so by an unknown onlooker, and is arrested.
-Evil character attempts to harm merchant, a signal is given and guards come out of the woodwork to prevent it. Smiling to himself because MP is smart, he asks if PCs have any more questions.
Yeah, but all of these are things that end up making an enemy/corpse of a character who I wanted to be an ally for the PCs. It seems like to move the campaign along at all I just end up prohibiting the evil character from actually being evil.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 07:54 PM
So basically I have to work under the assumption that every NPC in my world is dead unless I make it explicitly clear that someone more powerful than the NPC will show up and reign retribution down on their head. Essentially, I (the GM) is the only limiting factor on the character's actions. Whereas with a Good character, they are self-regulating.

To me, that argument you're making sounds a lot like "some 12 year olds are mature enough to handle having a driver's license, therefor your should let all 12 year olds drive until they prove otherwise". And I'm responding "AWW HELL NO!!! Proof first, THEN privilege".

Evil can (and should) be self regulating too, but for different reasons than good characters. Beyond that though, were you not just complaining that a regulated evil character is no different from a good character?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 08:00 PM
Torture, for example? Murder? Remember, the key words above are "If they can get away with it". There are a great deal of things most PCs wont be able to get away with for one reason or another. There are an equally great deal of things where getting away with it is part of the fun. Assassination, for example. Torture.
So basically I have to work under the assumption that every NPC in my world is dead unless I make it explicitly clear that someone more powerful than the NPC will show up and reign retribution down on their head? It's looking alot like I (the GM) am the only limiting factor on the character's actions. Whereas with a Good character they are inherently self-regulating.

To me, that argument you're making sounds a lot like "some 12 year olds are mature enough to handle having a driver's license, therefor your should let all 12 year olds drive until they prove otherwise". And I'm responding "AWW HELL NO!!! Proof of maturity first, THEN privilege".


Evil can (and should) be self regulating too, but for different reasons than good characters. Beyond that though, were you not just complaining that a regulated evil character is no different from a good character?
For what reasons is evil self-regulating that DO NOT ALSO APPLY to a good character?
I'm not asking for every single character to be saintly, but what you're describing as self-regulated evil sounds a lot more like just plain old Neutral. Afterall, if a character doesn't ACT evil, then the words on their character sheet are no more meaningful than the "Good" character who's first solution to every problem is executing someone.

Hawkstar
2015-07-14, 08:04 PM
Nor is the discussion about how you choose to play them. And I remind you that the Punisher is a "superhero" whose entire concept involves shooting lots and lots of people to death while chomping on a cigar. In what universe is wholesale slaughter a heroic act?Every universe with lots of people who need killin', obviously. Such as Nazis. Or Imperial Stormtroopers. Or Sauron's Orcs.

Point is - if you can get a bunch of people the world would be better off without (As in Nazis), and kill them all to stop them from making the world a ****hole, then you've committed an unambiguously heroic act.

Red Fel
2015-07-14, 08:07 PM
For what reasons is evil self-regulating that DO NOT ALSO APPLY to a good character?

Self-preservation.

A Good character who settles down in your typical locale is pretty much as safe as anybody else there. He'll be fine to his neighbors, they'll be fine to him; he doesn't have to comport his behavior.

An Evil character in the identical situation has to either curb his tendencies, conceal his conduct, or else pack up and move out in a hurry.

That's the point. A lot of RPGs assume a Neutral-to-Good world, with Neutral-to-Evil monsters wandering through it, and the occasional Neutral-to-Evil civilization to stand in contrast to the rest of civilization. Evil doesn't fit in. Evil is the odd man out, and if it doesn't self-regulate, it gets outed, ostracized, and executed.

Good doesn't have to worry about that. A Good person in a Neutral-to-Good world is reasonably safe from his friends, neighbors, and local law enforcement. An Evil person isn't.

And smart Evil knows this. And self-regulates.

Keltest
2015-07-14, 08:09 PM
For what reasons is evil self-regulating that DO NOT ALSO APPLY to a good character?
I'm not asking for every single character to be saintly, but what you're describing as self-regulated evil sounds a lot more like just plain old Neutral. Afterall, if a character doesn't ACT evil, then the words on their character sheet are no more meaningful than the "Good" character who's first solution to every problem is executing someone.

How about a basic desire not to be killed or otherwise inconvenienced by people who disapprove of their actions? Evil characters refrain from wide scale evil because the payout for doing so is not worth the consequences that come with them. An evil character, unlike a good character, would be perfectly willing to let the orphanage burn down, but you would have a really hard time convincing them to actually start that fire unless the promised reward is greater than whatever the town will do to you for burning down their orphanage.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 08:10 PM
Point is - if you can get a bunch of people the world would be better off without (As in Nazis), and kill them all to stop them from making the world a ****hole, then you've committed an unambiguously heroic act.
Ok, NOW I feel like we're treading on the edge of the "morality argument" precipice. All I'm going to say is that in MY gameworlds, good and evil are somewhat complex concepts for which the end-result of your actions is not the sole determining factor.

Slarg
2015-07-14, 08:19 PM
Self-preservation.

A Good character who settles down in your typical locale is pretty much as safe as anybody else there. He'll be fine to his neighbors, they'll be fine to him; he doesn't have to comport his behavior.

An Evil character in the identical situation has to either curb his tendencies, conceal his conduct, or else pack up and move out in a hurry.

That's the point. A lot of RPGs assume a Neutral-to-Good world, with Neutral-to-Evil monsters wandering through it, and the occasional Neutral-to-Evil civilization to stand in contrast to the rest of civilization. Evil doesn't fit in. Evil is the odd man out, and if it doesn't self-regulate, it gets outed, ostracized, and executed.

Good doesn't have to worry about that. A Good person in a Neutral-to-Good world is reasonably safe from his friends, neighbors, and local law enforcement. An Evil person isn't.

And smart Evil knows this. And self-regulates.

THIS! SO MUCH THIS!

A good Evil player will realize that he has to pick his battles when dealing with other people; he *can* go on a murder spree if he wants, but he has to conceal it or get executed. Or he has to fight it. Or he has to change.

It's not about how bad Evil is. It's about how bad Dumb Evil is. I've had players root out Drug Lords because it would have exposed their smuggling ring.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 08:24 PM
How about a basic desire not to be killed or otherwise inconvenienced by people who disapprove of their actions? Evil characters refrain from wide scale evil because the payout for doing so is not worth the consequences that come with them. An evil character, unlike a good character, would be perfectly willing to let the orphanage burn down, but you would have a really hard time convincing them to actually start that fire unless the promised reward is greater than whatever the town will do to you for burning down their orphanage.
A NEUTRAL character would let the orphanage burn down. Neutral characters are self-interested. If it's a choice between "him or me" a Neutral character doesn't suffer any alignment shift from picking "me".
In the same way that Good characters have to take risks above and beyond their potential rewards to actually be good, an evil person has to go beyond merely looking out for number one to actually be evil.

Being "Evil" without actually committing any evil deeds is like calling yourself "Good" even if you never save any one.


Self-preservation.
*snip*
Good doesn't have to worry about that. A Good person in a Neutral-to-Good world is reasonably safe from his friends, neighbors, and local law enforcement. An Evil person isn't.
If anything, that sounds like an argument against letting just anyone play evil alignment. If it's harder and more dangerous, then fewer people will be able to pull it off successfully.
I don't need a situation in which characters have good reasons to be even more paranoid and trigger-happy than normal.

Also, if all PCs where both interested in and skilled at staying alive I'd have a lot less problem letting people play evil characters. The problem is that the "Evil" moniker takes the usual nigh-suicidal murder-hobo stereotype and crank it up to 11. I'm not being theoretical here- I'm talking from experience. If you read accounts of actual games, you'll find plenty of supporting evidence.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-14, 08:25 PM
most evil characters are perfectly capable of restraining themselves from going around doing things like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies unless its very clear they can do so consequence free. Those who do not are not going to be evil characters for very long.


What's the point of playing an evil character then? What actions do you think you can take that the GM would allow that you would want to refrain from as a good character?

Emphasis Added

This exchange right here. This is why it is tricky to incorporate Evil PCs into a campaign. Some players just want be Magnificent Bastards, some people want to be Ax Crazy.

The DM who doesn't set limits as to which form of Evil plays in his campaign will come to regret that decision sooner or later. Probably sooner.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 08:29 PM
A good Evil player will realize that he has to pick his battles when dealing with other people; he *can* go on a murder spree if he wants, but he has to conceal it or get executed. Or he has to fight it. Or he has to change.
It's not about how bad Evil is. It's about how bad Dumb Evil is. I've had players root out Drug Lords because it would have exposed their smuggling ring.
A good Good player doesn't get plot-armor either though. Sure killing everyone would get the evil people too, but it doesn't make wholesale slaughter a good deed. By the same token, accidentally doing things that have a net beneficial effect somewhere down the line doesn't redeem an evil character.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying you CAN'T play evil PCs, I'm saying that I'm very reluctant to allow it because it's much much more difficult than playing a Good PC.

Red Fel
2015-07-14, 08:38 PM
If anything, that sounds like an argument against letting just anyone play evil alignment. If it's harder and more dangerous, then fewer people will be able to pull it off successfully.

So it's a handicap that adds complexity and complications to gameplay. And that's a bad thing?


I don't need a situation in which characters need good reasons to be even more paranoid and trigger-happy than normal.

I'm confused. I said that Evil would self-regulate; it would do what it could to avoid notice. How does that translate to "paranoid and trigger-happy," which seems to me to be the very thing that would draw the most notice?


Also, if all PCs where both interested in and skilled at staying alive I'd have a lot less problem letting people play evil characters. The problem is that the "Evil" moniker takes the usual nigh-suicidal murder-hobo stereotype and crank it up to 11.

See, that's a stereotype, and as unelected spokesbeing for Evil on this forum, I find it offensive. The "Evil" moniker does not "take[] the usual nigh-suicidal murder-hobo stereotype and crank it up to 11." That's what people have been saying. The Stupid moniker does that.


I'm not being theoretical here- I'm talking from experience. If you read accounts of actual games, you'll find plenty of supporting evidence.

You are free to speak from your experience. And if your experience with Evil PCs is limited exclusively to Stupid Evil, then I understand your position, and am genuinely sorry. You've missed out on a third of the alignment grid, with all of its nuances and entertaining quirks. That's really unfortunate. But please don't speak as if I have no experience with the subject.

If you read accounts from actual games, you'll see that the door swings both ways. There have been Evil characters who are triumphantly awesome and admired by the table. There have been Good characters who managed to cheese off everyone playing with them. The spectrum is broad, the gulf is deep, and alignment is not determinative of whether a character is a murderous twit.

This is what people have been saying. Your experience is yours, and it is fine and valid to rely on it, but don't pretend that the experiences of those who - like myself - have seen Evil characters played well are meaningless. Our experiences may differ, but mine are no less valid than yours.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-14, 08:43 PM
So it's a handicap that adds complexity and complications to gameplay. And that's a bad thing?
It is when people can't handle it. Anything that's inherently more difficult means a smaller-than-average number of people will be able to pull it off sucessfully.


I'm confused. I said that Evil would self-regulate; it would do what it could to avoid notice. How does that translate to "paranoid and trigger-happy," which seems to me to be the very thing that would draw the most notice?
Yes, and what I've said is that people need to PROVE to me that they can and will play that way BEFORE I give them the opportunity to ruin a campaign.


See, that's a stereotype, and as unelected spokesbeing for Evil on this forum, I find it offensive. The "Evil" moniker does not "take[] the usual nigh-suicidal murder-hobo stereotype and crank it up to 11." That's what people have been saying. The Stupid moniker does that.
And what I'm saying is that many (not all, possibly not even a majority, but many) people play Evil as if it's intrinsically linked with stupid. More people than intrinsically link Good with stupid.


This is what people have been saying. Your experience is yours, and it is fine and valid to rely on it, but don't pretend that the experiences of those who - like myself - have seen Evil characters played well are meaningless. Our experiences may differ, but mine are no less valid than yours.
Granted, but I would say the the percentage of people who can play Evil characters competently (in that they don't ruin the game and don't sulk off in a fit) is lower than the people who can play non-evil characters decently.

I'm not saying I would never allow it, I'm saying I won't allow it without proof that it can be done decently first. I give Neutral and Good players the benefit of doubt. My experience with Evil players is such that I no longer give them the benefit of doubt.


Edit: If you've never been allowed to play an actual Neutral PC, then I would say your experience is also lacking. There's also a range of alignments in between good and evil.

goto124
2015-07-14, 10:51 PM
And that, everyone, is why I discard alignment altogether and just flesh out my character without thinking of 'good' and 'evil'.

I build a non-disruptive char enough that I know what she'll think, feel and do when coming across most (common) situations.

From my game experience, there's (almost always) no need or reason to perform an 'evil' act, aka acting evil would be Stupid Evil disruptive. But maybe I haven't played enough.

Seto
2015-07-15, 04:29 AM
A good Good player doesn't get plot-armor either though. Sure killing everyone would get the evil people too, but it doesn't make wholesale slaughter a good deed. By the same token, accidentally doing things that have a net beneficial effect somewhere down the line doesn't redeem an evil character.

That ; that right there is the point. It doesn't need to redeem your character, on the contrary ; it lets you play Evil while also "having a net beneficial effect somewhere down the line".
Useful Evil is a very good way to avoid intra-party conflict or campaign disruption. You always have the morally ambiguous/brutal/unsavory response to challenges, but they work, and that makes it harder for the other characters to complain. And if the Good ones manage to keep their eyes open enough (despite all the loot and success your actions get them) and do protest, then you have a nice occasion for good and dynamic roleplaying.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 06:28 AM
That ; that right there is the point. It doesn't need to redeem your character, on the contrary ; it lets you play Evil while also "having a net beneficial effect somewhere down the line".
Useful Evil is a very good way to avoid intra-party conflict or campaign disruption. You always have the morally ambiguous/brutal/unsavory response to challenges, but they work, and that makes it harder for the other characters to complain. And if the Good ones manage to keep their eyes open enough (despite all the loot and success your actions get them) and do protest, then you have a nice occasion for good and dynamic roleplaying.
That doesn't really sound like "evil" to me though- a lot of the self-regulating, self interested stuff sounds like it's NEUTRAL. I'm starting to think that although I might not have played a lot of Evil campaigns, most of you have never really played a neutral one. Like I said before, there are choices in between "Saint" and "demon".

Maybe rather than trying to distinguish between good and evil, I should be asking what you consider the difference between evil and neutral to be.

Imagine you come across a small girl who's crying because her cat is stuck in a tree. She offers you her allowance if you can get it down.

A good character retrieves the cat and declines the reward (doing a good deed for its own sake).
A neutral character retrieves the car and accepts the rewards (payment for services rendered).
An evil character throws rocks at the cat until it falls and breaks it's legs, then demands payment anyway (destruction of life, being a **** just because you can).



If you tell me that you want to play someone evil but who is only going to take neutral actions, then what is the point of being evil?

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-15, 06:49 AM
It's hard to argue that a "neutral" means to an "evil" end isn't itself "evil." Just because my cutthroat business practices don't involve literally cutting throats doesn't mean I'm not using them for "evil" purposes.

(Conversely, even "good" ends rarely are able to employ "evil" means without being stained by it.)

hamishspence
2015-07-15, 06:55 AM
There's plenty of "evil actions" that won't disrupt the party - of which "casting [Evil] spells" is only the most notable.

Combine with active avoidance of good acts (making personal sacrifices for strangers) and you could have a mildly Evil but not disruptive adventurer.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 06:59 AM
It's hard to argue that a "neutral" means to an "evil" end isn't itself "evil." Just because my cutthroat business practices don't involve literally cutting throats doesn't mean I'm not using them for "evil" purposes.
So long as you're acting within the law, just being better at business than your competitors doesn't make you evil. Can you try to explain your point better? Or maybe give some examples of where things cross the line from neutral to evil for you?

The SRD (and maybe the printed copy of the PHB, too) make True Neutral sound wishy-washy, and a lot of people seem to take that as having no convictions or passions whatsoever. That's not the case- you can be neutral because you are apathetic, but also because your striving to enforce balance, or because you don't act strongly or consistently with either of the other alignments.
In my mind, to be evil you need to be as far from neutral as good is (and there are plenty of players who right "good" on their character sheet without actually exhibiting it, either).

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 07:04 AM
There's plenty of "evil actions" that won't disrupt the party - of which "casting [Evil] spells" is only the most notable.

Combine with active avoidance of good acts (making personal sacrifices for strangers) and you could have a mildly Evil but not disruptive adventurer.
The "evil" descriptions for spells are bull****, pardon my french. Saying necromancy is evil is like saying nuclear energy is evil. Something might be insanely dangerous (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdLm0PgrqBI), but magic is (should be) just a tool, and it's up to the player(s) to decide what to do with it.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 07:08 AM
So long as you're acting within the law, just being better at business than your competitors doesn't make you evil. Can you try to explain your point better? Or maybe give some examples of where things cross the line from neutral to evil for you?

The SRD (and maybe the printed copy of the PHB, too) make True Neutral sound wishy-washy, and a lot of people seem to take that as having no convictions or passions whatsoever. That's not the case- you can be neutral because your apathetic, but also because your striving to enforce balance, or because you don't act strongly or consistently with either of the other alignments.
In my mind, to be evil you need to be as far from neutral as good is (and there are plenty of players who right "good" on their character sheet without actually exhibiting it, either).

So youre saying that buying out struggling businesses, firing all their workers and replacing them with your own would not be evil for ruining the lives of a lot of people?

theres a reason "Big businessman" is an evil stereotype, and it isn't because theyre known for their cuddliness and sense of fair play.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-15, 07:14 AM
So long as you're acting within the law, just being better at business than your competitors doesn't make you evil…You seem to have conflated "evil" and "chaos." That's okay, that happens a lot around these places.

Breaking a law is not, in and of itself, "evil." Otherwise the "good" cleric or paladin who finds himself in a land ruled by an "evil" autocrat is right ****ed.

Laws are things people in charge of people institute for various reasons, often closely related to those people (or like-minded people, et cetera.) staying in charge. They are seldom strictly moral in nature.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 07:22 AM
So youre saying that buying out struggling businesses, firing all their workers and replacing them with your own would not be evil for ruining the lives of a lot of people?
What about all the people who's lives you've helped by giving them new jobs? (i.e. those new workers you just hired)
Capitalism requires creative destruction- if someone else's business is struggling and you're isn't, then you are doing better than them at business. In essence, whatever your trade, you are providing someone with a good or service better than your competitors can provide it. The public at large benefits from free enterprise; saying that no one should ever go out of business is....something else. I'm not even sure what.


theres a reason "Big businessman" is an evil stereotype, and it isn't because theyre known for their cuddliness and sense of fair play.
I don't consider big business to be evil, I consider it to be a success. Would you call Mark Zuckerberg evil? Steve Jobs? John Rockefeller?



You seem to have conflated "evil" and "chaos." That's okay, that happens a lot around these places.

Breaking a law is not, in and of itself, "evil." Otherwise the "good" cleric or paladin who finds himself in a land ruled by an "evil" autocrat is right ****ed.

Laws are things people in charge of people institute for various reasons, often closely related to those people (or like-minded people, et cetera.) staying in charge. They are seldom strictly moral in nature.
I'm not conflating anything, but Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral are alignments as well. Just being competent and competitive is not enough to make you evil, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a "cuthroat" business practice that isn't against some law but is also is un-ambiguously evil.

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 07:31 AM
As posted above, manipulating people is evil. Evil PCs need not slaughter their associates immediately; milk them first for whatever can be gained & when the target becomes useless, they get thrown away. That's textbook Lawful Evil.

Your current evil PC is practicing deceit, which is an evil act. What happens when the (I'm assuming 'Good') Paladin finds out & will you be able to deal with it?


Considering my char is wiser (16 VS 12 or so), and unlike the paladin can fly,the plan is already set to actively dodge fighting him if he tries and simply retreat and attempt to dissuade him from violence.

If he gets convinced, crisis averted. If not HE will look like the bad guy and my bird look like an innocent victim of false accusations that is actively avoiding conflict. This is enforced by the party's knowledge that she always try to get away from unececery fights (being the sneak on the party and always advocating against going into troublesome fights)

Either way the party either sticks with my bird, or gets along in a truce "devil you know" level.

Then the ball is in the paladin's court. Does he brake out conflict that I obviously disarm, or does he go quite, saying to himself that I'm worse unsupervised than under his watchful eye.

That's evil in the work. Shift the blame, make yourself look like the victim and play the part.

Slowly turn the party into your minions, while they are not even aware of it.

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 07:34 AM
The "evil" descriptions for spells are bull****, pardon my french. Saying necromancy is evil is like saying nuclear energy is evil. Something might be insanely dangerous (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdLm0PgrqBI), but magic is (should be) just a tool, and it's up to the player(s) to decide what to do with it.

Necromancy in specific gets away with it, as fluff wise (most settings anyway) behind the scenes it tortures the souls of whatever you animate, and by such it's evil.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 07:35 AM
Considering my char is wiser (16 VS 12 or so), and unlike the paladin can fly,the plan is already set to actively dodge fighting him if he tries and simply retreat and attempt to dissuade him from violence.

If he gets convinced, crisis averted. If not HE will look like the bad guy and my bird look like an innocent victim of false accusations that is actively avoiding conflict. This is enforced by the party's knowledge that she always try to get away from unececery fights (being the sneak on the party and always advocating against going into troublesome fights)

Either way the party either sticks with my bird, or gets along in a truce "devil you know" level.

Then the ball is in the paladin's court. Does he brake out conflict that I obviously disarm, or does he go quite, saying to himself that I'm worse unsupervised than under his watchful eye.

That's evil in the work. Shift the blame, make yourself look like the victim and play the part.

Slowly turn the party into your minions, while they are not even aware of it.
Denigrating one member of the party to the point where their only options are to feel left out, fight the entire party, or quit playing their character altogether is not a convincing argument to for me as GM to let you play evil character. You basically just described how you're going to get away with playing other people's characters for them.


Edit: Suppose that rather than a paladin you where being opposed by a LG cleric, who could also fly and had the same Wis and/or Cha scores as you do? What then is your solution?

Seto
2015-07-15, 07:50 AM
Like I said before, there are choices in between "Saint" and "demon".

Indeed, and these choices range from Evil to Good via Neutral. Not every Good character is a Saint, not every Evil character is a demon. But that's besides the point. Indeed, the question of "what is Neutral" and "to what extent can it have a consistency of its own without being referred to Evil or Good is a very good one.


