What's better: Fun Evil, or So 'Good' its Almost Evil?

[jaappleton]

A strange question, I know.

I know playing an evil PC is a touchy subject, but if done right (Though it rarely is), its quite fun and can be pretty dynamic.

But on the other hand, what about the character so zealous, so 'pure', that they're so convinced their mindset is correct that its almost tyrannical?

The evil character helping the good party because if anyone is taking over the world, its him?
Or the cleric so zealous that the world must be 'purified' in flames?

[DivisibleByZero]

But on the other hand, what about the character so zealous, so 'pure', that they're so convinced their mindset is correct that its almost tyrannical?

This.
Hands down, far and away, this.
It's actually more challenging and more fun to play, in my opinion, while also creating more excitement, interaction, and drama with the party.

When the evil character murders someone, the party might complain for a second or two, but then it's forgotten.
No interaction.

When the zealot takes a prisoner because he refuses to kill an enemy who surrendered, the party has to help bring him in and help deal with it unless they want to begin intraparty conflict.
Either they're helping, or they're role playing.

This is yet another reason that I hate evil characters. Not only is it usually a cop out to just act like a jerk, but they're boring.
If you go with the opposite approach on alignment, you get the opposite result. Not boring, but dynamic and engaging.

[jaappleton]

This.
Hands down, far and away, this.
It's actually more challenging and more fun to play, in my opinion, while also creating more excitement, interaction, and drama with the party.

When the evil character murders someone, the party might complain for a second or two, but then it's forgotten.
No interaction.

When the zealot takes a prisoner because he refuses to kill an enemy who surrendered, the party has to help bring him in and help deal with it unless they want to begin intraparty conflict.
Either they're helping, or they're role playing.

This is yet another reason that I hate evil characters. Not only is it usually a cop out to just act like a jerk, but they're boring.
If you go with the opposite approach on alignment, you get the opposite result. Not boring, but dynamic and engaging.

A friend is starting an upcoming game, and I was debating between the 'dark mage' that's helping the party only to get rid of his enemies, or the 'divine mage' that's going to burn the world down to 'purify' it.

[Sariel Vailo]

Who cares about alignment best fun lusty bard if you can **** it do it.

[the_brazenburn]

Who cares about alignment best fun lusty bard if you can **** it do it.

True. This gets boring after a while, though.

[DivisibleByZero]

A friend is starting an upcoming game, and I was debating between the 'dark mage' that's helping the party only to get rid of his enemies, or the 'divine mage' that's going to burn the world down to 'purify' it.

I think there is a disconnect between what you consider zealous, but still good, and evil.
Neither of your concepts fit in the former category.
Wanting to see the world burn, even if it's to 'purify' it, is not 'so good it's almost evil,' it's just evil (with good intentions).
Then ends justify the means is not an extreme good stance.

Edit
With that said, I prefer the latter zealot to the former dark mage.

[Angelalex242]

I think there is a disconnect between what you consider zealous, but still good, and evil.
Neither of your concepts fit in the former category.
Wanting to see the world burn, even if it's to 'purify' it, is not 'so good it's almost evil,' it's just evil (with good intentions).
Then ends justify the means is not an extreme good stance.

Edit
With that said, I prefer the latter zealot to the former dark mage.

Well, with a Zealot, you get Miko Miyazaki. With a dark mage, you get Xykon, or Redcloak.

Take your pick.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There are two ways to play evil that work well in parties. One is the Raistlin-style "kind to widows and orphans, still willing to sell his soul for cosmic power". This generally plays well within a party because the character doesn't do random acts of evil. It's all premeditated, and linked to the broader events of the campaign rather than generic cruelty. It works best when you and the DM put a drop-dead point on it: the introduction of an evil artifact, say, that when wielded requires the player to hand their sheet over the DM and become an NPC. This sort of character uses the party to achieve their own goals, and when they do, they move on.

The second is the Operative-style of evil - "I don't murder children." "I do, if I have to." This is an ends-justify-the-means character that maintains unity with the party based on shared goals and desires for the future but differs on method. Again, though, the key is premeditated, planned behavior. It has to be evil for a reason.

I think the best reason to create an evil character is to create a memorable one, and the biggest part of that is knowing when the character's time is up. Maybe you need to die, maybe you need to hand in the sheet and become an NPC, maybe you need to have a spiritual awakening. You can only remain committed to the bit for so long before you have to come face to face with your inner Shinjo and discover an existence beyond "evil PC".

[jaappleton]

Well, with a Zealot, you get Miko Miyazaki. With a dark mage, you get Xykon, or Redcloak.

Take your pick.

Belkar trumps them all, though. :smallbiggrin:

I like the Redcloak comp.

[Kyrinthic]

It is really about the character and player. Either can be a lot of fun, or just annoying.

Evil can range from herp-derp, I kill everything I see, to a paragon of evil who will do what needs to be done to ensure the party with him at its helm accomplishes its goals. At one end is a no-rp excuse for lazy play, the other end can be a wonderfully deep character.

Zealous good can range from classic lawful stupid paladin behavior to a nuanced character always trying to toe the line between working with what amounts to murderous adventurers and keeping them in line with the tenants of their faith.

In general, "Purge the world to save it" is actually an evil stance, usually lawful organized style evil, but evil all the same. True hardline good is more of a 'find the actual evil, then show it no quarter or mercy' style. One is indiscriminate, the other more careful.

[Asmotherion]

Alignments are really subjective. If you let players role play without a hint of what they're actually doing, most will end up doing Neutral to Neutral Evil actions in a larger cosmetic scale;

Killing in cold blood is very evil.
Killing intentionally is evil, especially if you have a choice of not doing so.
The higher a PCs mental scores are, the more responsibility he has for his actions, because he actually understands the large scale consequances of his actions. Kill a mid managment Vilain now, and you won't be able to use him to negotiate with his boss for a peacfull solution latter, aka more blood is on your hands.

-If you don't want to take the theme to realistic responsibility taking, the Oath of Conquest from the Paladin can be a cool RP hook. One does not need to be a Paladin to follow it's Tenents, just a Follower of it's code. He just wants to see the whole world under his banner. He is good to his friends, unless they betray him, where he becomes mercyless "'Cause either you're my best friend or you ain't…".

-You can also have a "Wraith Caster" who, for RP reasons, feeds on negative feelings, and likes to scare other