Maybe rather than trying to distinguish between good and evil, I should be asking what you consider the difference between evil and neutral to be.

All but the most evil character has some lines they will not cross, but they will cross most. Every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but most of them they won't (because if they do, they become Evil). Of course, these lines are defined not only in number but also in severity : if (let's admit for a moment this psychological unlikelihood) there is only one line you will cross but that line happens to be cold-blooded murder, you're Evil.
Being Evil doesn't mean you have to be cruel. It means you have no respect for the life and well-being of others, either in belief ("You can die, I just don't care") or in action ("I swear it pains me to kill you, but that's my job, I have no choice"). Or both ("I'm killing you and frankly, I don't care").
Now, I'm reading your mind right now and you're thinking something like "But 'you can die, I just don't care' is neutral ! Don't these people get what Evil is ?" To me, Neutral might be "I may care that you die, but I'm not putting myself in danger for a complete stranger so I'll let you die anyway". Or any variation on that theme.

Actually, I'm hesitant on the subject, and I haven't made up my mind yet, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. But I often get the feeling that there are no Neutral actions, only Neutral characters.
That's to say, most choices and actions in your life are neutral because they have nothing to do with morality or cosmic forces ; eating potatoes, for example. But they're not Neutral with a capital N, as in "furthering the goals of Neutrality in the cosmos and defending Neutrality as an ethos". The closest you could get to that is "balance between Good and Evil", but then again it would mean that Neutral isn't self-defined, that in order to promote Neutrality you have to commit Good or Evil actions (and by the way this can lead to very annoying roleplay, this is probably harder to do well than... Evil or any other moral concept, AFAIC).
Thing is, when a situation is morally significant in itself, there is no neutral (as in, not alignment-charged) stance, and there is no Neutral stance. Not taking a stance is itself a stance. There are only very Evil, Evil, mildly Evil, mildly Good, Good and very Good possibilities.
In your example of the girl and her cat, the situation is not morally significant, it's neutral. Helping her and taking the reward, or just telling her that you're busy/can't climb and she should find someone else, are not Neutral. They're neutral (unaligned) and could be performed by any character. Now, helping and refusing the reward is mildly Good, and doing what you described is mildly Evil. That's because Good and Evil can make any given situation morally relevant, the way Neutrality can't.

Conclusion : there are no Neutral actions. Neutral characters are characters that perform neutral (unaligned, morally irrelevant) actions, and occasionally Good and/or Evil actions, but not consistently/importantly enough that their alignment changes.
The psychological difference between a (Good or) Neutral and an Evil character performing an Evil act is their uneasiness doing it. In the case of Good, it will be so compelling that they likely will refuse.



If you tell me that you want to play someone evil but who is only going to take neutral actions, then what is the point of being evil?

The DM in me agrees with you and says that there's no point, and you're not really Evil anyway if you don't do Evil.
The psychologically-focused roleplayer in me answers enthusiastically and with a deviant grin : the mindset.

Red Fel
2015-07-15, 08:37 AM
That doesn't really sound like "evil" to me though- a lot of the self-regulating, self interested stuff sounds like it's NEUTRAL. I'm starting to think that although I might not have played a lot of Evil campaigns, most of you have never really played a neutral one. Like I said before, there are choices in between "Saint" and "demon".

Maybe rather than trying to distinguish between good and evil, I should be asking what you consider the difference between evil and neutral to be.

This is a fair question. But let's start with a few points.

First, as I mentioned, Good is defined as having lines it will not cross. That is, there are certain things you cannot do with any regularity, and certain things you cannot do at all, if you intend to remain Good. A Good character cannot regularly perform Evil and keep his alignment. The opposite does not hold true of Evil; Evil can perform acts of Good and still remain Evil, assuming that such acts ultimately promote their Evil aims.

Or, in short: Good is about actions, Evil is about intentions.

Now, you imply repeatedly that some of the posters, possibly including myself, must never have played Neutral. I take slight offense with that assumption. (You know what they say about when you "assume.") I would rather argue that almost everybody on this forum, deliberately or not, has played Chaotic Neutral at least once.

Everyone experiments in college. We just don't talk about it.

But in all seriousness, please don't assume that just because I can describe an Evil character who is able to refrain from Evil, that I can't distinguish this from a character who feels no particular desire towards Good or Evil. That, for me, is Neutral. Again, let me clarify. In my mind, a Good character has a natural inclination towards selflessness, an Evil character has a natural inclination towards ruthless self-promotion at the cost of others, and a Neutral character's actions are not informed by morality. Your mileage may vary, of course. The key point is that a character may deliberately curb his tendencies periodically and still remain in his alignment.

You suggest that, if we play our Evil characters as curbing their tendencies, they become functionally Neutral. If this is so, don't Neutral characters traveling with Good parties become functionally Good, as they are forced to engage in frequent acts of heroism? By that metric, everybody ultimately gravitates towards Good; alignment becomes irrelevant.


If you tell me that you want to play someone evil but who is only going to take neutral actions, then what is the point of being evil?

As others have noted, the mindset. The fact is, Neutrality is a hard concept. The two most common takes on it that I've encountered are (1) a character who actively balances acts of Good against acts of Evil, and (2) a character whose actions are not informed by morality (my preferred option). Even the latter, which can be executed a bit more logically, is a hard concept. Say you have a Lawful Neutral character, a fiercely loyal and obedient servant who executes his orders without regard for himself or others. You're playing Javert. It can be challenging, both in terms of roleplay and emotionally, to play a character who shows no compunction whether he's asked to save orphans or execute them. Personally, I find that I prefer to go to one moral extreme or the other; either I want my character to be saddened by having to obey, or I want him to take grim pleasure in it.

And see there, that "grim pleasure" part? That's where Evil creeps in. Evil is not only willing to do the dirty work, it's happy to. Think of every villain who the heroes render harmless, destroying the source of their power and crippling their empire. Out of a sense of nobility, the heroes may leave the villain in the dirt, begging for mercy, to ponder his sins and seek atonement. (This assumes that the heroes are Stupid Good, of course, but it does happen.) A Neutral or Evil character would be willing and able to kill this villain, knowing of the likelihood that the guy will attempt to rebuild and seek revenge. But - here's the distinction - the Evil character will relish it. The Neutral character does it out of a sense of duty or pragmatism; the Evil character will do it out of a desire to exert his dominance and show his power. Allow me to offer you a quote to illustrate:

Something Vimes had learned as a young guard drifted up from memory. If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power, power over people, and they want to see you in fear. They want you to know you're going to die. So they'll talk. They'll gloat.

They'll watch you squirm. They'll put off the moment of murder like another man will put off a good cigar.

So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.
Allow me to qualify that quote. A Good character will offer you mercy. A Neutral character will kill you with hardly a word. An Evil character will savor the moment. That's where you see the distinction.

TheCountAlucard
2015-07-15, 09:20 AM
I'm not conflating anything…You're the one who said it wasn't evil if I wasn't breaking any laws. Right?


So long as you're acting within the law, just being better at business than your competitors doesn't make you evil…

:smallconfused:



I'm not conflating anything…Oh, dear.


…I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a "cuthroat" business practice that isn't against some law but is also is un-ambiguously evil.…
:smallconfused:



I'm not conflating anything…Well, who am I to argue with you?

Slarg
2015-07-15, 09:30 AM
That doesn't really sound like "evil" to me though- a lot of the self-regulating, self interested stuff sounds like it's NEUTRAL. I'm starting to think that although I might not have played a lot of Evil campaigns, most of you have never really played a neutral one. Like I said before, there are choices in between "Saint" and "demon".

Maybe rather than trying to distinguish between good and evil, I should be asking what you consider the difference between evil and neutral to be.

Imagine you come across a small girl who's crying because her cat is stuck in a tree. She offers you her allowance if you can get it down.

A good character retrieves the cat and declines the reward (doing a good deed for its own sake).
A neutral character retrieves the car and accepts the rewards (payment for services rendered).
An evil character retieves the cat and demands a greater reward than what was promised, threatening to give the cat a Fireball and dipping it in soy sauce, wether he actually plans to do that or not.



If you tell me that you want to play someone evil but who is only going to take neutral actions, then what is the point of being evil?


Edit mine; Evil is about maximizing reward.


As per laws and evil, picture if you will; In the United States, Slavery was legal (Lawful, not Chaotic). Was it good or evil?

Let's say we have two characters, Lawful Good and Lawful Evil.

-Lawful Good will treat them as people, give them a bed/room in the house, treating them like a butler or maid rather than property.

-Lawful Evil will treat them as property, and when one breaks they will merely buy a new one, the same as any adventurer with a sword.

Both are fully within the rights of the Law, but even with that short description it's easy to tell which one is "Good" and which one is "Evil".

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 09:39 AM
Denigrating one member of the party to the point where their only options are to feel left out, fight the entire party, or quit playing their character altogether is not a convincing argument to for me as GM to let you play evil character. You basically just described how you're going to get away with playing other people's characters for them.


Edit: Suppose that rather than a paladin you where being opposed by a LG cleric, who could also fly and had the same Wis and/or Cha scores as you do? What then is your solution?


The paladin of behemoth that party has?

First, the same as the paladin the first effort is not to get caught by him

I can "disarm" him by philosophical debate on how I'm not actually doing anything wrong, and I'm simply following the ways if my people (who are known for strage behavior. Especially considering property)

Beyond that,I'm still far faster being a monk, being the passive and nonviolent side renders him hard to justify hurting me even to himself, unless he caught me doing truly horrid (that my char avoid doing to begin with unless absolutely necessary , being cautious and all) if it's over a small thing like petty thievery, I'll just fold and apologise, blaming culture difference and pay back (pirate background makes the NPCs ignore anything minor I do anyway)

My main tool is the fact that as a good char, as long he isn't SURE I'm evil beyond redemption, he morally can't really hurt me. He can try to limit my evil, might succeed and make me tone down (might even eventually make me turn neutral by influence) by direct conflict beyond RP argument level us unlikely.


The key is to defuse inter-party violence pre-emptively.

Segev
2015-07-15, 09:43 AM
Forgive me for harkening back to two pages ago, but I want to address the conversation with ShaneMRoth about allowing evil only after proving one can play neutral.

First off: I would have little to no problem with the three non-negotiable rules. Frankly, most evil PCs I'd consider would balk at violating rule 3 even if there was nobody else to kill. Evil does not necessarily mean murder-happy. It doesn't even necessarily mean betrayal-happy. Evil means sociopathically self-interested - you don't care who you hurt nor how much as long as it benefits you. (And most evil people are not "pure" evil by that definition; most have an "inner circle" of friends or family about whom they care to some degree, valuing their safety and happiness more than other purely selfish desires. Maybe not all purely selfish desires, but most evil people would not, in reality, kill their beloved mother for a copper piece, even if it could in no way ever be held against them.)

However, the main thrust of my comments here - and please understand, I'm asking, not trying to argue - is, "What do you do if I play a 'neutral' character and then perform what you consider evil actions?"

When I said I would write 'neutral' on my sheet and play him as I would play him, what is it you'd stop me from doing because I'm in that "test" character? Let's assume, for sake of discussion, that I never initiate any unprovoked action against other PCs, and that I do not act like I expect the party to cover for me just because I'm a PC and therefore don't go stirring up trouble for the party with NPCs. (i.e. I'm not murdering the captain of the guard in front of the gods, the party, and the captain's most trusted men.)

Let's say I'm playing a neutral wizard. Would you let me animate dead when I had the spell available? Would you let me use Planar Binding to bargain with and command Fiends? To enslave Celestials? What would you do if I used charm and dominate effects to compel NPCs for my own and the party's benefit, even at great expense and risk to the innocent NPCs? If my enchanter or enchantress or bard were more than a little bit of a Static Look-Up Table and didn't care how willing his or her partners were before magic made them all too willing (to bring up something that is both horrific and creepy if you think about it but oft played as "harmless" or at worst "offensive" in fiction)?

I've written 'neutral' and I am doing my best not to let my "misbehavior" ever harm the party, but I act for my own selfish interest while treating NPCs as discardable objects and take actions that the game declares inherently evil (Planar Binding on [evil] creatures, for example). Given that I'm supposed to be playing a 'neutral' character, I am thus in theory allowed certain evil actions even without slipping alignment.

At what point, when playing a 'neutral' character that is really evil, do you stop me based on violating the neutral alignment?

I'm asking this as an academic exercise, and in part to illustrate why I don't think the plan works.

I mean, sure, I suspect that my "evil character" would be one you'd say is a successful test of your litmus test, because he's non-disruptive despite being neutral-in-name-only. But conversely, your own friend who plays Chaotic Stupid is taking "neutral"-aligned disruptive actions anyway. If his "CN" character were to decide to up and murder a fellow PC "because LOL random," would you tell him "no, you don't do that, because that's evil and you're not evil?"

In essence, I'm not so much trying to be clever by saying I'd write 'neutral' and play him as I want; I'm asking, if you won't tell somebody "you can't do that because it's out of alignment for you," what does this required test prevent?

Let's say both your friend and I were being deceitful and pitched Segev and his character as a TN and CN wizard and rogue, willing to dabble in the darker side of thigns "to get the job done." We're being OOC deceitful, we think, because we know that our PCs are technically evil.

Then we play them as we play them, claiming our real desire for evil characters will be two other characters after we "prove" we can handle it with these "neutral" characters.

I play Seg as described; helpful to the party, willing to play the (perhaps slightly selfish) hero, but also animating dead and binding them to his will as tools. When something just isn't working because our good-aligned PCs can't force the innocent village to give up their macguffin that we need, Seg quietly sends his undead minions to wipe out the town and leave evidence that our enemy did it so we can take the macguffin.

Your friend plays his "CN" guy as a murder-hobo who takes disruptive action and does whatever it is you're afraid he'd do with an NE or CE character.

Maybe I've passed the test, maybe I've failed it; he definitely has failed it. I may or may not get the green light for my "real" evil character, he definitely doesn't.

But how has this been different than if you'd allowed us to play a pair of NE characters: a necromancer and a murderous rogue? It's what we played anyway. What does telling us we have to prove we can play neutral first accomplish?

Again, I'm genuinely curious what you see as the benefit, here. I may be making a flawed assumption, or there may be a line of behavior you won't let a neutral character cross that you would an evil one in some way. (If so, please explain what that is and how you'd handle it. Feel free to use the hypothetical scenario of me and your friend deliberately trying to abuse your test to illustrate what would be better about our "neutral" characters being tested first.)

hamishspence
2015-07-15, 09:47 AM
To me, Neutral might be "I may care that you die, but I'm not putting myself in danger for a complete stranger so I'll let you die anyway". Or any variation on that theme.


Or, as the SRD puts it:


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 09:48 AM
Let me start be saying I feel as if we are getting off-topic, somewhat. I want to reiterate my beliefs and guiding principles succinctly so we can stay focused.

1) I believe that playing a non-disruptive evil character in a mixed-alignment setting is inherently more difficult than playing a non-disruptive character of other alignments.
2) I have never seen a disruptive player become more helpful to the overall enjoyment of the group because I let them play "evil" characters instead of forcing them to remain good or neutral.
3) I won't allow someone to play an evil character in a campaign that was not specifically designed to accommodate it without first proving to me in some fashion that they can do so decently.

That's basically it.


Indeed, and these choices range from Evil to Good via Neutral. Not every Good character is a Saint, not every Evil character is a demon.
I would disagree and argue that if you're good or evil that's the kind of attitude you're eventually working towards. People who have to go to extremes to justify their actions need to take a serious look at what they think their alignment is about (IMO).

You and other people mention intent a lot, so even if you haven't achieved a certain status yet then I think most good/evil characters would take it in a heartbeat when/if offered the chance.


Every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but most of them they won't (because if they do, they become Evil).
This sentence is meaningless. "They will cross lines but they don't/won't" is completely contradictory. I recognize that you are not necessarily wrong, and maybe just not be articulating your position well, but I can't make anything sensible out of this.


Being Evil doesn't mean you have to be cruel. It means you have no respect for the life and well-being of others, either in belief ("You can die, I just don't care") or in action ("I swear it pains me to kill you, but that's my job, I have no choice"). Or both ("I'm killing you and frankly, I don't care").

Now, I'm reading your mind right now and you're thinking something like "But 'you can die, I just don't care' is neutral ! Don't these people get what Evil is ?" To me, Neutral might be "I may care that you die, but I'm not putting myself in danger for a complete stranger so I'll let you die anyway". Or any variation on that theme.
I'd argue that the things you described can be very cruel- callous indifference to the fate of others or helping them along the path to the grave is not what I mean when I say neutral is self-interested.

But I think we're actually in agreement over at least some of the differences between evil and neutral. However that's only really relevant to me as to HOW IT AFFECTS PLAYER-ACTIONS WITHIN THE GAME.


Venturing a theory on Neutrality
*snip*
Conclusion : there are no Neutral actions. Neutral characters are characters that perform neutral (unaligned, morally irrelevant) actions, and occasionally Good and/or Evil actions, but not consistently/importantly enough that their alignment changes.
The psychological difference between a (Good or) Neutral and an Evil character performing an Evil act is their uneasiness doing it. In the case of Good, it will be so compelling that they likely will refuse.
I think I'm going to extrapolate more on this in my response to Red Fel, but I agree that morality can be a very complex subject. I'm less interested in perfectly defining the alignment system though, and more interested in how players WILL use their described alignment to guide their actions within the game setting.


The DM in me agrees with you and says that there's no point, and you're not really Evil anyway if you don't do Evil.
The psychologically-focused roleplayer in me answers enthusiastically and with a deviant grin : the mindset.
Hmm, that's a fair response. But if someone is a good enough role-player to manage being evil without being disruptive, then I'd like to think they can still find enjoyment in a neutral character, perhaps with a few mental gymnastics.


Or, in short: Good is about actions, Evil is about intentions.
In any alignment system I design, morality is very complex, involving not only action and intent, but also outcome. If you repeatedly try to commit evil and instead do good through sheer incompetence, anything relevant to your alignment could potentially shift.


Now, you imply repeatedly that some of the posters, possibly including myself, must never have played Neutral. I take slight offense with that assumption. (You know what they say about when you "assume.") I would rather argue that almost everybody on this forum, deliberately or not, has played Chaotic Neutral at least once.
Actually what I meant was that you probably played Neutral, but called it something else. Your right in that I should have phrased it differently/better though.


*snip*
The key point is that a character may deliberately curb his tendencies periodically and still remain in his alignment.
All well and good, but what I'm most interested in is how alignment guides a player's actions in the game. Especially in a mixed-alignment setting the conflict seems to stem most often from evil-characters, who in IC and OOC are, as you pointed out, the most self interested. Whatever their guiding cause or principle, it's easier to get selfless/altruistic/cooperative characters to act in tandem with the rest of the group. They are more willing to set aside their personal interests than someone who's only guiding philosophy IS self-interest.


You suggest that, if we play our Evil characters as curbing their tendencies, they become functionally Neutral. If this is so, don't Neutral characters traveling with Good parties become functionally Good, as they are forced to engage in frequent acts of heroism? By that metric, everybody ultimately gravitates towards Good; alignment becomes irrelevant.
The natural state of PCs is to kill, loot, and otherwise act as socially unacceptable as they are allowed to get away with. The desire to remain "good" (and in the GM's good-graces) is the only thing that stops most groups from sliding wholesale into evil.
This is not a philosophical argument- it's a historical one. Way way back a while ago I gave an example of inter-group conflict between one LG player and the rest of the party that was decidedly not Lawful and at times only borderline good. This is the natural state of most adventuring groups. While it's POSSIBLE for characters to restrict themselves, most PEOPLE seem to prefer NOT TO DO THAT when playing a tabletop games.


Allow me to qualify that quote. A Good character will offer you mercy. A Neutral character will kill you with hardly a word. An Evil character will savor the moment. That's where you see the distinction.
And this is exactly what I was talking about in the previous paragraph. PLAYERS seem to fall in the latter categories (pragmatism, gleeful enjoyment of wanton violence, etc) for more often than they take an "honor before reason" sort of attitude. The one exception tends to be people playing paladins badly and leaning so hard on the "Stupid" part of stupid-good that they actually stop being good. And that's an minority of the players overall.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to play an evil character, I'm saying that there's an natural inclination for people to screw it up- far more so than for other alignments.

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 09:51 AM
My main tool is the fact that as a good char, as long he isn't SURE I'm evil beyond redemption, he morally can't really hurt me. He can try to limit my evil, might succeed and make me tone down (might even eventually make me turn neutral by influence) by direct conflict beyond RP argument level us unlikely. Good doesn't need Evil to be "Beyond Redemption" to kill it. Merely a lack of desire to be non-evil is enough to justify execution, if the evils that are committed are great enough. You are judged by who you are, not who you might be. You live and die by your choices, and if you choose Evil, TO HELL (or the Abyss, or Pandemonium, or Acheron, or Carceri, or Gehenna, or Hades) WITH YOU!

In OotS, Haley would have been justified in killing Belkar when he killed that gnome outside of the ruins of Azure City. Miko was right to try killing him on sight from the moment he painted a path to himself with the blood of an innocent soldier, regardless of what Roy, Hinjo, or Belkar thought (Since he seemed deluded into believing that Miko killing him for murdering at least one of the city's guards would make her fall).


Or, as the SRD puts it:

So, what about someone who doesn't have compunctions against killing the so-called 'innocent', but also have strong commitment to helping and protecting others?

hamishspence
2015-07-15, 09:58 AM
I'd probably go with "Evil". An altruistic unrepentant murderer is going to get a lot of Corruption (as per Fiendish Codex 2) and their good acts aren't going to get rid of it - because the good acts aren't atoning for the evil ones.

goto124
2015-07-15, 10:05 AM
I never initiate any unprovoked action against other PCs, and that I do not act like I expect the party to cover for me just because I'm a PC and therefore don't go stirring up trouble for the party with NPCs. (i.e. I'm not murdering the captain of the guard in front of the gods, the party, and the captain's most trusted men.)

Let's say I'm playing a neutral wizard. Would you let me animate dead when I had the spell available? Would you let me use Planar Binding to bargain with and command Fiends? To enslave Celestials? What would you do if I used charm and dominate effects to compel NPCs for my own and the party's benefit, even at great expense and risk to the innocent NPCs? If my enchanter or enchantress or bard were more than a little bit of a Static Look-Up Table and didn't care how willing his or her partners were before magic made them all too willing (to bring up something that is both horrific and creepy if you think about it but oft played as "harmless" or at worst "offensive" in fiction)?


Wow... nice. A list of evil things that are smart and non-disruptive.

How about Necromancy? Adventurers tend to kill a lot, and the dead guy you're using would be otherwise useless anyway.

Another trouble with evil acts: they have to be performed secretly, because society at large sees them as evil, and reacts accordingly. Then the evil act becomes stupid and disruptive.

Is there a setting/campaign/etc where you have to (or simply get to) perform evil acts on a regular basis?

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 10:06 AM
I'd probably go with "Evil". An altruistic unrepentant murderer is going to get a lot of Corruption (as per Fiendish Codex 2) and their good acts aren't going to get rid of it - because the good acts aren't atoning for the evil ones.
Corruption does not and cannot change a person's alignment. All it does is determine where a Lawful (Not Neutral or Chaotic) character goes after death. By itself, Corruption, no matter how high, can't even bump someone out of Lawful Good (Though such character would end up going to Baator). No level of corruption, though, can stop a Neutral Good character from going to Elysium, and the terms of the pact primeval in such a situation are more worthless than wet, used toilet paper outside of the Lawful alignment.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 10:10 AM
Wow... nice. A list of evil things that are smart and non-disruptive.

How about Necromancy? Adventurers tend to kill a lot, and the dead guy you're using would be otherwise useless anyway.

Another trouble with evil acts: they have to be performed secretly, because society at large sees them as evil, and reacts accordingly. Then the evil act becomes stupid and disruptive.

Is there a setting/campaign/etc where you have to (or simply get to) perform evil acts on a regular basis?

Ravenloft I believe, though it has an... interesting... relationship with PCs in general and evil ones in particular.

Earthwalker
2015-07-15, 10:11 AM
[Snip]

So, what about someone who doesn't have compunctions against killing the so-called 'innocent', but also have strong commitment to helping and protecting others?

I think thats the wrong question. You are comparing innocents on would side but not the other.

Good people protect the innocent at cost to themselves.
Evil people kill innocents.
Neutral people don't want to kill the onnocent, also they would not endager themselves to protect them.

So the fact you protect "others" (Lets say your demon overlords) does not make you good.

If you kill the innocent you are not Good.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 10:14 AM
The paladin of behemoth that party has?

First, the same as the paladin the first effort is not to get caught by him

I can "disarm" him by philosophical debate on how I'm not actually doing anything wrong, and I'm simply following the ways if my people (who are known for strage behavior. Especially considering property)

Beyond that,I'm still far faster being a monk, being the passive and nonviolent side renders him hard to justify hurting me even to himself, unless he caught me doing truly horrid (that my char avoid doing to begin with unless absolutely necessary , being cautious and all) if it's over a small thing like petty thievery, I'll just fold and apologise, blaming culture difference and pay back (pirate background makes the NPCs ignore anything minor I do anyway)

My main tool is the fact that as a good char, as long he isn't SURE I'm evil beyond redemption, he morally can't really hurt me. He can try to limit my evil, might succeed and make me tone down (might even eventually make me turn neutral by influence) by direct conflict beyond RP argument level us unlikely.

The key is to defuse inter-party violence pre-emptively.
PCs are all about violence, and the rule about not being able to kill things you aren't sure are evil holds a lot less water when the target is in fact, evil. Are you going to tell me that the GM/deity should put a black mark on the paladin's record just because the paladin didn't personally witness an evil character committing evil acts? That's quite a stretch.

And the "cultural differences" excuse only gets you so far. Just because the society you grew up in doesn't have a taboo against a particular action doesn't make it right, especially once you leave said society. If you tell the paladin "around where I come from everyone does it", what do think is the more likely response:
A) Oh that's OK then
B) Then everyone around where you come form either needs to be civilized or failing that, wiped out
hint, it's "B"

If your goal is to preemptively diffuse inter-party violence, then how about you just not play an evil character at all, preemptively removing the source of the conflict?

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 10:15 AM
I think thats the wrong question. You are comparing innocents on would side but not the other.

Good people protect the innocent at cost to themselves.
Evil people kill innocents.
Neutral people don't want to kill the onnocent, also they would not endager themselves to protect them.

So the fact you protect "others" (Lets say your demon overlords) does not make you good.

If you kill the innocent you are not Good.

You are clumping 'innocents' as a single group.

To me, someone who is a Hero to some, and Villain/monster to a comparable number generally balances out to Neutral, assuming one side is not misled/deceived.

For example, a druid that fiercely protects and heals travelers and animals within his forest, but can/will/has completely obliterated a city (And almost all its inhabitants) that posed an ecological threat to that forest.

Slarg
2015-07-15, 10:19 AM
Let me start be saying I feel as if we are getting off-topic, somewhat. I want to reiterate my beliefs and guiding principles succinctly so we can stay focused.

1) I believe that playing a non-disruptive evil character in a mixed-alignment setting is inherently more difficult than playing a non-disruptive character of other alignments.
2) I have never seen a disruptive player become more helpful to the overall enjoyment of the group because I let them play "evil" characters instead of forcing them to remain good or neutral.
3) I won't allow someone to play an evil character in a campaign that was not specifically designed to accommodate it without first proving to me in some fashion that they can do so decently.

That's basically it.


1) Yes, but isn't that fun for the player who wants a role playing challenge?

2) I highly doubt forcing someone into an alignment they don't want is going to give them a reason to not be disruptive.

3) A) How can they prove it if you won't give them a chance? and B) What kind of campaign is built to accommodate evil characters? Genuinely curious.

Earthwalker
2015-07-15, 10:25 AM
You are clumping 'innocents' as a single group.

To me, someone who is a Hero to some, and Villain/monster to a comparable number generally balances out to Neutral, assuming one side is not misled/deceived.

For example, a druid that fiercely protects and heals travelers and animals within his forest, but can/will/has completely obliterated a city (And almost all its inhabitants) that posed an ecological threat to that forest.

I think we are in agreement.
If you kill onnocents you are Not good. That doesnt mean you are evil, you can be nautral or evil.

I would say in your example if unprovoked and without warning a druid destroyed a whole City. He is going to the Evil side of things. I mean thats alot of death of innocence to make up for on the other side of the scale. Helping a few people in his forest doesnt make up for it, does it ?

Also if the druid has all this power and doesn't want to harm the innoicent unless he has to, he could at least try telling them to stop and move on or else, first.

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 10:34 AM
I think we are in agreement.
If you kill onnocents you are Not good. That doesnt mean you are evil, you can be nautral or evil.

I would say in your example if unprovoked and without warning a druid destroyed a whole City. He is going to the Evil side of things. I mean thats alot of death of innocence to make up for on the other side of the scale. Helping a few people in his forest doesnt make up for it, does it ?Not a few people. But the people he is helping, and the people he saves from the city's pollution/ecological problems are also saved by the druid's actions as well (Most of whom lack an INT greater than 2).


Also if the druid has all this power and doesn't want to harm the innoicent unless he has to, he could at least try telling them to stop and move on or else, first.What good would telling them do? Sure, he could, but that would probably only make the needed purge even harder than it would otherwise be, and result in greater devastation to the forest. And, the people within the city are addicted and terminally dependent on it and its infrastructure, all of which need to go for the health of the forest and its inhabitants.

dysike
2015-07-15, 10:34 AM
I have two players who have played Evil characters in my campaigns, one does it wrong, one does it right.

The one who did it wrong has to date: made a deal with a demon (group cleric killed him), stole from random people (got locked up, group decided against jailbreaking him), and stole from the party (group paladin killed him).
So I didn't really have to do anything, the rest of the party handled it.

The one who does it right has: played a character obsessed with becoming stronger whose made several alliances and is currently bidding his time and getting stronger by doing quests and being helpful until he is strong enough to overthrow his patron and become a ruler himself. In another campaign he is helping the human kingdom while secretly raising a goblin army, making alliances with sympathetic factions, and generally formulating careful plans to establish a goblin kingdom.

illyahr
2015-07-15, 10:34 AM
PCs in my campaigns are all about violence, and the rule about not being able to kill things you aren't sure are evil holds a lot less water when the target is in fact, evil. Are you going to tell me that the GM/deity should put a black mark on the paladin's record just because the paladin didn't personally witness an evil character committing evil acts? That's quite a stretch.

And the "cultural differences" excuse only gets you so far. Just because the society you grew up in doesn't have a taboo against a particular action doesn't make it right, especially once you leave said society. If you tell the paladin "around where I come from everyone does it", what do think is the more likely response:
A) Oh that's OK then
B) Then everyone around where you come form either needs to be civilized or failing that, wiped out
hint, it's "B"
C) Express discontent about a social situation he/she has no control over and reminds the person they are not "where they come from"

If your goal is to preemptively diffuse inter-party violence, then how about you just not play an evil character at all, preemptively removing the source of the conflict?

A couple of things to note. Just because it is your experience does not mean it is universal. I have never had a paladin act this way because there are consequences to this way of playing. You'd be surprised how quickly things even out when the PC's learn they can't just murder someone without repercussions.

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 10:38 AM
I can try to answer some of these!

1) Yes, but isn't that fun for the player who wants a role playing challenge?But not fun for the group who has to deal with him fumbling and failing to actually do so.


2) I highly doubt forcing someone into an alignment they don't want is going to give them a reason to not be disruptive.But it's likely to minimize the disruption they can cause within the group.


3) A) How can they prove it if you won't give them a chance? and B) What kind of campaign is built to accommodate evil characters? Genuinely curious.A)They can prove themselves by handling Neutral and Good characters while demonstrating enough grasp on characterization to handle Evil.
B) Those that the group wants to have/accept evil characters into. Generally, this excludes campaigns where the players want to be heroic.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 10:40 AM
Well, who am I to argue with you?
You're missing the point- breaking the law is just one way a person can commit evil, but it tends to be the most common unless you have a society with unjust laws.

Saying something like "running a cutthroat business is evil without being disruptive" is pointless unless you tell me specifically what kind of actions you are taking. Selling addictive drugs isn't illegal and isn't necessarily even evil, if those drugs are medicine and you're a licensed pharmacist competent alchemist.
Running a private prison isn't evil or illegal provided all the inmates are justly imprisoned.
etc etc etc.


Evil is about maximizing reward.
That's generally not what the PHB/SRD says, and even if their rules are sometimes broken and the alignment system is kinda bjorked, it's a good jumping off point for how to limit PLAYER ACTIONS.

Most PCs are already about maximizing reward- they don't need to be evil to go where the gold and XP are.


Is there a setting/campaign/etc where you have to (or simply get to) perform evil acts on a regular basis?
Like I said, I don't have a problem with designing a short game or even a campaign setting for players to go nuts in (or that won't suffer if/when they choose to go nuts). The problems arise from slotting players who want to play "evil" characters into existing settings or non-evil groups.


Necromancy in specific gets away with it, as fluff wise (most settings anyway) behind the scenes it tortures the souls of whatever you animate, and by such it's evil.
I meant to reply to this earlier and got caught up.
That's the best explanation I've heard in a while, and I've can sort of see it for sucking out someone's soul or bringing a specific character back from the dead. But what if you're bringing back and evil soul for good purposes? From a design perspective I'd rather make things like raising skeletons just be really really dangerous and socially unacceptable, and let players decide how to handle it.


1) Yes, but isn't that fun for the player who wants a role playing challenge?
It's not just about one single player- it has to be fun for the whole group. When someone fails badly enough, they frequently drag the whole group down with them.


2) I highly doubt forcing someone into an alignment they don't want is going to give them a reason to not be disruptive.
If they can't be non-disruptive within the rules I set then I don't want to game with them, and as I've mentioned I've never seen a disruptive player get better because I let them get away with more stuff. Any PLAYER who can't accept the rules I set as a GM isn't going to be happier when the town guard shows up to arrest his CHARACTER.


3) A) How can they prove it if you won't give them a chance?
They can prove both their roleplaying chops and their ability to work well with others in any non-evil alignment. The quality of their characterization, attitude, the overall amount of fun (and avoidance of OOC trouble) they bring to the group


B) What kind of campaign is built to accommodate evil characters? Genuinely curious.
They tend to be much more freeform. With a normal campaign I plan out a potential story (or stories), lay plothooks, give the characters motivation albeit with the choice to act on it or not. Evil campaigns are much more player driven in the sense that I give them a sandbox full of toys and then they build their own direction.
I CAN do this with a not-evil campaign, but with an evil-campaign I specifically plan for it.

Think about it- when we're discussing morality people keep saying that the difference is that evil characters have fewer lines they won't cross. The reason most player pick evil characters is either because they feel the other alignments are to restrictive or they want to indulge a particular whim or fantasy. I'll work with them to help them have fun, but I'm not going to try and structure something for a player who's ultimate guiding principle is "me and me alone".

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 10:47 AM
A couple of things to note. Just because it is your experience does not mean it is universal. I have never had a paladin act this way because there are consequences to this way of playing. You'd be surprised how quickly things even out when the PC's learn they can't just murder someone without repercussions.
I can only act based on my experience though. And my experience tells me that more people have trouble playing evil-characters well (i.e. in a non-disruptive manner) than have trouble playing non-evil characters well. If you would like to tell me about your own experiences as counter-evidence, please do.


C) Express discontent about a social situation he/she has no control over and reminds the person they are not "where they come from"
Why do they have no control? PCs are all about reacting to the world around them and (if the campaign runs long enough) acquiring enough power affect it on a large scale. Knowing that an entire evil civilization exists somewhere would be like plot-candy for most groups in the sense of they immediately start thinking not "oh I'm powerless to help" but "what can I do about this?"
The answer is never "nothing", at most it would be "nothing YET"

Slarg
2015-07-15, 10:50 AM
Neither of you are understanding; a Disruptive player is a disruptive player. They don't care if they can or can't be an alignment, they'll try to get away from it no matter what. A good player will play an evil character and play them right.


As someone who enjoys playing evil PCs, hearing an ultimatum like yours (Play my way first then I'll let you play your way) would absolutely make me walk away from a table. All you are doing is alienating the people who actually can play an Evil character the right way.....

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 10:57 AM
Neither of you are understanding; a Disruptive player is a disruptive player. They don't care if they can or can't be an alignment, they'll try to get away from it no matter what. A good player will play an evil character and play them right.
I understand that perfectly, and I wouldn't force my group to play with a disruptive player. What you're not understanding is that, based on my experiences, a higher percentage of players are disruptive when they are playing evil characters than when they are playing non-evil characters.


As someone who enjoys playing evil PCs, hearing an ultimatum like yours (Play my way first then I'll let you play your way) would absolutely make me walk away from a table. All you are doing is alienating the people who actually can play an Evil character the right way.....
And as someone who refuses to even attempt to abide by the group's rules I wouldn't ask you to sit down and join us in the first place. Why are you so adamant about trying that isn't exactly what you want to play?

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-15, 10:59 AM
Neither of you are understanding; a Disruptive player is a disruptive player. They don't care if they can or can't be an alignment, they'll try to get away from it no matter what. A good player will play an evil character and play them right.

You sir. This is my problem, as my experiences seem to vary from others here. I've had more issues with GOOD aligned characters raping and pillaging the countryside then evil ones! And for some dang reason a lot of evil PCs are actually polite to other sentient life forms, unlike many 'good' ones.

Through am I the only one who finds evil easier then good? I mean, you have a goal, you do it. Might be difficult, but you know where you are heading most of the time. Good, however, you have to balance what you want to accomplish with what will actually happen. Consequences mean more, and you have to worry about if you are doing the right thing.

I would say that after reading this thread, I am more sympathetic to those who don't want to try out a non-evil character. Now that I think about it, forcing someone to play a character they don't want to for months instead of the one they want as a test run does seem a little silly. How could you get attached to the thing like that? Wouldn't seem terribly fun.

illyahr
2015-07-15, 11:00 AM
I can only act based on my experience though. And my experience tells me that more people have trouble playing evil-characters well (i.e. in a non-disruptive manner) than have trouble playing non-evil characters well. If you would like to tell me about your own experiences as counter-evidence, please do.

Gladly. In one instance, a character was mildly psychotic. He would kill people if it was most convenient. However, he quickly learned that he had to take great pains to hide/dispose of the bodies, especially from the other party members who didn't appreciate that sort of complication. It got to the point where he had to decide if planning his kills was worth the effort. There were still times that he would kill random people, but he had gotten so clever at it that he was able to pull it off with minimal disruption. I actually gave him bonus XP for a couple of them due to how well he removed an obstacle the party had without there being any immediate consequences for the group.


Why do they have no control? PCs are all about reacting to the world around them and (if the campaign runs long enough) acquiring enough power affect it on a large scale. Knowing that an entire evil civilization exists somewhere would be like plot-candy for most groups in the sense of they immediately start thinking not "oh I'm powerless to help" but "what can I do about this?"
The answer is never "nothing", at most it would be "nothing YET"

This is what I meant and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. A paladin isn't going to just go off and kill an entire community just because he disagrees with a particular practice. Especially if he has no way to effect any change in that practice. Once he has the ability to cause change, he must determine how best to use that ability to minimize casualties. It's interesting to see what conclusions individual players come to in situations like this and how they react to the unknown.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 11:05 AM
I understand that perfectly, and I wouldn't force my group to play with a disruptive player. What you're not understanding is that, based on my experiences, a higher percentage of players are disruptive when they are playing evil characters than when they are playing non-evil characters.


And as someone who refuses to even attempt to abide by the group's rules I wouldn't ask you to sit down and join us in the first place. Why are you so adamant about trying that isn't exactly what you want to play?

Given what you have posted in this thread, it would not remotely surprise me if your experience has come about because the only kind of evil you think are actually evil are the disruptive "stupid evil" kind.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:11 AM
Gladly. In one instance, a character was mildly psychotic....
Ok, that's an example of someone learning how to play an evil character decently. Are you telling me though that this person was incapable of playing non-evil characters well? Was the only method of conflict resolution he ever tried to murder the hypotenuse?


Through am I the only one who finds evil easier then good? I mean, you have a goal, you do it. Might be difficult, but you know where you are heading most of the time. Good, however, you have to balance what you want to accomplish with what will actually happen. Consequences mean more, and you have to worry about if you are doing the right thing.
I don't think you're the only one who finds it easier at all- that's why I made those comments about most groups leaning towards evil (or at least away from good). Mechanics are about what you can do, roleplay is (IMO) about what you can't. Evil characters can't do things because they might get punished. Good characters can't do things because they might get punished AND because it's against their moral code.
Evil might be mechanically more difficult, but Good (capital G) is harder to roleplay well, IMO.


I would say that after reading this thread, I am more sympathetic to those who don't want to try out a non-evil character. Now that I think about it, forcing someone to play a character they don't want to for months instead of the one they want as a test run does seem a little silly. How could you get attached to the thing like that? Wouldn't seem terribly fun.
It doesn't have to be an epic campaign- my groups usually did a lot of one-shots or single-weekend things. Even if you can't be evil, you can still change up your class and background fairly frequently. But the point is, I want to get to know someone before I hand them one of the three most dangerous alignments to work with.

Slarg
2015-07-15, 11:13 AM
I understand that perfectly, and I wouldn't force my group to play with a disruptive player. What you're not understanding is that, based on my experiences, a higher percentage of players are disruptive when they are playing evil characters than when they are playing non-evil characters.


And as someone who refuses to even attempt to abide by the group's rules I wouldn't ask you to sit down and join us in the first place. Why are you so adamant about trying that isn't exactly what you want to play?

I am so adamant, because saying someone Can't play something is totally different than saying someone shouldn't play something.

If I sat down at a table, asked if I could play a Lawful Evil Gnome Fighter (Which is actually what my next character is going to be) and was asked "Can you play something else? Gnomes are rare in this setting, and we already have two", I would absolutely play a different character because other people beat me to it. If I was told "No, you can't play an Evil Character of any kind because I don't want to deal with it", that tells me that the GM is going to try to railroad the campaign as much as possible because he only wants you to do what he wants, which is bad DMing.




It also bugs me that your treating people as Guilty until proven Innocent, rather than Innocent until proven Guilty. In Vampire the Masquerade, for instance there is a Bloodline that is crazy. That's literally their thing; all of them are bat poop insane. Most people don't let players play as the Malkavians because "Fish Malks", or rather, Malkavians that run around slapping people with fish. A friend of mine, the DM of that particular game, let me play as a Malkavian (Innocent) on the condition that if I started being too stupid (Guilty) he would kill my character off and I would not get a second chance.

What followed was one of the best games we ever had because the DM would pass me notes with information on it, which may or may not have been correct information, so players got to see me fly off the handle or suddenly have a new idea inspired by "The Voices". It became a new meta game where I would insist on whatever the DM handed me while the rest of the party argued IC over if they believed "That crazy bastard" or not.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:15 AM
Given what you have posted in this thread, it would not remotely surprise me if your experience has come about because the only kind of evil you think are actually evil are the disruptive "stupid evil" kind.
That's not it at all. I believe I've admitted multiple times that it's both possible to run an all-evil campaign, and to get away with an evil character in a mixed-alignment setting.

My reluctance stems from my experience that people have a lot more trouble playing an evil character without being stupid-evil than they do playing a non-disruptive neutral or good one.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:25 AM
I am so adamant, because saying someone Can't play something is totally different than saying someone shouldn't play something.
I don't see how- you shouldn't play evil because the rest of the party is good, they have no reason to stick with you, and they might even try to kill you if you go overboard.


that tells me that the GM is going to try to railroad the campaign as much as possible because he only wants you to do what he wants, which is bad DMing.
The GM is ALLOWED to set rules to encourage the sort of game he wants to run. In any game I run, ALL characters have to get prior approval from the GM because the GM works with the group, as a whole and individually, to make sure their characters don't clash with the setting and what I have planned.
There are degrees of control and guidance between absolute freedom and bad railroading.

It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that you castigate me for trying to set specific rules while at the same time refusing to budge on your preferred alignment.


It also bugs me that your treating people as Guilty until proven Innocent, rather than Innocent until proven Guilty.
You have to pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car or own a gun. How is this different?

The ultimate risk of a bad player is that you'll ruin the group's fun, and that risk is higher with an evil characters than a non-evil one. If you're so good as a roleplayer and cooperative with the group, then surely you won't mind playing along with a few sessions so we can get to know you. If you absolutely cannot get along with the GM and the group as a non-evil character, what guarantee do I have that you'll be able to do so once you're evil?

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-15, 11:34 AM
...
However, the main thrust of my comments here - and please understand, I'm asking, not trying to argue - is, "What do you do if I play a 'neutral' character and then perform what you consider evil actions?"

When I said I would write 'neutral' on my sheet and play him as I would play him, what is it you'd stop me from doing because I'm in that "test" character?

I wouldn't stop you from doing anything on grounds of alignment. I would only "stop" you from doing things that your character wasn't capable of doing in terms of game mechanics.

The notion of preventing a player from running his character a certain way because "that's not what people do" is absurd.

Players need to be able to have their characters take "out of character" actions from time to time. Roleplaying, as I understand it, is practically impossible otherwise.


...
Let's say I'm playing a neutral wizard. Would you let me animate dead when I had the spell available? Would you let me use Planar Binding to bargain with and command Fiends? To enslave Celestials?

Your first character in my campaign will not have access to the Animate Dead spell. That is one of those "due diligence" dependent actions. I would be out of my mind if I allowed a new player to have his first character creating undead.

All of these applications of Planar Binding are fine. And by the time your character is high enough level to cast that spell, I will likely have had enough time to perform due diligence.


...
What would you do if I used [i]charm and dominate effects to compel NPCs for my own and the party's benefit, even at great expense and risk to the innocent NPCs? If my enchanter or enchantress or bard were more than a little bit of a Static Look-Up Table and didn't care how willing his or her partners were before magic made them all too willing (to bring up something that is both horrific and creepy if you think about it but oft played as "harmless" or at worst "offensive" in fiction)?


In my campaign, Charm doesn't work like that. Dominate certainly does. I'd just make a mental or physical note.


...
At what point, when playing a 'neutral' character that is really evil, do you stop me based on violating the neutral alignment?


At no point do I stop you.


...
Let's say both your friend and I were being deceitful and pitched Segev and his character as a TN and CN wizard and rogue, willing to dabble in the darker side of thigns "to get the job done." We're being OOC deceitful, we think, because we know that our PCs are technically evil.
...
Then we play them as we play them, claiming our real desire for evil characters will be two other characters after we "prove" we can handle it with these "neutral" characters.
...
Maybe I've passed the test, maybe I've failed it; he definitely has failed it. I may or may not get the green light for my "real" evil character, he definitely doesn't.
...
But how has this been different than if you'd allowed us to play a pair of NE characters: a necromancer and a murderous rogue? It's what we played anyway. What does telling us we have to prove we can play neutral first accomplish?


Well, it's not actually a litmus or bright-line test.

Basically, your first character is you showing me what you think a Non-Evil character is.

The due diligence is you showing me your ability to adhere to a social contract.

You say you are playing a Non-Evil character, and I take you at your word.

And you will have failed spectacularly.

If what you wrote is in any way illustrative of your idea of a non-Evil character... then I don't even want to know what you think an Evil character would do.

Which is why you don't "lie" to your DM at character creation. Not when I'm the DM.

You may sincerely believe that there is no difference between you playing a Neutral-On-Paper character and you playing an Evil-With-A-Capital-E character. In my experience, when a player gets a greenlight to write the word Evil on his character sheet... oh, baby... the gloves don't come off... the gloves fly off at warp speed. They don't even use impulse power to get out of orbit.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 11:35 AM
You have to pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car or own a gun. How is this different?

The ultimate risk of a bad player is that you'll ruin the group's fun, and that risk is higher with an evil characters than a non-evil one. If you're so good as a roleplayer and cooperative with the group, then surely you won't mind playing along with a few sessions so we can get to know you. If you absolutely cannot get along with the GM and the group as a non-evil character, what guarantee do I have that you'll be able to do so once you're evil?

It is different because playing an evil character is not inherently more disruptive than playing a good character. A disruptive player will be disruptive whether or not they are playing an evil character.

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 11:39 AM
PCs are all about violence, and the rule about not being able to kill things you aren't sure are evil holds a lot less water when the target is in fact, evil. Are you going to tell me that the GM/deity should put a black mark on the paladin's record just because the paladin didn't personally witness an evil character committing evil acts? That's quite a stretch.

And the "cultural differences" excuse only gets you so far. Just because the society you grew up in doesn't have a taboo against a particular action doesn't make it right, especially once you leave said society. If you tell the paladin "around where I come from everyone does it", what do think is the more likely response:
A) Oh that's OK then
B) Then everyone around where you come form either needs to be civilized or failing that, wiped out
hint, it's "B"

If your goal is to preemptively diffuse inter-party violence, then how about you just not play an evil character at all, preemptively removing the source of the conflict?

If he tries to kill my character based on mere suspicion I MIGHT be evil, and not by evidence or even me acting on it. Phe's more evil than me, despite his tag. I might lie, steal and cheat my way, but I don't go murder frenzy every time something does not strike my fancy.
As a paladin or cleric of a good god it definitely a no go.

If he thinks that a culture that holds up different values from him should be purged, he is on ISIS levels in f evil, far and beyond what my character ever did.


And why play evil to begin with? Because I don't want to play the same goody two shoes every time. I'll get bored, that's why every game I play I make sure I don't play the same race, class or alignment as last game. If I do, I won't enjoy myself and quickly become disruptive myself. A bored player is bad for game health, not an evil char.

illyahr
2015-07-15, 11:41 AM
Ok, that's an example of someone learning how to play an evil character decently. Are you telling me though that this person was incapable of playing non-evil characters well? Was the only method of conflict resolution he ever tried to murder the hypotenuse?

I run highly sandbox-style games. I told the players that they could do as the pleased and the world would adjust accordingly. Since I had let him play an evil character, he took that to mean he could murder with no consequence. He was very surprised to find out that "the world adjusting accordingly" took the form of wanted posters and guards attacking him on sight whenever he came into town. As a simulation/sandbox style game, he was left out of a lot of social encounters and couldn't buy any new gear. He learned to roleplay because there were consequences to his actions.

I do this with all my players, even if the consequence is something as small as a change in alignment. Someone using CN as an excuse to be a troll will quickly slide into CE and find that my homebrew-adjusted paladins are hunting him down. Someone who claims to be TN but obeys the laws and argues that the governments know how to run things better than individuals will find himself drifting toward LN, even if the player insists they are still TN.

I once had someone playing an evil character jump into the path of a paladin's Smite Evil in order to save his friend who only had a couple HP left. He had been drifting toward neutral at that point so I declared the Smite did no extra damage as the sacrifice pushed him out of evil and into neutral.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:41 AM
Well, it's not actually a litmus or bright-line test.

Basically, your first character is you showing me what you think a Non-Evil character is.

The due diligence is you showing me your ability to adhere to a social contract.

You say you are playing a Non-Evil character, and I take you at your word.

And you will have failed spectacularly.

*snip*
I think that's an excellent way to put it.

The GM has ultimate control over the group, up to and including who gets invited back for subsequent games. You should want to work with them and get along with them.
If the group wants to request a specific type of game I have no problem planning for that. However if I've already gone through the effort of planning something else, and ESPECIALLY if we're in the middle of an established setting, then I expect you respect the GM's wishes since he or she puts in more work and has a larger amount of responsibility to the group as a whole.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:48 AM
If he tries to kill my character based on mere suspicion I MIGHT be evil, and not by evidence or even me acting on it. Phe's more evil than me, despite his tag. I might lie, steal and cheat my way, but I don't go murder frenzy every time something does not strike my fancy.
As a paladin or cleric of a good god it definitely a no go.
You really think a god-aligned god would oppose improving the world as a whole by removing from it, someone who lies, cheats, and steals regularly?

Killing people without proof is DANGEROUS because you don't know when you might get it wrong. However so long as your luck holds out and you don't accidentally execute anyone innocent then it's probably not a punishable offense.


If he thinks that a culture that holds up different values from him should be purged, he is on ISIS levels in f evil, far and beyond what my character ever did.
I'm going to PM you about this because real-world morality questions definitely cross the line.


And why play evil to begin with? Because I don't want to play the same goody two shoes every time. I'll get bored, that's why every game I play I make sure I don't play the same race, class or alignment as last game. If I do, I won't enjoy myself and quickly become disruptive myself. A bored player is bad for game health, not an evil char.
Leaving aside for the moment that the entire neutal alignment exists as well, I think the source of your disagreement here is that you don't actually know how to play a "good" character well. Good characters don't all have to be nauseatingly sweet and honor-before-reason any more than all Evil characters are stupidly, suicidally, cartoonishly, evil.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-15, 11:50 AM
I don't see how- you shouldn't play evil because the rest of the party is good, they have no reason to stick with you, and they might even try to kill you if you go overboard.


If I am reading things right, the reason of 'You cannot play x until you have proven yourself to me' is more then a little different then 'I prefer no party PvP, and I strongly believe that other players will not enjoy this environment. Is playing non-evil alright?'. The first assumes that the player is an idiot unless they waste time proving themselves. Even a one-shot or a weekend campaign is a long time to play something you are not feeling. The latter is coming up with reasons why an evil PC will actually hamper the enjoyment of others. Heck, I wouldnt' be surprised if 'I am uncomfortable with the idea of an evil PC. Can you enjoy a non-evil PC?' is still better then the former reasoning.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 11:50 AM
You really think a god-aligned god would oppose improving the world as a whole by removing from it, someone who lies, cheats, and steals regularly? through murder? absolutely.


Killing people without proof is DANGEROUS because you don't know when you might get it wrong. However so long as your luck holds out and you don't accidentally execute anyone innocent then it's probably not a punishable offense. it is absolutely a punishable offense. "being lucky" is not a redeeming trait.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 11:55 AM
through murder? absolutely.
So your objection, then, is to the severity of the punishment, but not to the idea of punishment itself?


it is absolutely a punishable offense. "being lucky" is not a redeeming trait.
So you think it's a good idea for the good deity to punish his good servant for killing evil? Doesn't that send a bit of a mixed message?

Like I said, this sort of behavior is insanely dangerous for a PC (the "detect alignment" spell notwithstanding) and they might receive a vision or something warning them about the path they are headed down, but until they actually screw up why should they be punished?

It seems odd that your all for letting evil character get away with it as long as they can but don't extend the same sort of second chances to good character who aren't playing "good" as you expect them too.

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 11:56 AM
Yes. Neutral exists. And good has more than one path. But in the end of the day, it's not enough. And evil allows me the biggest brake from the real me.

As for the culture thing, I don't think it's not right for public, but I'll work with you on PMs if you are more comfortable there.

Honest Tiefling
2015-07-15, 11:58 AM
So you think it's a good idea for the good deity to punish his good servant for killing evil? Doesn't that send a bit of a mixed message?

Yes and no. As in, yes, it is a good idea for a god to punish their followers for killing without sufficient proof. They might have accidentally have gotten lucky, but that is not really a good act. That's lazy. and then no, as it doesn't send a mixed message unless you are in the Spaceballs universe and Good is Dumb. It sends the message that you need to use that thing cooling your blood and think about your actions, and make sure you are doing the right thing. The powers of good gods are dangerous, and too dangerous to simply hand out and hope for the best.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 11:59 AM
So your objection, then, is to the severity of the punishment, but not to the idea of punishment itself? My objection is the punishment without proof The paladin has suspicions which he needs to confirm before acting.



So you think it's a good idea for the good deity to punish his good servant for killing evil? Doesn't that send a bit of a mixed message? No. It sends the message that you aren't meeting the standards of behavior for your occupation, and are therefore no longer going to be employed until and unless you can correct your behavior.


Like I said, this sort of behavior is insanely dangerous for a PC (the "detect alignment" spell notwithstanding) and they might receive a vision or something warning them about the path they are headed down, but until they actually screw up why should they be punished?

It seems odd that your all for letting evil character get away with it as long as they can but don't extend the same sort of second chances to good character who aren't playing "good" as you expect them too.

As it turns out, good characters are held to higher standards of behavior. Imagine that.

They screw up the moment they murder someone. The identity of the victim is irrelevant.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 12:00 PM
If I am reading things right, the reason of 'You cannot play x until you have proven yourself to me' is more then a little different then 'I prefer no party PvP, and I strongly believe that other players will not enjoy this environment. Is playing non-evil alright?'. The first assumes that the player is an idiot unless they waste time proving themselves.
I don't assume anyone is an idiot, what I'm doing is giving everyone an equal chance to prove themselves. Like the examples with a gun or a car I don't wait for someone to cause problems to revoke their privileges- by that time it might already be to late to prevent a lot of damage.

Instead I ask them to demonstrate a minimum level of competency first.

[qutoe]Even a one-shot or a weekend campaign is a long time to play something you are not feeling. The latter is coming up with reasons why an evil PC will actually hamper the enjoyment of others. Heck, I wouldnt' be surprised if 'I am uncomfortable with the idea of an evil PC. Can you enjoy a non-evil PC?' is still better then the former reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Now we're just talking semantics- suppose I said "I am uncomfortable with the idea of an evil PC. Can you enjoy a non-evil PC?" and the person responds "no, I only want to play evil characters". What do I do then?

In essence, the kind of player who is willing to work with me on something that they don't find ideal is the kind of player I would trust to not throw a hissy-fit if/when there are consequences of the kind of actions an evil player is likely to take. Actions that I don't usually have to worry about with non-evil characters.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 12:03 PM
I don't assume anyone is an idiot, what I'm doing is giving everyone an equal chance to prove themselves.

The fact that they have to prove themselves is where the assumption of idiocy (or incompetence if you prefer) comes in. You are judging them as unworthy before you know them.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 12:09 PM
My objection is the punishment without proof The paladin has suspicions which he needs to confirm before acting.
And suppose the person is going to commit more evil deeds in the intervening time while the paladin goes about collecting proof? If you have the chance to end evil once and for all and you don't take it, isn't that the stupid-good sort of thing you where complaining about earlier?


As it turns out, good characters are held to higher standards of behavior. Imagine that.

They screw up the moment they murder someone. The identity of the victim is irrelevant.
Not to me it isn't, and not to most GMs or players. "Murder" has a lot of connotations that go along with it. Presumably you mean "unjustly killing someone". Then we get to the question of what is "just"? Does the bad guy have to be in the process of committing a horrifically evil act for any action to be taken against him?

Suppose the good character thinks he has evidence of evil deeds when he doesn't- maybe someone else committed that murder and framed a rival. Is the good character punished for being wrong about the reasons even if the act was a net-gain for the forces of good?
Suppose the good character says "you need to come with me because you are under suspicion for theft" and the bay guy resists. If he dies fighting back should the good guy be punished?
Whatever happened to value of mercy?


It seems like you want to be allowed to play evil characters because you think good has to be held to a ridiculously high standard. Would you be willing to back off your insistence that people have to play evil characters if I promised that this world is a little more forgiving in all aspects?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 12:10 PM
The fact that they have to prove themselves is where the assumption of idiocy (or incompetence if you prefer) comes in. You are judging them as unworthy before you know them.
Yes, I guess I am, but it's not because I'm trying to insult someone. Like I said, there is a potential for risk here. Do you think everyone should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check or drive a car without getting a license?

Segev
2015-07-15, 12:16 PM
Your first character in my campaign will not have access to the Animate Dead spell. That is one of those "due diligence" dependent actions. I would be out of my mind if I allowed a new player to have his first character creating undead.Not the answer I was expecting, but interesting. Out of curiosity, is this because skeletons and zombies are that problematic, or because you know it leads to writing "evil" on the stat page, or for some other reason (possibly just not wanting to deal with the "obvious evil" connotations the NPCs would apply to seeing them)?


All of these applications of Planar Binding are fine. And by the time your character is high enough level to cast that spell, I will likely have had enough time to perform due diligence.Alright.


In my campaign, Charm doesn't work like that. Dominate certainly does. I'd just make a mental or physical note.How does charm work in your game? (I ask again out of curiosity, because I suspect there's still plenty of "evil application" that could go into it.)




Basically, your first character is you showing me what you think a Non-Evil character is.

The due diligence is you showing me your ability to adhere to a social contract.

You say you are playing a Non-Evil character, and I take you at your word.

And you will have failed spectacularly.

If what you wrote is in any way illustrative of your idea of a non-Evil character... then I don't even want to know what you think an Evil character would do.

Which is why you don't "lie" to your DM at character creation. Not when I'm the DM.A perfectly good answer. Thanks!


You may sincerely believe that there is no difference between you playing a Neutral-On-Paper character and you playing an Evil-With-A-Capital-E character. In my experience, when a player gets a greenlight to write the word Evil on his character sheet... oh, baby... the gloves don't come off... the gloves fly off at warp speed. They don't even use impulse power to get out of orbit.

For the record, I phrased it so heavily hypothetically because I do not think these things are really good ideas.

I admit that I have difficulty playing neutral characters. They tend to waffle one way or the other over time, because regardless of how I am in real life, my characters either develop interesting convictions and goals/principles, or I lose interest in them. And I tend to fall into the "determinator" camp when it comes to defined goals. Not always, but it's a tendency. So if I'm playing neutral, I'm either going to quickly develop compunctions that will lean me towards good, or I'll abandon them in the name of my goals and lean me towards evil.

The only reason I would write "evil" on a character sheet is if I analyze what I see the character doing and determine it's probably evil. I do think Seg is evil. Both by obvious dint of casting enough spells with that alignment descriptor to put him there even if he only ever used his minion horde to save puppies and build orphanages and reunite families separated by tragedy. (He doesn't; he has a soft spot that he likes to pretend is pragmatically currying favor and goodwill for later exploitation, but he isn't about to indulge it at the expense of more personally profitable activities. Honestly, I think that soft spot is more of me leaking into him than anything else. It's too common in most of my characters.)


It is generally a goal of mine to create a character with a reason to stick with the party and a reason the party would keep him around. The more troublesome he might be, personality-wise, the harder I know I must work to ensure he's worth whatever difficulties he may bring. The most backstabbity CE character I ever played I went in with another PC having a near-literal restraining bolt on him, capable of at-will incapacitating him with pain to prevent him from murdering anybody who made him mad or looked like fun. Even so, that character didn't last long. It was too much trouble, so I consider even that a failed experiment.


However, to wrap back around to the point of this sub-discussion, it sounds like you'll let people play de facto evil characters through their actions, just hoping the "neutral" tag on their sheet will voluntarily restrain them from psycopathic stupidity. This is not a criticism, though reading it I know it sounds a bit like one, for which I apologize. It's an interesting solution; I'm surprised it works, but it sounds like it does.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 12:37 PM
And suppose the person is going to commit more evil deeds in the intervening time while the paladin goes about collecting proof? If you have the chance to end evil once and for all and you don't take it, isn't that the stupid-good sort of thing you where complaining about earlier? No it is not, because you don't actually know theyre evil yet! If youre wrong, you have just murdered an innocent person, and even if they do happen to be evil, you just committed an evil deed and will therefore fall.



Not to me it isn't, and not to most GMs or players. "Murder" has a lot of connotations that go along with it. Presumably you mean "unjustly killing someone". Then we get to the question of what is "just"? Does the bad guy have to be in the process of committing a horrifically evil act for any action to be taken against him? No, I mean murder because that's what it is. The paladin needs reasonable proof before they sentence a person to death.


Suppose the good character thinks he has evidence of evil deeds when he doesn't- maybe someone else committed that murder and framed a rival. Is the good character punished for being wrong about the reasons even if the act was a net-gain for the forces of good?
Suppose the good character says "you need to come with me because you are under suspicion for theft" and the bay guy resists. If he dies fighting back should the good guy be punished?
Whatever happened to value of mercy? Good characters are not punished for being misinformed, though they may get a warning to investigate more carefully in the future. Likewise, if a person attacks them and they are forced to defend themselves, they are not going to be punished.



It seems like you want to be allowed to play evil characters because you think good has to be held to a ridiculously high standard. Would you be willing to back off your insistence that people have to play evil characters if I promised that this world is a little more forgiving in all aspects?
I think you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Murder is evil. Killing someone without sufficient evidence is murder (and even with evidence the method of execution used can still make it murder). Therefore a paladin who kills someone they are only suspicious of will fall.

It isn't that hard.


Yes, I guess I am, but it's not because I'm trying to insult someone. Like I said, there is a potential for risk here. Do you think everyone should be allowed to buy a gun without a background check or drive a car without getting a license?

I think equating playing an evil character with buying a gun or driving a car is foolish and disingenuous.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 01:01 PM
No it is not, because you don't actually know theyre evil yet! If youre wrong, you have just murdered an innocent person, and even if they do happen to be evil, you just committed an evil deed and will therefore fall.

No, I mean murder because that's what it is. The paladin needs reasonable proof before they sentence a person to death.
You'll have to come up with a better argument than that to convince me that killing an evil person is evil and will cause a paladins fall- that strikes me as one of the things an abusive GM would do just to punish someone for no other reason than they can.


Murder is evil. Killing someone without sufficient evidence is murder (and even with evidence the method of execution used can still make it murder). Therefore a paladin who kills someone they are only suspicious of will fall.
It doesn't have to be a paladin- it could be any Good-aligned character.

But you seem to be saying that killing someone without good evidence of the crime for which you think they deserve to die is unjustified, regardless of mitigating factors.
I'm saying that's unnecessary, IF THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS EVIL. I'm including a factor that you seem to be ignoring, which is the outcome. Intent is important. The actions you take to achieve a goal are important. But if you ignore the actual outcome of the first two, that's where you get the definition of stupid-good from.

You can play a good character (not necessarily lawful good, but still good) without needing to follow a prescribed chapter and verse of certain procedures. What do you think it is that Chaotic-Good characters are like?


I think equating playing an evil character with buying a gun or driving a car is foolish and disingenuous.
How so? In terms of scale, yes, the risk to a real life is greater than that to a tabletop game by many orders of magnitude. However, I take reasonable measures to mitigate all risk in any situation. Why should I risk everyone in our group not enjoying the game because one player refuses to compromise on their alignment and wants to be allowed to get away with total freedom?

Keltest
2015-07-15, 01:18 PM
You'll have to come up with a better argument than that to convince me that killing an evil person is evil and will cause a paladins fall- that strikes me as one of the things an abusive GM would do just to punish someone for no other reason than they can.


It doesn't have to be a paladin- it could be any Good-aligned character.

But you seem to be saying that killing someone without good evidence of the crime for which you think they deserve to die is unjustified, regardless of mitigating factors.
I'm saying that's unnecessary, IF THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS EVIL. I'm including a factor that you seem to be ignoring, which is the outcome. Intent is important. The actions you take to achieve a goal are important. But if you ignore the actual outcome of the first two, that's where you get the definition of stupid-good from.

You can play a good character (not necessarily lawful good, but still good) without needing to follow a prescribed chapter and verse of certain procedures. What do you think it is that Chaotic-Good characters are like? I understand what you are saying, and its wrong. Good characters will not murder people, period. It is against their moral code. Paladins will fall for it, Clerics could potentially lose their God-given powers depending on their god, and everyone else will feel terrible about it and feel compelled to redeem themselves.

MURDERING AN EVIL PERSON IS STILL AN EVIL ACT.

The victim does not matter! I cannot make this any more clear!


How so? In terms of scale, yes, the risk to a real life is greater than that to a tabletop game by many orders of magnitude. However, I take reasonable measures to mitigate all risk in any situation. Why should I risk everyone in our group not enjoying the game because one player refuses to compromise on their alignment and wants to be allowed to get away with total freedom?

For the umpteenth time, a disruptive player will be disruptive no matter what alignment you force them to play. If you are scared that the very presence of an evil character will cause your campaign to explode, then that is your right to disallow them, but don't act like evil characters are automatically more disruptive than non-evil characters, because they are not.

Segev
2015-07-15, 01:25 PM
Do be careful, Keltest, not to mistake Law for Good.

A CG person doesn't need proof that convinces anybody but himself before he acts on it. That doesn't mean, however, that he doesn't need proof. This is why even the CG person at least needs to know what, specifically, their target is guilty of. Not merely that they've "done something evil."

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 01:26 PM
I understand what you are saying, and its wrong. Good characters will not murder people, period. It is against their moral code. Paladins will fall for it, Clerics could potentially lose their God-given powers depending on their god, and everyone else will feel terrible about it and feel compelled to redeem themselves.

MURDERING AN EVIL PERSON IS STILL AN EVIL ACT.

The victim does not matter! I cannot make this any more clear!
You have to define murder then! A paladin can kill someone and not fall. What makes one killing murder (and evil) and another one justified?

None of the definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t) I can find for murder mention "proof" in any capacity.


For the umpteenth time, a disruptive player will be disruptive no matter what alignment you force them to play.
For the umpteenth time, I already agreed with that.
The difference is that more people will be disruptive as evil characters than will be disruptive as non-evil characters.
There are a percentage of players who can play non-evil characters fine, but writing "evil" on their character sheet makes them go stupid. And that, right there, is what I want to avoid.


If you are scared that the very presence of an evil character will cause your campaign to explode, then that is your right to disallow them, but don't act like evil characters are automatically more disruptive than non-evil characters, because they are not.
And what I've been saying is that in my experience, they are. I don't really know what else I can base my decisions on besides my own experiences. And I never put a blanket statement out that I would never allow anyone to play evil characters- I believe I even said I'll design a setting just for them if there's widespread interest.

What I wouldn't allow is someone who I've never gamed with before playing an evil character in a mixed alignment setting. Is that really to much to ask for from people?

boomwolf
2015-07-15, 01:35 PM
You'll have to come up with a better argument than that to convince me that killing an evil person is evil and will cause a paladins fall- that strikes me as one of the things an abusive GM would do just to punish someone for no other reason than they can.



Stealing is evil, are you saying good guys should lynch every thief they run into? is the punishment fitting of the crime here?

And assuming someone is accused of murder-is the mere accusation enough to kill him? what if the accuser is lying? or plainly wrong? isn't he at the very least deserving the benefit of the doubt, an investigation and if need be, a trail?

Not to mention that the very DESIRE to do evil is, by itself, evil. wishing to rape but never acting on it is STILL evil. are you going to execute peoploe based purely on their desires?

Even if you know for a fact they WILL do it, eventually. are you going to preemptively kill them? because preemptive strike is neutral at best, never a good thing. there are probably other, more humane, less violent ways stop it. have you even TRIED for a better result?

Heck, even the mere act of being completely and utterly merciless in business and not caring that your opponent is bankrupt, losing his house and starving on the streets while you get rich is evil, let alone enjoying the fact-despite the fact you actually did nothing wrong and played by the very rules society agreed upon, and you could just as well be on the receiving end. so, we should kill the ruthless businessman and let only docile ones to live?

DnD morality accepts "kill all evil" on rulebook because it matched hank-and-slash behavior. but any level of roleplay should take it right off the equation.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 01:38 PM
You have to define murder then! A paladin can kill someone and not fall. What makes one killing murder (and evil) and another one justified?

None of the definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t) I can find for murder mention "proof" in any capacity. Murder in this context would be the unprovoked slaying of another being. No, "suspected ofbeing evil" is not sufficient provocation. Even a chaotic good character would confront their suspect and attempt to non-lethally apprehend them before resorting to ending a live. Just walking up to someone and lethally attacking them out of the blue is going to be murder.



For the umpteenth time, I already agreed with that.
The difference is that more people will be disruptive as evil characters than will be disruptive as non-evil characters.
There are a percentage of players who can play non-evil characters fine, but writing "evil" on their character sheet makes them go stupid. And that, right there, is what I want to avoid. That percentage is enough of a minority that treating everyone like that until they show otherwise is incredibly disrespectful.



And what I've been saying is that in my experience, they are. I don't really know what else I can base my decisions on besides my own experiences. And I never put a blanket statement out that I would never allow anyone to play evil characters- I believe I even said I'll design a setting just for them if there's widespread interest.

How about other people's experiences, which say that being evil does not equal being disruptive. perhaps you've had some bad luck. Great. Get over it! Youre being very disrespectful to people by railroading them and treating them as untrustworthy when you don't even know them.

If youre that concerned with disruption, just don't invite complete strangers over to your gaming table! Get to know them, game with them in other contexts. But what youre doing right now is a terrible solution that is going to disincline people from playing with you at all.

Segev
2015-07-15, 01:49 PM
In the strict sense of D&D's alignment grid, stealing is not evil. It is chaotic. Specific instances of stealing could be evil, but others could be good. It's a neutral act, morally, if the victim will truly never notice. It's an evil act if in so doing you callously risk harm to the victim by virtue of their inability to get needed goods or services for his or another's life. It's potentially a good act if done in a Robin Hood sort of fashion. (Particularly when the original Robin Hood story was about taking from an evil government that was abusing its legal power to tax to evilly harm innocent citizens to sate the greed of the government and its civil servants.)

But because concepts of ownership beyond "do I have it and can I protect it/keep it?" are largely matters of Law, not Good, so, too, is stealing a Chaotic, not Evil act.

Why do CG types consider stealing wrong, then, as a general rule? Because CG is not as chaotic as CN; they acknowledge a certain amount of social contract is required for the benefit of all. Not much, mind, but enough for traditions, expectations, and to let people know where they stand in society (if only so they can determine to where they wish to move, if they're not happy where they are).

Fyndhal
2015-07-15, 01:50 PM
Is Belkor evil? Should he not be in the strip (aka Game)?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 02:05 PM
Murder in this context would be the unprovoked slaying of another being. No, "suspected of being evil" is not sufficient provocation. Even a chaotic good character would confront their suspect and attempt to non-lethally apprehend them before resorting to ending a life. Just walking up to someone and lethally attacking them out of the blue is going to be murder.
Where does suspicion cross over into proof for you though? Just what it takes to "prove" someones is guilty can vary widely from person to person.

Read the definition of chaotic good again "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

In certain situations, I could see a good character making a reasonable decision that they can't wait any longer and don't have the strength to reliably bring down the enemy without relying on surprise. This is being pragmatic-good, and if he's RIGHT, then the outcome is acceptable. You NEED to look at what the end result of a situation is.

You seem to want to insist that every kind of good is lawful-good, bordering on stupid. Under those circumstances, I can understand why you think you need to level Evil characters into every game.


That percentage is enough of a minority that treating everyone like that until they show otherwise is incredibly disrespectful.
...
How about other people's experiences, which say that being evil does not equal being disruptive. perhaps you've had some bad luck. Great. Get over it! You're being very disrespectful to people by railroading them and treating them as untrustworthy when you don't even know them.
How is any of this more disrespectful than someone insisting they be allowed to play any character concept they want, regardless of the setting, anything I already have planned, or what the other players at the table feel?

You want the GM to ALWAYS accommodate you, yet you're never willing to accommodate them. Where's the fairness in that?


If you're that concerned with disruption, just don't invite complete strangers over to your gaming table! Get to know them, game with them in other contexts. But what you're doing right now is a terrible solution that is going to disincline people from playing with you at all.
And just what do you think it is that I'm "doing right now"? I have explained multiple times that the whole point of asking someone to play a character of a certain type IS the getting-to-know-you stage.

If I think someone is going to play as stupid-evil and disrupt the game, am I supposed to ignore my judgement and let them do whatever they want on the off-chance they WON'T mess it up?


Stealing is evil, are you saying good guys should lynch every thief they run into? is the punishment fitting of the crime here?
Of course not, that would be ridiculous! But, (A) the punishment should fit the crime and (B) I don't expect them to simply ignore theft either.

Why should a good character choose to journey with someone who consistently offends their moral code? Why should an evil character choose to journey with someone who is constantly trying to prohibit them from taking certain actions? It's a recipe for disaster, and it takes very good roleplaying to avoid that. Regrettable, not everyone is very good at roleplay.


And assuming someone is accused of murder-is the mere accusation enough to kill him? what if the accuser is lying? or plainly wrong? isn't he at the very least deserving the benefit of the doubt, an investigation and if need be, a trial?

Not to mention that the very DESIRE to do evil is, by itself, evil. wishing to rape but never acting on it is STILL evil. are you going to execute peoploe based purely on their desires?
I don't really see what that has to do with the situation in question, which I'll remind you is how PCs play certain alignments.

We're discussing player-interactions, not morality.


DnD morality accepts "kill all evil" on rulebook because it matched hank-and-slash behavior. but any level of roleplay should take it right off the equation.
I've never supported a "if it pings on the evil-dar, then kill it" kind of mentality. That being said, if something doesn't ACT evil, then what makes it's alignment evil?

I explained before, I judge morality based on 3 criteria, not just 2. I take intent, action, AND outcome into consideration.

Yukitsu
2015-07-15, 02:06 PM
Is Belkor evil? Should he not be in the strip (aka Game)?

While OoTS makes for a good comic, I'd never want to sit at a table that tried to emulate it. Elan would be annoying to me, Belkar is very disruptive as all get out, the party splits way too often to the point that there would be entire evenings where it's the DM and one player while 5 other people sit around taking turns playing Halo or something. What makes a good story to read varies considerably when compared to what makes a good game.


Murder in this context would be the unprovoked slaying of another being. No, "suspected ofbeing evil" is not sufficient provocation. Even a chaotic good character would confront their suspect and attempt to non-lethally apprehend them before resorting to ending a live. Just walking up to someone and lethally attacking them out of the blue is going to be murder.

So if them being evil makes me angry, I'm not a murderer by your definition there. Makes an easy way around the problem which any of the normal definitions of murder do not.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 02:15 PM
Where does suspicion cross over into proof for you though? Just what it takes to "prove" someones is guilty can vary widely from person to person. When the likely possible alternative explanations for their actions are exhausted. Beyond that though, proof of their evil deeds is still not an excuse for murder. Death is a weapon of last resort for good characters no matter where on the law-chaos axis they are. They will never try to kill someone when capturing them is feasible.


Read the definition of chaotic good again "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

In certain situations, I could see a good character making a reasonable decision that they can't wait any longer and don't have the strength to reliably bring down the enemy without relying on surprise. This is being pragmatic-good, and if he's RIGHT, then the outcome is acceptable. You NEED to look at what the end result of a situation is. The ends do not justify the means. If death is the only possible way to stop an evil person from continuing to do evil, so be it, but the number of situations where that is actually the case is fairly small.


You seem to want to insist that every kind of good is lawful-good, bordering on stupid. Under those circumstances, I can understand why you think you need to level Evil characters into every game. Again you are misrepresenting or flat out misunderstanding what I am saying, and I do not appreciate that.



How is any of this more disrespectful than someone insisting they be allowed to play any character concept they want, regardless of the setting, anything I already have planned, or what the other players at the table feel?

You want the GM to ALWAYS accommodate you, yet you're never willing to accommodate them. Where's the fairness in that? I did not say that. Shutting down a character concept because you do not know the person is disrespectful. Shutting it down because it will not work well with what is going to happen is reasonable.



And just what do you think it is that I'm "doing right now"? I have explained multiple times that the whole point of asking someone to play a character of a certain type IS the getting-to-know-you stage. then get to know them before then, in such a manner that doesn't imply that you will find them untrustworthy until they prove otherwise


If I think someone is going to play as stupid-evil and disrupt the game, am I supposed to ignore my judgement and let them do whatever they want on the off-chance they WON'T mess it up? You are making the judgment before you have any data. THAT is the problem. Not that a judgment is going on at all.


I've never supported a "if it pings on the evil-dar, then kill it" kind of mentality. That being said, if something doesn't ACT evil, then what makes it's alignment evil? Whether or not that is your intent, you are very definitely coming off as saying "Doing evil to evil is perfectly acceptable" given that apparently paladins can get away with murder as long as their victim ends up being evil.


I explained before, I judge morality based on 3 criteria, not just 2. I take intent, action, AND outcome into consideration.
Taking outcome into consideration is all right, but it should affect the verdict the least, by far. That your actions removed a small amount of evil from the world should not excuse the fact that you were evil to get that result.


So if them being evil makes me angry, I'm not a murderer by your definition there. Makes an easy way around the problem which any of the normal definitions of murder do not.

I specifically said that "you think they are evil" is not sufficient provocation to qualify.

Yukitsu
2015-07-15, 02:26 PM
I specifically said that "you think they are evil" is not sufficient provocation to qualify.

My overall point is that this conversation would benefit significantly if you were using words correctly. Your use of murder doesn't actually have much to do with the definition of murder, same with your use of provoke. If you stuck with the dictionary definition of those words, I'm betting the conversation wouldn't be as it is right now where you are talking past a lot of people.

Slarg
2015-07-15, 02:40 PM
I don't see how- you shouldn't play evil because the rest of the party is good, they have no reason to stick with you, and they might even try to kill you if you go overboard.

So as an evil player, I shouldn't go overboard? It's really not that hard; Evil is Torturing someone to get info. Evil is being willing to send someone else to their death. Evil is not "Let's kill him just because" (That's Chaotic Evil). Evil is not Let's Screw the Party Over.

Again, if the party is good, there are ways to Roleplay an evil character into it.

A Lawful Good group/character (Say, a Paladin) is escorting a Neutral Evil/Lawful Evil character to jail, and they just so happen to get pulled into things that they need the Evil character's skills for. Takes a certain team comp to work, but work well it does (Think Riddick from the first movie)



The GM is ALLOWED to set rules to encourage the sort of game he wants to run. In any game I run, ALL characters have to get prior approval from the GM because the GM works with the group, as a whole and individually, to make sure their characters don't clash with the setting and what I have planned.
There are degrees of control and guidance between absolute freedom and bad railroading.

It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that you castigate me for trying to set specific rules while at the same time refusing to budge on your preferred alignment.

Bold being the point; encourage, not dominate. It's your world, but it's their story.

And hypocritical as it may seem, it's really not. "Hey, we're doing a campaign where you play as a bunch of clergymen/holy/devote/religious people and require Good characters" is once again totally different than "You can't play Evil because I said so, despite being able to literally be anything under the sun."

While I would admit that I would ask if I could be a rude git they are trying to redeem rather than a holyman and see if the entire group was ok with it (if they weren't I would play a Good character), sitting down to a table and being told by the DM "This isn't a matter of you having a choice. Sit down."

Even in a Holyman Crusade type game, it would make sense to have evil characters. Frolo proves that quite well; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NoDEu7kpg



You have to pass a test before you're allowed to drive a car or own a gun. How is this different?
Because I could kill someone IRL with either of those?


The ultimate risk of a bad player is that you'll ruin the group's fun, and that risk is higher with an evil characters than a non-evil one. If you're so good as a roleplayer and cooperative with the group, then surely you won't mind playing along with a few sessions so we can get to know you. If you absolutely cannot get along with the GM and the group as a non-evil character, what guarantee do I have that you'll be able to do so once you're evil?

If you aren't going to let me play what I want, how is that even a test? Sometimes people are only really good at playing certain types of characters;

Johnny Depp at eccentrics.
Nicholas Cage as...... that.
Tom Cruise as a protagonist.
Sean Bean as a guy who dies.
Chris Evans as a superhero.
Micheal Cera as a awkward protagonist.


How do you, as a DM, gauge my role playing chops, especially if you throw me into a role I'm not comfortable with playing?

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 02:51 PM
When the likely possible alternative explanations for their actions are exhausted. Beyond that though, proof of their evil deeds is still not an excuse for murder. Death is a weapon of last resort for good characters no matter where on the law-chaos axis they are. They will never try to kill someone when capturing them is feasible.

The ends do not justify the means. If death is the only possible way to stop an evil person from continuing to do evil, so be it, but the number of situations where that is actually the case is fairly small.
I think you are confusing real-life and gameplay. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. Requiring "good" characters to completely exhaust any other conceivable option (long investigation, giving the target chance to surrender, capturing someone without killing them, waiting to see if they can escape, tracking them down again, capturing again, etc etc etc) before allowing them to enage in combat is or risk falling is poor GMing in my book.

It obvious why you think people need to be allowed to play evil- your restrictions on good would completely kill most people's idea of fun.

Despite the fact that you claim to offer more options for alignment, I think I'm the less restrictive of the two of us when it comes to actual gameplay.


Again you are misrepresenting or flat out misunderstanding what I am saying, and I do not appreciate that.
Explain it better then. You've seem to have a rigid code of morality that all good or neutral characters MUST adhere to regardless of lawful/chaotic alignment or other mitigating factors. For you, evil is the only fun alignment because it's the only one with any freedom.

If you think a person can play a non-stupid evil character, then why can't I have them play a good character that's not horribly frustrating?


I did not say that. Shutting down a character concept because you do not know the person is disrespectful.
It's called being cautious. Maybe you've been lucky in that you've never seen how easily an evil character can go bad, but that doesn't make me wrong.


then get to know them before then, in such a manner that doesn't imply that you will find them untrustworthy until they prove otherwise
It's not about trust- it's about risk and the fallout of them actually being bad at playing a certain type of role.


You are making the judgment before you have any data. THAT is the problem. Not that a judgment is going on at all.
I gather data by playing games with them. Shooting hoops might tell me how skillful a basketball player someone is, but gives me exactly zero insight into their attitude towards roleplay.


Whether or not that is your intent, you are very definitely coming off as saying "Doing evil to evil is perfectly acceptable" given that apparently paladins can get away with murder as long as their victim ends up being evil.
Yes and no- like I said, I base more moral judgments on 3 separate criteria: the action, the intent, and the outcome. You seem to be looking only at the action, which is an over-simplified view. Mine is more nuanced and allows for a greater degree of player choice in how they resolve an issue.


Taking outcome into consideration is all right, but it should affect the verdict the least, by far.
That's just ridiculous. The final outcome is what the characters are working towards- it's the thing that guides all their decisions and actions. This is what I mean when I say you seem to think that all good is stupid-good. If the BBEG gets away and goes on to commit more evil deeds that's apparently perfectly fine with you because we didn't want to risk rushing to judgement.

Let me be clear- jumping the gun is a bad tactic. It's dangerous and it should be avoided. But making a blanket statement like "killing without proof is always evil" is just as silly as saying "all evil character are evil-stupid".
Which I have never done, by the way.


That your actions removed a small amount of evil from the world should not excuse the fact that you were evil to get that result.
What is evil? Is killing evil? No, killing is not inherently evil. All violence is a tool, and that makes it good or evil is what use the PCs put it to.

Also, why are you assuming that the amount of evil removed from the world is small? The more powerful the enemy the more likely this tactic is to be employed.

Keltest
2015-07-15, 03:07 PM
I think you are confusing real-life and gameplay. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone. Requiring "good" characters to completely exhaust any other conceivable option (long investigation, giving the target chance to surrender, capturing someone without killing them, waiting to see if they can escape, tracking them down again, capturing again, etc etc etc) before allowing them to enage in combat is or risk falling is poor GMing in my book.

It obvious why you think people need to be allowed to play evil- your restrictions on good would completely kill most people's idea of fun.

Despite the fact that you claim to offer more options for alignment, I think I'm the less restrictive of the two of us when it comes to actual gameplay. I think you may be underestimating the feasibility of non-lethally capturing a target in a prepared circumstance, and overestimaging the feasibility of capturing one or more targets in a spontaneous life or death combat that you did not start.



Explain it better then. You've seem to have a rigid code of morality that all good or neutral characters MUST adhere to regardless of lawful/chaotic alignment or other mitigating factors. For you, evil is the only fun alignment because it's the only one with any freedom.

If you think a person can play a non-stupid evil character, then why can't I have them play a good character that's not horribly frustrating? by not making things harder than they need to be. It seems complicated on paper, ill admit, but when was the last time you were able to capture, say, a group of orcs who had jumped you in the forest, or a group of thieves in the street of a town, without them willingly surrendering to you?



It's called being cautious. Maybe you've been lucky in that you've never seen how easily an evil character can go bad, but that doesn't make me wrong. it doesn't make you right either.



It's not about trust- it's about risk and the fallout of them actually being bad at playing a certain type of role. That sounds exactly like trust to me. You don't trust them to be able to handle themselves in a specific situation, so you wont allow them to enter it at all.



I gather data by playing games with them. Shooting hoops might tell me how skillful a basketball player someone is, but gives me exactly zero insight into their attitude towards roleplay. Fine. I concede that judging someone's roleplaying skills without roleplaying with them is exceedingly difficult, and I apologize for deeming you unreasonable because of it.



That's just ridiculous. The final outcome is what the characters are working towards- it's the thing that guides all their decisions and actions. This is what I mean when I say you seem to think that all good is stupid-good. If the BBEG gets away and goes on to commit more evil deeds that's apparently perfectly fine with you because we didn't want to risk rushing to judgement. Its not remotely ridiculous. What the players actually do has a far greater affect on their morality than what happens. Setting fire to an occupied orphanage in order to smoke out a bad guy is going to reflect very poorly on them even if it does get the bad guy out and no orphans got hurt, because the situation could very easily have gotten out of their control. Their negligence and unwillingness to come up with a less risky plan endangered a significant number of innocents, even though it worked.


Let me be clear- jumping the gun is a bad tactic. It's dangerous and it should be avoided. But making a blanket statement like "killing without proof is always evil" is just as silly as saying "all evil character are evil-stupid".
Which I have never done, by the way. I did not say "killing without proof is always evil" either. I said resorting to lethal force without exploring alternatives is evil.



What is evil? Is killing evil? No, killing is not inherently evil. All violence is a tool, and that makes it good or evil is what use the PCs put it to. Agreed, but the willingness, or indeed eagerness to use certain tools over others will also affect your alignment. A good person has a respect for life and will not kill when they can capture for example. They will not torture when they can bribe. etcetera


Also, why are you assuming that the amount of evil removed from the world is small? The more powerful the enemy the more likely this tactic is to be employed. I suppose it is possible that the paladin randomly attacking someone in the street for pinging evil managed to kill Xorobol the Annihilator, devastator of seventeen thousand suns, but it is exceedingly unlikely.

As for tracking Xorobol down and killing them in their sleep, if you can confirm your target and cannot feasibly restrain them from doing evil in the future short of killing them, then knifing them in their sleep would not be an evil act, though it would probably be harder than it sounds. A paladin may fall, but for violating their code of conduct, rather than for doing an evil act.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 03:08 PM
So as an evil player, I shouldn't go overboard? It's really not that hard; Evil is Torturing someone to get info. Evil is being willing to send someone else to their death. Evil is not "Let's kill him just because" (That's Chaotic Evil). Evil is not Let's Screw the Party Over.

Again, if the party is good, there are ways to Roleplay an evil character into it.
I never disagreed with that.
What I've been saying all along is that is that more take that chaotic-evil-lets-murder-everything view when they have "Evil" written on their character sheet then at any other alignment. It's not that it's impossible to play Evil characters. It's that more people are bad at it then any other role, and they are harder to control.


A Lawful Good group/character (Say, a Paladin) is escorting a Neutral Evil/Lawful Evil character to jail, and they just so happen to get pulled into things that they need the Evil character's skills for. Takes a certain team comp to work, but work well it does (Think Riddick from the first movie)
Being pragmatic in an emergency situation is not the same as encouraging people to take a swan dive off the deep end of the alignment pool.

And I'm pretty sure that Riddick killed at least one member of the party in both movies.


Bold being the point; encourage, not dominate. It's your world, but it's their story.
It's EVERYONE'S story. Being a GM should be fun; it's not a job unless someone is willing to pay me, in which case I'll happily run any kind of scenario they want.

And hypocritical as it may seem, it's really not. "Hey, we're doing a campaign where you play as a bunch of clergymen/holy/devote/religious people and require Good characters" is once again totally different than "You can't play Evil because I said so, despite being able to literally be anything under the sun."

While I would admit that I would ask if I could be a rude git they are trying to redeem rather than a holyman and see if the entire group was ok with it (if they weren't I would play a Good character), sitting down to a table and being told by the DM "This isn't a matter of you having a choice. Sit down."


Even in a Holyman Crusade type game, it would make sense to have evil characters. Frolo proves that quite well; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NoDEu7kpg
Frollo is an antagonist if I ever saw one- the only time he works with anyone else at all is when he's giving orders. It's not the kind of character concept I see as being fun for anyone but that individual player.


Because I could kill someone IRL with either of those?
It's about mitigating risk in all circumstances. Just because food poisoning PROBABLY won't kill me doesn't mean I don't observe basic hygiene.

I would rather one person not play with us and let the whole group keep having fun, then let one person have fun by ruining the game for everybody else.


If you aren't going to let me play what I want, how is that even a test?
It's a great test- it explores your ability to react well and cooperate even in situations where not everything is going perfectly your way and where you have to maintain your own restrictions on your actions.


Sometimes people are only really good at playing certain types of characters
People tend to hire actors for specific roles. Are you telling me that I should only invite people to game with me if I know they are a perfect fit? Or that every campaign need to be tailor made to the PCs? What's wrong with asking for a little flexibility FIRST?


How do you, as a DM, gauge my role playing chops, especially if you throw me into a role I'm not comfortable with playing?
A person who can successfully play a role they aren't fully comfortable with is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play one roll well, IMO. It's not a very good judge of character if I hand you only perfect scenarios on a silver platter.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 03:57 PM
I think you may be underestimating the feasibility of non-lethally capturing a target in a prepared circumstance, and overestimating the feasibility of capturing one or more targets in a spontaneous life or death combat that you did not start.
It's less about how difficult things are- I fully expect "Good" PCs to make hard choices. It's more about what the end result is going to be and your insistence that all good players, in all situations, had to follow the same set of guidelines. If that's not what you meant, then that's kind of how it came across.

Once you've captured someone....then what do you do with them? Capturing alive always seems like an transitional step along the way to something else. There are some situations where it's entirely appropriate. There are also situations where I can imagine PCs cutting out the middle man and NOT worrying that Pelor will smite them for their trouble.


By not making things harder than they need to be.
I must be missing something here, because it seems like the one making things harder than necessary is you. I'm willing to allow players a certain amount of leeway in terms of absolute morality if it keeps them having fun.

From my perspective, you seem to be detailing all the ways I can manage to accommodate "evil" characters, while at the same time giving me a whole long list of stringent rules I need to hold "good" characters to.


It doesn't make you right either.
I'm not claiming to be absolutely right- I'm certain that there are players out there who can take any alignment and jump right into a group that's already rolling and not cause problems.
What I'm saying is that anyone who could do that would also be friendly and accommodating enough to not mind proving it to me first.


That sounds exactly like trust to me. You don't trust them to be able to handle themselves in a specific situation, so you wont allow them to enter it at all.
If by "at all" you mean "until I'm moderately convinced they can actually handle it" then yes, sure. Every game is in some ways a stress-test of what the player's can handle, but I don't want to unnecessarily pressure their role-playing skills any more than I'm going to throw the Tarrasque at a group to see how optimized they are.


Its not remotely ridiculous. What the players actually do has a far greater affect on their morality than what happens. Setting fire to an occupied orphanage in order to smoke out a bad guy is going to reflect very poorly on them even if it does get the bad guy out and no orphans got hurt, because the situation could very easily have gotten out of their control. Their negligence and unwillingness to come up with a less risky plan endangered a significant number of innocents, even though it worked.
...
I did not say "killing without proof is always evil" either. I said resorting to lethal force without exploring alternatives is evil.
Yes, but using the metric I described is how I judge things on a case-by-case basis.
I try to avoid making blanket statements like "action X is always evil".

Confronting the BBEG and telling him he's under arrest while standing in the middle of an orphanage is ALSO stupidly dangerous, and if the BBEG reacted by shooting fire and lightning from every orifice then the at least some of the blame for any ensuing deaths would fall upon the party for not taking proper precautions.
Tell me though, how would YOU judge that kind of scenario?


Agreed, but the willingness, or indeed eagerness to use certain tools over others will also affect your alignment. A good person has a respect for life and will not kill when they can capture for example. They will not torture when they can bribe. etcetera
Granted, they can explore other options. The difference is that I don't REQUIRE them to do so or risk their alignment. At least not until their actions result in a bad outcome, in which case I feel free to pour on the consequences.


I suppose it is possible that the paladin randomly attacking someone in the street for pinging evil managed to kill Xorobol the Annihilator, devastator of seventeen thousand suns, but it is exceedingly unlikely.
Just as a side note, a paladin is class with a lot of roleplaying restrictions, and I'd want to talk to anyone who voiced an interest in one before giving them the greenlight, specifically to discourage this exact sort of thing.

But like I said, it doesn't just have to be a paladin who can lose class features for ticking off the GM. I don't wan't an entire third of the alignment system to be off limits because it's been made unplayable by GM fiat. I'm WILLING TO LET PLAYERS PLAY EVIL CHARACTERS, but only once they've convinced me they can do it in a not stupid-evil manner.

Slarg
2015-07-15, 04:18 PM
Who did Riddick kill in Pitch Black? The only one you could argue for is the bounty hunter, and even then he didn't kill him, only leave him to die (Not much better, but still).

Also, totally want to recreate Pitch Black in D&D now..... Drow even have Sunlight Sensitivity.



Frolo is an antagonist, but he also proves that not every clergyman is good. As long as he followed the tenants of his faith, a Lawful Evil/Lawful Neutral Cleric would work. ("The bible says killing is bad, it's true.... It's a little fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps, though."/ "As a holy man of X, I am not allowed to ask for payment. However, donations are very appreciated. Just how Generous are you?")




And that's the thing; you don't know if that player is going to be disruptive. Even if 75% of the Evil players in your group are disruptive, you are punishing the other 25% for something they didn't do.


It's a great test- it explores your ability to react well and cooperate even in situations where not everything is going perfectly your way and where you have to maintain your own restrictions on your actions.

Typically, as an evil character, you typically aren't getting your way, especially if your party is Good.



People tend to hire actors for specific roles. Are you telling me that I should only invite people to game with me if I know they are a perfect fit? Or that every campaign need to be tailor made to the PCs? What's wrong with asking for a little flexibility FIRST?

People also typically go to certain actors for specific roles because they are incredibly adept at playing that part. You almost never see Morgan Freeman in an action role, just like you never see Denzel Washington in an Everyman role (John Q could be argued as Denzel playing an Every-Man, but those were some pretty harsh circumstances to be considered an "Everyman Role"), where as Jamie Fox is an extraordinary EveryMan (As is shown in Law Abiding Citizen, Annie and several other shows).

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 04:31 PM
Frolo is an antagonist, but he also proves that not every clergyman is good.
Since when was this ever in question? D&D is full of evil deities with plenty of priests and worshipers to go along beside them.


And that's the thing; you don't know if that player is going to be disruptive. Even if 75% of the Evil players in your group are disruptive, you are punishing the other 25% for something they didn't do.
Lets be clear- I'm not saying that some alignments are permanently off the table for everyone. I'm restricting a few specific alignments some of the time. The same way I'd restrict certain classes, or systems, or races, or character concepts if they don't fit the setting or if I believe they'll be overly disruptive to the group.
What I'm saying is if the whole group wants to play evil then I'll design a gameworld with that in mind, and if only one character wants to do it I want to be sure they won't go completely pyscho.

So if you think being cautious makes me a bad GM, then I guess we'll never game together.


Typically, as an evil character, you typically aren't getting your way, especially if your party is Good.
Do the two "typically"s cancel each other out? :smallbiggrin:
But that's never really been the issue- almost no one gets to do everything they want 100% of the time. What I worry about is that Evil characters seem far less concerned about anyone having fun but themselves. In many ways, they look to have fun at everyone else's expense in fact.


People also typically go to certain actors for specific roles because they are incredibly adept at playing that part.
Yes, true, but this isn't a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster movie franchise. It's a communal game with a bunch of hobbyists. We function on a sort of gentlemen's agreement- you play by my rules and I agree to use those rules sparingly. You cooperate to keep my game world from burning to the ground and I won't look out for opportunities to screw your character. etc etc etc.

BWR
2015-07-15, 04:35 PM
Skipping seven pages of talk and responding only to the OP, I demand that players make characters that work (somewhat well) with the others and will fit in the game I'm going to run. If I'm going to run a game for heroic upstanding types, no one is going to be allowed to play a skulking ********. If the party is full of paladins I'm not going to allow one jerk to try to ruin everything for the lulz.
Apart from that, people can play characters as evil as they like. If they act like idiots they will be treated as such. If they are smart they will have a greater chance of succeeding at whatever they try their hand at.

Seto
2015-07-15, 04:42 PM
This sentence is meaningless. "They will cross lines but they don't/won't" is completely contradictory. I recognize that you are not necessarily wrong, and maybe just not be articulating your position well, but I can't make anything sensible out of this.

I don't have time right now to pursue this debate (plus, 3 pages have been written since then so it's a bit pointless) but I wanted to clarify this : in the following sentence "Every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but most of them they won't (because if they do, they become Evil)", the pronoun "them" refers to the lines, not the characters. As in, every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but the lines that they will not cross are more important/numerous. I understand how the formulation may have been confusing, I apologize.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 04:48 PM
I don't have time right now to pursue this debate (plus, 3 pages have been written since then so it's a bit pointless) but I wanted to clarify this : in the following sentence "Every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but most of them they won't (because if they do, they become Evil)", the pronoun "them" refers to the lines, not the characters. As in, every neutral character has some lines they will cross, but the lines that they will not cross are more important/numerous. I understand how the formulation may have been confusing, I apologize.
Ok, so for you then the determining factor is to what degree and what kind of limits a character sets for themselves? I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Because that's kind of rule I always used to determine things more along the lines of Order and Chaos.

ShaneMRoth
2015-07-15, 04:58 PM
Just for some perspective, spare a glance at this line from the SRD...

Basics, Races, and Description

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

The Rules As Written don't explicitly provide for a player character to choose an Evil alignment without the application of DM discretion.

Seto
2015-07-15, 04:59 PM
Ok, so for you then the determining factor is to what degree and what kind of limits a character sets for themselves? I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Because that's kind of rule I always used to determine things more along the lines of Order and Chaos.

Well, yeah, I define Law and Chaos mostly by the way a character treats their principles and the limits attached to them. But a special case could be made for moral boundaries. How willing you are to compromise with your principles and the rules you follow, and do something you would not usually do, places you on the L/C axis. How willing you are to compromise with principles of morality (that are objective and universal in D&D) and do something morally wrong, places you on the G/E axis.
Of course there are other criteria to define alignments, but I'm oversimplifying for the sake of a concise and precise answer to this particular question.

hamishspence
2015-07-15, 04:59 PM
How about this? Has more than a few things a Chaotic Neutral character won't do - because they're "too Evil" or "too Lawful"

http://www.easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

Fyndhal
2015-07-15, 05:41 PM
How about this? Has more than a few things a Chaotic Neutral character won't do - because they're "too Evil" or "too Lawful"

http://www.easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html

Won't do? Ever? Under any circumstances? That's...not good.

Hawkstar
2015-07-15, 06:52 PM
I am so adamant, because saying someone Can't play something is totally different than saying someone shouldn't play something.

If I sat down at a table, asked if I could play a Lawful Evil Gnome Fighter (Which is actually what my next character is going to be) and was asked "Can you play something else? Gnomes are rare in this setting, and we already have two", I would absolutely play a different character because other people beat me to it. If I was told "No, you can't play an Evil Character of any kind because I don't want to deal with it", that tells me that the GM is going to try to railroad the campaign as much as possible because he only wants you to do what he wants, which is bad DMing.
Because your desires at the table completely trump absolutely everyone else's desires and comfort. Right?
Ok, so for you then the determining factor is to what degree and what kind of limits a character sets for themselves? I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Because that's kind of rule I always used to determine things more along the lines of Order and Chaos.

I don't see it as 'rules and limits' any more than... well, is the only reason you're not a baby-murdering psychopath because you have formulated rules against murdering every baby you see that you adhere to out of 'those are the rules governing what I can or can't do'?

goto124
2015-07-15, 07:30 PM
Why argue about morality? Why not just discard alignment, and set realistic consequences for all actions, independant of cosmic alignment but still dependant on in-universe society's views of morality, how the NPCs would realistically react, etc?

Burning an orphanage to catch the bad guy will likely get the police/guards searching for you. If you manage to cover your tracks well? Perfect, you get away! Tortured and interrogated some poor guy for information, then killed him to slience him? Try to avoid suspicion when his friends (such as fellow cultists who will be very interested in what you'd just done) start wondering where he's gone. If you can actually pull it off, grats! Just remember that it can be harder than it looks.

All assuming you're not being disruptive OOCly as well, of course. But that's a different matter.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 08:49 PM
Why argue about morality? Why not just discard alignment, and set realistic consequences for all actions, independant of cosmic alignment but still dependant on in-universe society's views of morality, how the NPCs would realistically react, etc?
It's not about realism- it's about having certain expectations for players, and how they react to seeing certain things written on their character sheet.

bobthehero
2015-07-15, 08:55 PM
My favorite alignement is Lawful Evil, make that of what you will.

I was able to fit perfectly well in a not-completely-evil party with a LE cavalier, I even buffed my allies (moreso than the bard!), we agreed that betraying the party was a no no. Even the CE barabarian was liked by other members, despite pulling the occasional ''here, hold this *hands the peasant his guts*''. Personally I was playing for a more errrr, global evil, but people were wondering where my character evil side went, so I beat up a few kids to remind e'm. None of this really brought trouble to the party as we were smart about it.

goto124
2015-07-15, 09:43 PM
It's not about realism- it's about having certain expectations for players, and how they react to seeing certain things written on their character sheet.

Please explain why my proposed solution doesn't address the situation. Especially if I made it clear at the start.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-15, 10:49 PM
Please explain why my proposed solution doesn't address the situation. Especially if I made it clear at the start.
It COULD address the problem, if all your players play well. And that's the key. When you write "evil" on someone's character sheet, there's a large number of players read that as simply "destroy everything". That can make for a fun campaign, but it's not the kind of scenario I want to have to deal with until I've had time to prepare.

hamishspence
2015-07-16, 02:07 AM
Won't do? Ever? Under any circumstances? That's...not good.

It's a starting point. They might do them - but if so, they're not likely to remain CN for long.

Seto
2015-07-16, 02:16 AM
Why argue about morality? Why not just discard alignment, and set realistic consequences for all actions, independant of cosmic alignment but still dependant on in-universe society's views of morality, how the NPCs would realistically react, etc?

Usually, in every alignment debate, someone comes along and says "look, this is why we shouldn't bother with that, we'd be better off without it". This is perfectly valid and I can't see a problem with it ; I'd have to try that someday. (I mean, discarding alignment. The realistic consequences for actions, most DMs agree on and enforce, regardless of alignment).

However, I don't do it and still "argue about morality" because, for all its flaws, I feel like alignment is an integral part of my gaming experience, and enhances it greatly. At least in fantasy worlds. From my first reading of the PHB onwards, I was fascinated by the idea that characters we made were (often unknowingly) linked with cosmic forces and, by their actions, contributed to a side in a conflict as old as the Multiverse. This is what alignment means to me. Plus, I'll admit, I have an unhealthy taste for dividing people into weird categories (alignment, Hogwart Houses, the four elements), but that's just the silly part of it.

goto124
2015-07-16, 09:01 AM
An alternative take on alignment: Accept that it's kinda stupid, and run along with it.

Or something like that.

I think it was more like 'use it only when you actually want simple uncomplicated black-and-white morality where the PCs are knights in shining armor, the enemies are completely evil demons, devils, and undead, and there's the innocent citizens who aren't involved in the Good vs Evil battle and just want to live'.

In these sort of campaigns, there's good chance evil (and maybe even moral greyness) is banned, because it goes against the whole point of the game. And it'

Shadowsend
2015-07-16, 12:47 PM
I don't allow evil characters in the campaign I'm running for the same reason I didn't allow chaotic neutral. I'm running an AP, and it assumes some level of goodness within the party. Chaotic Neutral and Evil alignments tend to have very personal motives for acting, and thus would always have to be dragged along by any "good" party members. Furthermore, they're more likely to abandon the group if things start going badly. As the power level rises, so too does the temptation to act out.

Personally I'm not that interested in the conflict within the group, as I'm doing play by post. The medium does allow for a lot of splitting up the party, but doesn't allow for a lot of table-talk. Characters with different motivations can take much longer to agree to a specific course of action, and while that might be appropriate in live role-playing, doesn't work in pbp.

I think there are DMs that would agree with me that group dynamics isn't the reason we DM and that some of the players appreciate that certain group dynamics aren't in play. Of course there are people who disagree with this idea, and that's fine.

The Fury
2015-07-16, 10:12 PM
An alternative take on alignment: Accept that it's kinda stupid, and run along with it.

Oh, alignment is silly. I don't mind a little silly though.


I think it was more like 'use it only when you actually want simple uncomplicated black-and-white morality where the PCs are knights in shining armor, the enemies are completely evil demons, devils, and undead, and there's the innocent citizens who aren't involved in the Good vs Evil battle and just want to live'.

In these sort of campaigns, there's good chance evil (and maybe even moral greyness) is banned, because it goes against the whole point of the game. And it'

Do you mean to say that games without an alignment system are more morally grey? If so, I disagree. Maybe this is more down to my own roleplaying experience but in groups playing games where there was no system for character alignment, everyone defaulted to a GTA protagonist mindset. Vampire the Masquerade was the one exception here.

Segev
2015-07-16, 11:01 PM
Do you mean to say that games without an alignment system are more morally grey? If so, I disagree. Maybe this is more down to my own roleplaying experience but in groups playing games where there was no system for character alignment, everyone defaulted to a GTA protagonist mindset. Vampire the Masquerade was the one exception here.

V:tM has Humanity, which is Alignment with mechanical teeth.

goto124
2015-07-16, 11:07 PM
GTA protagonist mindset

Is that not morally grey, or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, could someone briefly explain V:tM's Humanity please, and how it mechanizes Alignment?

Cazero
2015-07-17, 02:11 AM
Is that not morally grey, or am I misunderstanding you?
GTA is more of an Even Evil has Standards world, except the protagonist. NPCs are loyal to their teams, not the protagonist. He cheats, steals, betrays and murders everything.


Also, could someone briefly explain V:tM's Humanity please, and how it mechanizes Alignment?
Basically, you're mechanically punished if you act like a complete monster. Lower humanity means less control over your blood thirst. Many vampires have a higher standard of morality (basically what Humanity is) than the average human, because they need it to keep the beast within in check. If it goes too low the vampire is taken over by his blood thirst and becomes a NPC monster, and that's just the final step of punishment.

Segev
2015-07-17, 10:47 AM
In a very rough correlation, the Humanity scale spans from LG to CE in a straight line, much as old, old original D&D had Law to Chaos only and treated Law as good and Chaos as evil.

Othrewise, it's as already stated: behaving with more compassion, self control, and refusal to give in to vice raises your Humanity, which helps yo ubetter resist the Beast and avoid giving in to your monstrous urges; being more willing to kill, to hurt and torment, to look at mortals as kine to be used and discarded, and to give in to vice will lower your Humanity, making it harder for you to resist the monstrous urges that tell you to feed and feed and feast and kill.

GungHo
2015-07-17, 10:54 AM
Maybe Houston is an alien place, or maybe we're just an older crowd in my group, but we don't equate evil PCs with chewing the scenery any more than we equate good PCs with Dudley Do Right. PCs are people. They may have fantastic origins, but they're people, even the ones with bad hearts. Maybe the bad ones are willing to go a little farther when pursuing and punishing a thief (i.e. maiming) whereas a good guy would just get his money back. Maybe they are willing to get information out of a brigand by any means necessary (i.e. torture) whereas a good guy would simply question the brigand. Maybe they allow jealousy, wrath, greed, and lust guide their actions. But that doesn't mean they are going to put an axe into their best friend's head at the first sign of things going south. Sure, sociopaths exist, but they're not going to last long when your life depends on your friend.

Segev
2015-07-17, 11:12 AM
Sure, sociopaths exist, but they're not going to last long when your life depends on your friend.

Even then, functioning sociopaths recognize this fact and learn to act very charismatically and to value their own loyalty as a means to keep those useful allies around.

The Fury
2015-07-17, 11:59 AM
Is that not morally grey, or am I misunderstanding you?

Also, could someone briefly explain V:tM's Humanity please, and how it mechanizes Alignment?

I've always thought being a GTA protagonist was being senselessly violent, letting the authorities chase you for a while until they get bored, then repeat as necessary. Not what I'd call morally grey.

As for V:tM's humanity system, Cazero pretty much called it.

omnitricks
2015-07-18, 01:57 PM
I'm loving how people are misunderstanding how evil actually can work as a PC over here and are falling into the labels of "good" and "evil" in a way which is advantageous to them to make their arguments the valid one or to demonize/stupidify the evil players. Obviously I'm not going to put points out on 7 pages worth of stuff but here are some examples on why the more popular ideas are flawed from the outset.

So the paladin can murder everyone which detects evil? Wonderful. I suppose that very selfish farmer which knowingly marks up the price in the famine/plague to the point the desperates have to give him everything or even put themselves into slavery in order to not starve to death should be smited on sight without falling? Alright.

The same I suppose with the general who wins the wars to protect his nation against those other evil guys and allows his men to rape, pillage and plunder indiscriminately to maintain morale/loyalty?

Or that politician who puts out questionable policies which he knows will ruin a specific class of peoples for the "greater good"

So lets just smite and murder everyone since logically good gods will encourage the destruction of evil. Even the gods whose aspects represent life, love, forgiveness, justice, community, etc. I don't have to list out everything for you to get the idea do I? No dice. LG definitely shouldn't be able to murder everything evil like NG and CG would and those two alignments wouldn't get smite/detect evil and even if the NG and CG guys did that indiscriminately there will still be repercussions (like the guards) unless the GM is grossly and obviously on the side of "good"/against "evil" because if an evil PC were to do the same, magically everyone will know what he did and come after him right?

You also want to say evil PCs are disruptive to the party? You obviously have the good fortune to not have played with those "LG paladins" Why don't we give all our loot to these people in need because its the good thing to do and if you disagree you are evil and need to be smited. It is only right to abandon our quest to do this insignificant sidequest because we must fix the wrongs in front of us above all else. I cannot tell a lie evil Baron, we are here to kill you (you don't think this is disruptive because paladins, well they always have the choice to abstain from saying anything) and so on so on. I'm sure there are plenty people with paladin horror stories if you are truly looking for them.

My disruptive paladin examples above? It was from an actual campaign I played in. In comparison me and my friend (both of us the only evil PCs in the party but fortunately LE) were the only ones who were actively trying to take down the BBEG so he can't kill and destroy the whole entire world while the GM tried to do everything against us and elevate the paladin because you know, labels. Hell, the paladin was the person everyone was plotting to kill (these are the neutral and even one of the good PCs) and the only people who didn't want him dead were us LE guys because we were playing the lawful guys who keep their word (and I was a guard so respect authority and stuff) at least to the point the paladin makes it more trouble than its worth (which was a possibility since he was depriving us most of our magical items because of some paladin god nonsense)

To answer the OP though, I'm not a GM but as a player I don't care what people play alignmentwise and other things as long as they aren't disruptive and acting against the party at every opportunity using such differences as their reason for doing so. That said I think good characters have a harder time not being railroaded because short term evil can justify anything, even good works which is why evil works better in a diverse party than good.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-18, 03:09 PM
I'm loving how people are misunderstanding how evil actually can work as a PC over here and are falling into the labels of "good" and "evil" in a way which is advantageous to them to make their arguments the valid one or to demonize/stupidify the evil players.
I think perhaps you might have missed the point of the thread a bit- personally I have never said that they (evil PCs) CAN'T work. I've even mentioned the circumstances under which I prefer to run evil campaigns or let evil characters into mixed-alignment settings. But this entire thread is about how GMs (or other players) react to evil-aligned characters, and if you're not going accept that some people don't want to play with them, that's an equally ridiculous demand.


So the paladin can murder everyone which detects evil?
....
So lets just smite and murder everyone since logically good gods will encourage the destruction of evil.
I'm PRETTY sure no one is advocating that style of playing a paladin as a good way to do things. Although I only joined the thread on page 3-4, so maybe I missed something.

We (the thread) has already discussed this- most people seem willing to admit that a player playing badly can mis-represent his alignment or be disruptive no matter what alignment he puts on the paper; that's not the issue here.


You also want to say evil PCs are disruptive to the party?
*snip*
My disruptive paladin examples above? It was from an actual campaign I played in.

The experiences that I and several other people have mentioned are that when people write "evil" on their character sheets, a good many of them seem to read that as "destroy everything/stupid-evil". This by no means happens all of the time- but it seems to happen more often than players of non-evil alignments take disruptive actions.
If took 900 D&D players, randomly gave each alignment to 100 of them, then mixed them up and sat them down to play, I would expect more problems to arise from the players with "evil" on their character sheets than any other group.

Now, you're allowed to disagree with me. You can give examples of all the different ways a player can play as evil without being disruptive. You can tell me about the times you or someone in your group has played an evil character in a non-disruptive way. I'd be delighted to hear about it.
But you won't convince me that I'm wrong about the ODDS of any player(s) chosen at random from among a large group. That's why I insist on an evaluation period first.

A GM is allowed to set the rules to be whatever they want- whether it's "no Tome of Battle", "no Psionics", "no Wizards"....or "no evil characters". It all depends on what the GM wants and what they think the group can handle.

Hawkstar
2015-07-18, 06:14 PM
So the paladin can murder everyone which detects evil? Wonderful. I suppose that very selfish farmer which knowingly marks up the price in the famine/plague to the point the desperates have to give him everything or even put themselves into slavery in order to not starve to death should be smited on sight without falling? Alright.Yep.


The same I suppose with the general who wins the wars to protect his nation against those other evil guys and allows his men to rape, pillage and plunder indiscriminately to maintain morale/loyalty?Hell yes, you're allowed to smite an Evil Overlord on sight, which is what this guy is, given that he rules an Evil Army.


Or that politician who puts out questionable policies which he knows will ruin a specific class of peoples for the "greater good"Yup. The lives of that class are worth far, far more than a corrupt politician.


So lets just smite and murder everyone since logically good gods will encourage the destruction of evil. Even the gods whose aspects represent life, love, forgiveness, justice, community, etc. I don't have to list out everything for you to get the idea do I? No dice. LG definitely shouldn't be able to murder everything evil like NG and CG would and those two alignments wouldn't get smite/detect evil and even if the NG and CG guys did that indiscriminately there will still be repercussions (like the guards) unless the GM is grossly and obviously on the side of "good"/against "evil" because if an evil PC were to do the same, magically everyone will know what he did and come after him right?It is on the onus of the wrongers to seek forgiveness. LG is just as free to kill everything evil as NG and CG... and forgiveness is a Neutral Good, not Lawful Good, concept. In fact, Forgiveness is against Lawful Good, because it is by definition letting wrongdoers get away scott-free. A paladin's love for others should be compelling him to cut out those who spread misery and hatred. And while a Paladin will respect life, he is not above ending it swiftly and cleanly as possible to preserve the lives and quality of lives of others. People have a choice in life. They can choose to be evil. But choices have consequences, and the consequence of Choosing Evil is Death By Paladin. Good demands responsibility for one's actions - if you find yourself being smote by paladins, it's because you chose to be Evil.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-18, 06:42 PM
Yep.

Hell yes, you're allowed to smite an Evil Overlord on sight, which is what this guy is, given that he rules an Evil Army.

Yup. The lives of that class are worth far, far more than a corrupt politician.
I feel like this is bordering dangerously close to an argument on "what crimes are worthy of the death-penalty". That's largely based on each individual's opinion, since there are countries that outlaw the death penalty entirely and there are probably people who think Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay deserved the firing squad.
Personally I tend to remove or restrict the "Detect Alignment" spells or abilities in my games specifically because I want the players to decided what is an appropriate response based on certain scenarios, rather than have me tell them what's black and white. I accept that the D&D world might be used to to a good deal more death and violence then modern western society (and that for a lot of people, killing is fun), and I try to restrict players only if it looks like they about to take a swan-dive into the chaotic-destructive section of the pool.


It is on the onus of the wrongers to seek forgiveness. LG is just as free to kill everything evil as NG and CG... and forgiveness is a Neutral Good, not Lawful Good, concept. In fact, Forgiveness is against Lawful Good, because it is by definition letting wrongdoers get away scott-free.
I disagree with that- personally I think that ALL good alignments should include some aspects of forgiveness and redemption, albeit occasionally in different forms. Not everyone needs to play Lawful-good the exact same way any more than everyone should play every evil alignment the same way.
And avoiding death or seeking forgiveness does not necessarily mean getting off scot-free. In exchange for withholding execution, a LG character might demand that an evil character who claims to have repented serve a term in jail or work to provide compensation to those they wronged.
Just like there are different ways to play each alignment, there are shades of action between "Kill all the sinners!" (lawful-crazy) and "he said he was sorry so now he's free to go" (stupid-good).



And in case any of this seems confusing, I'm perfectly willing to work with and provide guidance to my players, IC or OOC, as to what certain alignments expect and what actions would cause them trouble. Sitting down and talking things out seems to be a skill that WAY to many people underestimate.

BootStrapTommy
2015-07-18, 06:50 PM
Simply stated, when it is in a character's nature to value themself over the group, the group will always suffer.

The kinds of intraparty conflicts which often arise from parties containing expressly evil characters are the kinds of conflicts which it is most often in human nature to take personally.

Basically, evil characters follow world views which almost always result in them not getting along with people. Which makes campaigns containing them rife for interplayer conflict.

Saddly the majority of humans will fail to separate the actions of the character from the actions of the player.

Red Fel
2015-07-18, 06:58 PM
LG is just as free to kill everything evil as NG and CG...

Correct. The problem is that killing is not Good's first response. That's part of what defines Good, the fact that killing is not the default. As you say, this is true irrespective of whether Good is LG, NG, or CG.

Someone whose default response is, "Let's kill it," isn't going to remain Good for very long.


and forgiveness is a Neutral Good, not Lawful Good, concept.

If something is a "Neutral Good . . . concept", then it is a Good concept. NG is Good irrespective of the L-C spectrum; it is effectively default Good. So saying something is a "Neutral Good concept" is the same as calling it a "Good" concept.

A concept that is inherently Good will be inherent to CG and LG as well, but modified by their views on the L-C spectrum. Thus, the concept of forgiveness will be tempered by CG's views on freedom and self-expression, and LG's views on honor and tradition. But it will still be there.


In fact, Forgiveness is against Lawful Good, because it is by definition letting wrongdoers get away scott-free.

No. Forgiveness doesn't mean a person said he was sorry, and gets to walk away. Forgiveness means atonement, and not just the spell. And atonement takes work. Forgiveness is earned, not given, but it can be earned. To say otherwise is to abandon morality to arbitrary rules; a character who believes that rules take precedence over mercy is at best LN, not LG.


A paladin's love for others should be compelling him to cut out those who spread misery and hatred.

There's the line between being a shield to the innocent and a sword to the wicked. And I acknowledge that either position makes a valid Paladin. But you're emphasizing the sword, and de-emphasizing the shield; that way lies madness.


And while a Paladin will respect life, he is not above ending it swiftly and cleanly as possible to preserve the lives and quality of lives of others.

Again, a fair position, but a precarious balance. The Paladin who decides to kill in order "to preserve the lives and quality of lives of others" is, in effect, deciding that one death will improve multiple lives. He is weighing lives against others, and deciding who lives and who dies. That kind of power creates a dangerous precedent.


People have a choice in life. They can choose to be evil. But choices have consequences, and the consequence of Choosing Evil is Death By Paladin.

If this were a joke, I would sig it. It is actually hilarious. The fact that you mean it seriously is somewhat less hilarious. Not all Evil is punishable by death. Disproportionate retribution is an Evil act. Killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread, for example, is not only unjust, it is cruel.

I'll grant you the Evil Warlords of the world. They live by the sword, they can die by the sword. Tyrants, evil sorcerers, cultists on the verge of apotheosis, demon worshipers and their patrons; you want your Paladin to mow them down, I say go for it. But when you tell me that the mundane Evil - the drunks, the brawlers, the pickpockets, the greedy merchants, the profiteers - gets Death By Paladin as well, I call foul.


Good demands responsibility for one's actions - if you find yourself being smote by paladins, it's because you chose to be Evil.

Good demands responsibility for one's actions. And if you are using Detect Evil to select targets for killing, you have abdicated that responsibility. You are no longer examining who deserves or needs death, and are simply smiting everything that pings. That's not moral, that's robotic.

Hawkstar
2015-07-18, 07:55 PM
Correct. The problem is that killing is not Good's first response. That's part of what defines Good, the fact that killing is not the default. As you say, this is true irrespective of whether Good is LG, NG, or CG.

Someone whose default response is, "Let's kill it," isn't going to remain Good for very long.Your right. Killing isn't Goods first response. In order for Killing to enter the decision-making process, two things need to happen - either Evil enters the situation on the other side (Which we are discussing here), or two sides in a situation have a disagreement on a point and at least one feels their position is worth dying for (An edge case we're not discussing here - but an example would be a party of heroes needing to grab a Macguffin to save the world, knowing that there's a chance of it falling into enemy hands, and a Guardian of said Macguffin who will not let the party have it because of that chance. Both are right. If either feels their position is not worth dying for, they can set more reasonable resolution of the conflict than duel to the death - though, if they feel strongly enough about it, Duel to the Death is still a valid recourse.)


If something is a "Neutral Good . . . concept", then it is a Good concept. NG is Good irrespective of the L-C spectrum; it is effectively default Good. So saying something is a "Neutral Good concept" is the same as calling it a "Good" concept.

A concept that is inherently Good will be inherent to CG and LG as well, but modified by their views on the L-C spectrum. Thus, the concept of forgiveness will be tempered by CG's views on freedom and self-expression, and LG's views on honor and tradition. But it will still be there.

No. Forgiveness doesn't mean a person said he was sorry, and gets to walk away. Forgiveness means atonement, and not just the spell. And atonement takes work. Forgiveness is earned, not given, but it can be earned. To say otherwise is to abandon morality to arbitrary rules; a character who believes that rules take precedence over mercy is at best LN, not LG.Forgiveness is given, not 'earned'. And can only be given by the one who was wronged (To have any others try to forgive in the stead of that person is wrong). Of course, Lawful Good, thanks to Law's obsession with precedent and systematic decisions, tend to have reproducable and defined benchmarks before Forgiveness is given for crimes against the state.


There's the line between being a shield to the innocent and a sword to the wicked. And I acknowledge that either position makes a valid Paladin. But you're emphasizing the sword, and de-emphasizing the shield; that way lies madness.By swording the wicked, you shield the innocent. You don't need a shield if everyone who was going to sword you has already been sworded.


Again, a fair position, but a precarious balance. The Paladin who decides to kill in order "to preserve the lives and quality of lives of others" is, in effect, deciding that one death will improve multiple lives. He is weighing lives against others, and deciding who lives and who dies. That kind of power creates a dangerous precedent.Fortunately, up until 4th Edition, Paladins have infallible oversight.


If this were a joke, I would sig it. It is actually hilarious. The fact that you mean it seriously is somewhat less hilarious. Not all Evil is punishable by death. Disproportionate retribution is an Evil act. Killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread, for example, is not only unjust, it is cruel.All Evil is punishable by death. If it is not punishable by death, it is not Evil. Crossing over from Neutral to Evil requires being so heinous . You can do a lot of evil acts and and have no redeeming qualities and still

Also, not all the


I'll grant you the Evil Warlords of the world. They live by the sword, they can die by the sword. Tyrants, evil sorcerers, cultists on the verge of apotheosis, demon worshipers and their patrons; you want your Paladin to mow them down, I say go for it. But when you tell me that the mundane Evil - the drunks, the brawlers, the pickpockets, the greedy merchants, the profiteers - gets Death By Paladin as well, I call foul.I don't call the vast majority of drunks, brawlers, pickpockets, greedy merchants, and profiteers to be Evil. Those that do, if you actually look at what they're doing, instead of merely dismissing them as "Drunks, brawlers, pickpockets, greedy merchants, and profiteers", you, if you have any sense of decency, would also have a "Holy ****, this guy needs to go down hard, and go down now."
Assuming there is a Moral Scale that goes from 0% to 100% corruption, they fall between 50% and 67% corrupt, not enough to qualify as Evil (Which is 66% to 100%. While Good is 0% to 33%)


Good demands responsibility for one's actions. And if you are using Detect Evil to select targets for killing, you have abdicated that responsibility. You are no longer examining who deserves or needs death, and are simply smiting everything that pings. That's not moral, that's robotic.Robotic decision-making is still decision-making. You are still examining those who deserve and need death. Fortunately, the universe has made that a hell of a lot easier by sorting people for you. You're an enforcer of a cosmic will. The infallible force of Cosmic Good is the Judge, the omniscience of the world itself is the jury, and The Paladin is merely the executioner. For him to try to take on either of the other roles is to put his own judgement above that of Good Itself.

Hawkstar
2015-07-18, 07:58 PM
Correct. The problem is that killing is not Good's first response. That's part of what defines Good, the fact that killing is not the default. As you say, this is true irrespective of whether Good is LG, NG, or CG.

Someone whose default response is, "Let's kill it," isn't going to remain Good for very long.Your right. Killing isn't Goods first response. In order for Killing to enter the decision-making process, two things need to happen - either Evil enters the situation on the other side (Which we are discussing here), or two sides in a situation have a disagreement on a point and at least one feels their position is worth dying for (An edge case we're not discussing here - but an example would be a party of heroes needing to grab a Macguffin to save the world, knowing that there's a chance of it falling into enemy hands, and a Guardian of said Macguffin who will not let the party have it because of that chance. Both are right. If either feels their position is not worth dying for, they can set more reasonable resolution of the conflict than duel to the death - though, if they feel strongly enough about it, Duel to the Death is still a valid recourse.)


If something is a "Neutral Good . . . concept", then it is a Good concept. NG is Good irrespective of the L-C spectrum; it is effectively default Good. So saying something is a "Neutral Good concept" is the same as calling it a "Good" concept.

A concept that is inherently Good will be inherent to CG and LG as well, but modified by their views on the L-C spectrum. Thus, the concept of forgiveness will be tempered by CG's views on freedom and self-expression, and LG's views on honor and tradition. But it will still be there.

No. Forgiveness doesn't mean a person said he was sorry, and gets to walk away. Forgiveness means atonement, and not just the spell. And atonement takes work. Forgiveness is earned, not given, but it can be earned. To say otherwise is to abandon morality to arbitrary rules; a character who believes that rules take precedence over mercy is at best LN, not LG.Forgiveness is given, not 'earned'. And can only be given by the one who was wronged (To have any others try to forgive in the stead of that person is wrong). Of course, Lawful Good, thanks to Law's obsession with precedent and systematic decisions, tend to have reproducable and defined benchmarks before Forgiveness is given for crimes against the state.


There's the line between being a shield to the innocent and a sword to the wicked. And I acknowledge that either position makes a valid Paladin. But you're emphasizing the sword, and de-emphasizing the shield; that way lies madness.By swording the wicked, you shield the innocent. You don't need a shield if everyone who was going to sword you has already been sworded.


Again, a fair position, but a precarious balance. The Paladin who decides to kill in order "to preserve the lives and quality of lives of others" is, in effect, deciding that one death will improve multiple lives. He is weighing lives against others, and deciding who lives and who dies. That kind of power creates a dangerous precedent.Fortunately, up until 4th Edition, Paladins have infallible oversight backing them.


If this were a joke, I would sig it. It is actually hilarious. The fact that you mean it seriously is somewhat less hilarious. Not all Evil is punishable by death. Disproportionate retribution is an Evil act. Killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread, for example, is not only unjust, it is cruel.All Evil is punishable by death. If it is not punishable by death, it is not Evil. Crossing over from Neutral to Evil requires being so heinous that the world says "Holy ****, this guy is EVIL!" You can do a lot of evil acts and and have no redeeming qualities and still be neutral, by not falling into the bottom 33% of Alignment, and merely being between 33 and 50% (lacking redeeming qualities is 50% morality).


I'll grant you the Evil Warlords of the world. They live by the sword, they can die by the sword. Tyrants, evil sorcerers, cultists on the verge of apotheosis, demon worshipers and their patrons; you want your Paladin to mow them down, I say go for it. But when you tell me that the mundane Evil - the drunks, the brawlers, the pickpockets, the greedy merchants, the profiteers - gets Death By Paladin as well, I call foul.I don't call the vast majority of drunks, brawlers, pickpockets, greedy merchants, and profiteers to be Evil. Those that do, if you actually look at what they're doing, instead of merely dismissing them as "Drunks, brawlers, pickpockets, greedy merchants, and profiteers", you, if you have any sense of decency, would also have a "Holy ****, this guy needs to go down hard, and go down now."
Assuming there is a Moral Scale that goes from 0% to 100% corruption, they fall between 50% and 67% corrupt, not enough to qualify as Evil (Which is 66% to 100%. While Good is 0% to 33%)


Good demands responsibility for one's actions. And if you are using Detect Evil to select targets for killing, you have abdicated that responsibility. You are no longer examining who deserves or needs death, and are simply smiting everything that pings. That's not moral, that's robotic.Robotic decision-making is still decision-making. You are still examining those who deserve and need death. Fortunately, the universe has made that a hell of a lot easier by sorting people for you. You're an enforcer of a cosmic will. The infallible force of Cosmic Good is the Judge, the omniscience of the world itself is the jury, and The Paladin is merely the executioner. For him to try to take on either of the other roles is to put his own judgement above that of Good Itself.

Red Fel
2015-07-18, 08:18 PM
So let me see if I understand your definition of LG, specifically of Paladins.

1. If it pings as Evil, it's oh my deity, this has to die and die now Evil. Admittedly, that's a house rule, but you're entitled to them, so let's assume that's the operative house rule. Fine.

2. If it is oh my deity, this has to die and die now Evil, a Paladin is authorized to use lethal force. I'll agree there; anything that Evil is pretty much kosher for killing.

3. If the paladin has the right to use lethal force, he has to; he has no right to offer forgiveness.

See, this is where I take issue, because this is the point at which the Paladin has abdicated his authority. If a Paladin's natural response to a ping is to immediately smite, no questions asked, then he's not actually choosing to do Good; the choice is being made for him, and he's carrying it out.

You have emphasized that Evil is a choice. So is Good. Yet your definition of Good, illustrated here, does not involve a choice. You have emphasized that the burden is on Evil to seek forgiveness for its crimes before a Paladin finds it and automatically ends it. (Ignoring, for a moment, that the singular act of seeking forgiveness may not be sufficient to make a creature non-Evil, and that this means that a Paladin can still terminate creatures that have been forgiven for their wrongdoing.)

Your Paladins are not LG; they are LN automatons, programmed to smite Evil as soon as it is detected. That's not a choice; that's not even conscious thought. Taking an action without actually considering it, purely because the cosmos have ordered it, is not Good (unless you are a Good Outsider, in which case it is pure instinct); it is Neutral, at best.

So even assuming that anything that pings Evil is super megabad kill-it-with-fire Evil, and even assuming that being that Evil justifies Death By Paladin, I disagree that the Paladin is required to kill, and prohibited from offering mercy or forgiveness. That just strikes me as non-Good behavior. I cannot imagine a context in which a Good person, based on his alignment, is not able to offer mercy. Perhaps unwilling, perhaps even wisely so, but never unable.

Hawkstar
2015-07-18, 08:56 PM
3. If the paladin has the right to use lethal force, he has to; he has no right to offer forgiveness.

See, this is where I take issue, because this is the point at which the Paladin has abdicated his authority. If a Paladin's natural response to a ping is to immediately smite, no questions asked, then he's not actually choosing to do Good; the choice is being made for him, and he's carrying it out.Paladins are not Authority Figures. They are Enforcers of Authority (Cosmic Good). The paladin IS choosing to do good, by choosing to Be A Paladin. Of course, they're also mortals. The big point isn't "If the paladin has the right to use lethal force, he has to". Instead, I'm taking issue with the inverse that I keep getting a vibe from:
"If the paladin has the right to offer mercy (Not forgiveness, unless the wrong is to him), he has to. He has no right to use lethal force."


You have emphasized that Evil is a choice. So is Good. Yet your definition of Good, illustrated here, does not involve a choice. You have emphasized that the burden is on Evil to seek forgiveness for its crimes before a Paladin finds it and automatically ends it. (Ignoring, for a moment, that the singular act of seeking forgiveness may not be sufficient to make a creature non-Evil, and that this means that a Paladin can still terminate creatures that have been forgiven for their wrongdoing.)Good and Evil do not involve choices, though they are choices themselves.


Your Paladins are not LG; they are LN automatons, programmed to smite Evil as soon as it is detected. That's not a choice; that's not even conscious thought. Taking an action without actually considering it, purely because the cosmos have ordered it, is not Good (unless you are a Good Outsider, in which case it is pure instinct); it is Neutral, at best.Archons do not have choice. Good does not demand choices. Choice is a luxury mortals can choose, including forsaking that freedom to choose by becoming a Paladin, supreme enforcer of Lawful Good. And these paladins ARE Lawful Good - they are as Lawful as Automatons, yes, if they adhere to their tenets... but those tenets are so overwhelmingly Good it also makes them a pinnacle of Good. There is more to the Paladin's code(Coding?) than "Smite Evil". Of course, Paladins are mortals, and do not always live up to all elements of their labyrinthine and rigid code (When spelled out). Wrongfully offering mercy is a mild violation of the Code Of Lawful Good at best, and won't result in a fall unless the paladin repeatedly shirks his duty.


So even assuming that anything that pings Evil is super megabad kill-it-with-fire Evil, and even assuming that being that Evil justifies Death By Paladin, I disagree that the Paladin is required to kill, and prohibited from offering mercy or forgiveness. That just strikes me as non-Good behavior. I cannot imagine a context in which a Good person, based on his alignment, is not able to offer mercy. Perhaps unwilling, perhaps even wisely so, but never unable.I can agree with this.

My arguments tend to get inconsistent because I'm trying to articulate way too many tangental points, and not indicating when I'm going off on a tangent.

Necroticplague
2015-07-19, 12:01 AM
Detect Evil can be fooled to make Neutral or Good people show up as Evil, like an example shown in a certain comic about dnd made in digital stick figures. Simply killing everyone who pings as Evil is a horrible idea because it can cause collateral damage. Not to mention being easy to beat as well. So it's a bad idea in both directions.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-19, 12:20 AM
Detect Evil can be fooled to make Neutral or Good people show up as Evil, like an example shown in a certain comic about dnd made in digital stick figures. Simply killing everyone who pings as Evil is a horrible idea because it can cause collateral damage. Not to mention being easy to beat as well. So it's a bad idea in both directions.
It seems as much as if the ability is poorly designed as that people use it wrong.
I can see this going two ways- if you've warned your players and they ignore you, then they deserve whatever they get. If you're playing with someone new or someone who's never played with a good group before they might feel like you're trying to trap them. Ideally the ability (or spell) would be reworked to be more like a general kind of warning radar, like "be on your guard!", rather than a targeted ping for everyone of opposing alignment.

Personally I'd probably discourage a brand new player from playing as a paladin either, just so you think I'm not picking only on the evil alignments.

Necroticplague
2015-07-19, 12:44 AM
It seems as much as if the ability is poorly designed as that people use it wrong.
I can see this going two ways- if you've warned your players and they ignore you, then they deserve whatever they get. If you're playing with someone new or someone who's never played with a good group before they might feel like you're trying to trap them. Ideally the ability (or spell) would be reworked to be more like a general kind of warning radar, like "be on your guard!", rather than a targeted ping for everyone of opposing alignment.

Personally I'd probably discourage a brand new player from playing as a paladin either, just so you think I'm not picking only on the evil alignments.

Not really poorly designed, just poorly named. The problem is that it's called 'Detect Evil' like it can somehow determine a man's view on the world with just a few rounds of focus. What it actually does is detect [evil], the physical force/energy (just like how Detect Magic detects magic energy). Which is why there isn't a 'detect neutral', because there isn't an energy associated with it to look for.

Shadowsend
2015-07-19, 02:17 AM
By that logic, it shouldn't be able to find any prime material race at all other than aasimar/tieflings. Even they would be very difficult to find.

goto124
2015-07-19, 02:41 AM
I think some editions of DnD work like that? Sorta?

I still don't see how alignment really works apart from these two ways:

1) Alignment in a simplistic black-and-white morality setting, or
2) Alignment working as just a guideline/outline for fleshing out your character, but far from the be-all and end-all.

Look at the speed at which this thread gains posts!




Also, that Smite-On-Sight (it rhymes!) Paladin... to be honest, I'm not sure how she'll be any fun to play (with), not being able to interact with any Evil character for a second. You want to stab the Evil Queen in front of all her guards? Sure... And what if 'kill everything that's Evil' doesn't even work anyway?

Hawkstar
2015-07-19, 02:41 AM
Detect Evil can be fooled to make Neutral or Good people show up as Evil, like an example shown in a certain comic about dnd made in digital stick figures. Simply killing everyone who pings as Evil is a horrible idea because it can cause collateral damage. Not to mention being easy to beat as well. So it's a bad idea in both directions.It can be beat, yes, making it not the only method to determine who is or isn't smite-worthy (Though, by definition of the ability, everything Evil is smite-worthy).

In the comic, though, the rules on Alignment were horribly violated. Even if magic can rub off on an inanimate object like that, when Miko scanned Roy, the aura would have come from the crown, not the person.
It seems as much as if the ability is poorly designed as that people use it wrong.
I can see this going two ways- if you've warned your players and they ignore you, then they deserve whatever they get. If you're playing with someone new or someone who's never played with a good group before they might feel like you're trying to trap them. Ideally the ability (or spell) would be reworked to be more like a general kind of warning radar, like "be on your guard!", rather than a targeted ping for everyone of opposing alignment.

Personally I'd probably discourage a brand new player from playing as a paladin either, just so you think I'm not picking only on the evil alignments.This is what I really wish Detect Evil was - a passive warning system. But that's only because Quest For Glory is the greatest paladin game ever.

Keltest
2015-07-19, 05:12 AM
It can be beat, yes, making it not the only method to determine who is or isn't smite-worthy (Though, by definition of the ability, everything Evil is smite-worthy).

In the comic, though, the rules on Alignment were horribly violated. Even if magic can rub off on an inanimate object like that, when Miko scanned Roy, the aura would have come from the crown, not the person.This is what I really wish Detect Evil was - a passive warning system. But that's only because Quest For Glory is the greatest paladin game ever.

There are absolutely magic items that, when possessed, will make the bearer detect/not detect as a specific alignment. Whether or not one would be formed just from being in the possession of an evil character is questionable, but it is certainly possible.

Keltest
2015-07-19, 05:24 AM
Paladins are not Authority Figures. They are Enforcers of Authority (Cosmic Good). The paladin IS choosing to do good, by choosing to Be A Paladin. Of course, they're also mortals. The big point isn't "If the paladin has the right to use lethal force, he has to". Instead, I'm taking issue with the inverse that I keep getting a vibe from:
"If the paladin has the right to offer mercy (Not forgiveness, unless the wrong is to him), he has to. He has no right to use lethal force." One of the key characteristics of Good alignments is a respect for life and dignity of everybody, including their enemies. That means they don't like killing and wont resort to it if they have alternatives they can explore.


Good and Evil do not involve choices, though they are choices themselves. Good and Evil absolutely involve choice. Smiting someone and imprisoning them for life are both valid ways to be good.


Archons do not have choice. Good does not demand choices. Choice is a luxury mortals can choose, including forsaking that freedom to choose by becoming a Paladin, supreme enforcer of Lawful Good. And these paladins ARE Lawful Good - they are as Lawful as Automatons, yes, if they adhere to their tenets... but those tenets are so overwhelmingly Good it also makes them a pinnacle of Good. There is more to the Paladin's code(Coding?) than "Smite Evil". Of course, Paladins are mortals, and do not always live up to all elements of their labyrinthine and rigid code (When spelled out). Wrongfully offering mercy is a mild violation of the Code Of Lawful Good at best, and won't result in a fall unless the paladin repeatedly shirks his duty.
Paladins are not automatons with a programming they are unable to deviate from. Becoming the paladin does not include the revoking of your choice. There is absolutely nothing in the description for the paladin that indicates that. There is no such thing as "wrongfully offering mercy". Paladins are not punished for incompetence, though they probably wont get very far as a paladin if they aren't skilled at it.

Paladins do more than just smite evil, they promote good and its virtues. That means showing mercy to enemies who probably don't deserve it and holding themselves to the highest standards of good. Remember that paladins are Good before they are Lawful. They will fall for a single evil act, but it takes a full alignment shift on the law/chaos spectrum to get them to lose their powers.

PersonMan
2015-07-19, 06:27 AM
I've been reading through the thread and wanted to address something which (as of post 91) doesn't seem to have been mentioned, in response to the 'why play Evil?' question.

In my experience, you don't play Evil to get a greater experience granted by an Evil PC. You want to play an Evil character. Someone who would be interesting and enjoyable to play, who happens to have no issues with slaughtering a tribe to the last because they're a constant nuisance, who doesn't see any reason to leave prisoners alive unless it's to encourage more surrenders.

So you wouldn't play Murderhobo But Evil, but rather a character who would likely have good reasons to not do game-disrupting things like murder randomly.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-19, 08:54 AM
Not really poorly designed, just poorly named. The problem is that it's called 'Detect Evil' like it can somehow determine a man's view on the world with just a few rounds of focus. What it actually does is detect [evil], the physical force/energy (just like how Detect Magic detects magic energy). Which is why there isn't a 'detect neutral', because there isn't an energy associated with it to look for.
I'm more than happy to rename it "Detect Alignment" and make further tweaks as necessary. I don't know if there's an arcane casting class that gets the spells (Archivist, maybe?) but I've always looked on it more like Divine Guidance anyhow, so it's up to the GM if/when it starts to malfunction (say, for example, if someone has been abusing divine powers).


By that logic, it shouldn't be able to find any prime material race at all other than aasimar/tieflings. Even they would be very difficult to find.
Yes and no- generally I say that most humanoids don't register strongly one way or the other, with a few exceptions like divine casters and people with a long and violent history of evil actions. The BBEG definitely triggers; his minions, maybe not so much. In some ways, this is the reason the BBEG HAS minions. Sure he could do everything himself, but every time he sets foot outside of his volcano doom-fortress he has to swat away hordes of adventurous who try to stop him.

"Sometimes I swear they're worse than mosquitoes." :smallbiggrin:


This is what I really wish Detect Evil was - a passive warning system. But that's only because Quest For Glory is the greatest paladin game ever.
If you're willing to allow homebrew in your games, then why not do that? Make it a temporary buff (that the pally either always has all the time or can cast an infinite number of times on himself) that has certain reactions in the presence of strong evil. Which you can then define any way you want.
Conditions might vary from a vague sense of unease, to the user being Shaken if the evil is about equal to them in strength, maybe Sickened if it's significantly stronger.

So rather than being like Superman's x-ray vision it's more like Spidey-sense.


There are absolutely magic items that, when possessed, will make the bearer detect/not detect as a specific alignment. Whether or not one would be formed just from being in the possession of an evil character is questionable, but it is certainly possible.
Magic items, sure, but I don't think I'd have an evil (or good) aura rub off on to many mundane items unless there was a really strong story-related reason for them to do so. There's possibilities both good and bad here.

I could make a plot-line like "Someone grave-robbed the old Pope's burial chamber and is using his cassock to sneak past all the detect-evil wards the church has set up". Of course once you put that kind of thing in your game, your players are going to want to know how they can do it too and why they can't if you prohibit it.

Mechalich
2015-07-19, 05:26 PM
I think some editions of DnD work like that? Sorta?

I still don't see how alignment really works apart from these two ways:

1) Alignment in a simplistic black-and-white morality setting, or
2) Alignment working as just a guideline/outline for fleshing out your character, but far from the be-all and end-all.


Alignment is a highly complex objective morality setting.

Part of the problem with deep discussions of D&D alignment is that it does not map well onto the real world ethical background most players possess. Most western players come from a Christian background (even if they aren't personally religious) that has a black/white moral system. There's heaven and hell and at the end of life you are sent to one of them. Deeds can be sorted into good and evil piles and the edge between them is razor thin. That thin, sharp line is enforced by our legal system which produces carefully reasoned divisions backed by centuries of argument into what is legal and illegal and people tend to think of right and wrong the same way - even though the boundary between self-defense and murder is in no way equivalent to the boundary between right and wrong.

The thing about D&D morality is that there are 3 moral settings, not two. There's right, wrong, and meh. The neutral territory is both vast, and occupied by a lot of archetypes that we would consider 'evil' in any discussion of real world morality. Further, the difference between D&D neutral and evil is often completely impenetrable via actions, and can only be determined via motive. Brutally murdering all enemies of the kingdom the minute you detect them can be Neutral - if you absolutely believe that it's the best course of action for the kingdom and are motivated only by this pragmatism, or evil, if you revel in it or simply lazily considered it easier.

It is possible to be a pretty horrible warlord (on the lawful side) or crazed terrorist (on the chaotic side) in D&D without being evil.

The Fury
2015-07-19, 09:23 PM
I could make a plot-line like "Someone grave-robbed the old Pope's burial chamber and is using his cassock to sneak past all the detect-evil wards the church has set up". Of course once you put that kind of thing in your game, your players are going to want to know how they can do it too and why they can't if you prohibit it.

To be fair, "Why did that plan only work that one time? And why did it only work for that guy?" actually are legit questions, especially if the PCs are unscrupulous enough to resort to a scheme like that. Though if the church is smart, they've probably set up alternate security measures on the off chance something like that happens again. Assuming the cassock wasn't destroyed or something.

Shadowsend
2015-07-19, 10:08 PM
I think the longer the thread goes, we're just proving that from a DM's point of view, it can be inviting trouble, given how muddy the water is. At least where the water is muddy with good has to do with more traditional ideas of figuring out who the "bad guys" are and what to do about them.

Deepbluediver
2015-07-19, 10:23 PM
To be fair, "Why did that plan only work that one time? And why did it only work for that guy?" actually are legit questions, especially if the PCs are unscrupulous enough to resort to a scheme like that. Though if the church is smart, they've probably set up alternate security measures on the off chance something like that happens again. Assuming the cassock wasn't destroyed or something.
There are always counter-solutions; you could say that there's a small magical ritual to go along with it as well, and if the group killed the thief then the knowledge died with him. But it's the sort of situation I could see some GMs tossing in for a little sidequest fun, and then a group getting completely sidetracked over it and one excuse leads to another, and before you know it you've ended up half a continent away from the main plot while the GM frantically makes up a cult-storyline he never had any intention of running.
The above example may not be 100% theoretical.
It's not inherently bad, but like everything else you should really take a few minutes to sit down and think "how will this affect things when (because it's never "if") the PCs get a hold of it?"

kinhdoanh1000
2015-07-20, 12:46 AM
It is my experience that most players over-estimate their roleplaying "chops"

Playing an Evil PC is not an easy gig.

Players tend to start out by trying to be Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs, but end up being Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

Tiny Tanks Unblocked (http://www.tinytanksunblocked.com/)

goto124
2015-07-20, 12:50 AM
That's one of the more subtle postbots I've ever ssen. Copy and pasting a legit post, then adding a small link at the end in white text. Huh.

I reported it, so it'll get removed after a while.

I believe that evil PCs should not be centered around evil, anymore than a good PC is centered around good (as opposed to some other part of their personality).

hamishspence
2015-07-20, 02:25 AM
The thing about D&D morality is that there are 3 moral settings, not two. There's right, wrong, and meh. The neutral territory is both vast, and occupied by a lot of archetypes that we would consider 'evil' in any discussion of real world morality. Further, the difference between D&D neutral and evil is often completely impenetrable via actions, and can only be determined via motive. Brutally murdering all enemies of the kingdom the minute you detect them can be Neutral - if you absolutely believe that it's the best course of action for the kingdom and are motivated only by this pragmatism, or evil, if you revel in it or simply lazily considered it easier.

It is possible to be a pretty horrible warlord (on the lawful side) or crazed terrorist (on the chaotic side) in D&D without being evil.

Not if you go by Champions of Ruin, or BOVD. Plenty of Evil characters can be "Misguided fools who do not know they are evil" "believe they are a paragon of goodness" "be driven to evil though using evil acts to keep a worse evil at bay" and so forth.

An ultra-pragmatist can end up in evil alignment, while still being "motivated only by pragmatism".

Mechalich
2015-07-20, 04:55 AM
Not if you go by Champions of Ruin, or BOVD. Plenty of Evil characters can be "Misguided fools who do not know they are evil" "believe they are a paragon of goodness" "be driven to evil though using evil acts to keep a worse evil at bay" and so forth.

An ultra-pragmatist can end up in evil alignment, while still being "motivated only by pragmatism".

The circumlocutions necessary to be evil while genuinely believing you are a paragon of goodness (and not just claiming to be one on the surface) in most D&D contexts are pretty extreme. While there certainly some characters, including the occasional famously iconic ones who fall under this classification, it takes some doing. It also brings up highly complicated questions about mental illness in a world with objective morality that can be deeply discomforting.

The broader point is that shockingly extreme stances by real world standards can fall squarely within the 'neutral' zone of the good-neutral-evil alignment axis of D&D. For example, a culture of rampaging conquerors like the Tuigan Horde is more of a neutral than an evil institution.

One of my personal favorites is the comparison of Formians to Ethergaunts: both have pretty much the same structure - perfectly united races out to conquer the cosmos and make mind-slaves of everything in their path. Formians are Lawful Neutral because they believe, utterly, that this is the way things should be. There's no malice in them. All will be made to serve the hive because all must be. Ethergaunts believe the rest of the universe is unworthy and must be subjugated to their will because everything else is a hideous, offensive error. In the D&D context this somehow makes a big difference. In the real world we'd likely consider both equally horrifically monstrous.

goto124
2015-07-20, 05:16 AM
How do you tell the difference between a Formian and an Ethergaunt?

Use Smite Evil!


Also, is it Evil to wipe out a race of Formians or Ethergaunts? Is it evil?

hamishspence
2015-07-20, 06:30 AM
The broader point is that shockingly extreme stances by real world standards can fall squarely within the 'neutral' zone of the good-neutral-evil alignment axis of D&D. For example, a culture of rampaging conquerors like the Tuigan Horde is more of a neutral than an evil institution.

Yamun Khahan's alignment is listed as LE in 2nd ed books though.

Segev
2015-07-20, 10:28 AM
I posted this in another subforum on this board, but it's relevant to here, too. Sir Smitesalot, the Paladin who smites evil the moment he detects it, would be engaged in evil because he still could be smiting innocents, as illustrated here:


Let's say Joe Bartender was a paragon of LG bartenderhood up until last night. He was jovial and kind, helped people out within his means, ran a tight ship of an establishment, and worked out reasonable ways for those who went long on their tabs to pay them. He would, to Detect Law and Detect Good, have pinged as a strongly-aligned but low-HD Commoner.

Last night, Dastardly McPaladinfall charmed Joe when Joe was out shopping in the marketplace, and convinced him it would be cool to try on this nifty helm. Which happened to be a Helm of Opposite Alignment. Joe, being a commoner, failed his save.

Today, Joe hasn't yet done anything, and is his smiling and jovial self while he takes stock of all the ways he could exploit his good name. He's still got his original, careful personality; his Chaotic alignment is manifesting in a willingness to throw all convention to the curb rather than in a lack of impulse control. His Evil alignment is reflecting itself in how he's now plotting how any act of kindness could profit him, and how much he'll enjoy hurting those who offend him now that he's not acting like a weak milquetoast anymore.

Your Paladin, Sir Smitesalot, walks in for breakfast, having been riding all night on an important quest he only just now completed at the local constabulary. He uses detect evil on Joe, as he does on all bartenders, as he knows some are devious murdering scumbags. Sir Smitesalot, as a Knight of the Crown, is the highest legal authority in this small town, even over the local constabulary.

Lo and behold, he detects a strongly EVIL man of low HD standing there. By your lights, he is 100% within his rights and responsibilities to kill Joe on the spot, despite Joe having done nothing. In fact, if Sir Smitesalot were to be striving to be a paragon of heroic goodness and justice, and knew the whole story, he'd know that Joe is a VICTIM of evil, and deserving of a chance at redemption.

But, because he feels he has no need to check anything beyond "does he ping?" Sir Smitesalot kills an innocent man who has never done anything even slightly evil for which he hasn't atoned, and who hasn't even yet concocted his first specific act of evil as he's still examining his new situation. You can't even say it's "really" Dastardly who killed Joe: Sir Smitesalot had plenty of options other than "smite first, ask questions latet;" he could easily have ensured Joe performed no harmful acts against innocents while he investigated.

This isn't merely a chaotic act, it is evil. He lives in a LN kingdom where the Knights of the Crown are expressly troubleshooters who can ignore red tape as a failsafe against bureaucratic paralysis in situations deemed by the Knights to be cut-and-dried. As Sir Smitesalot "knows" that you have to ahve performed sufficient evil to deserve death in order to ping on detect evil, he feels this cut-and-dried.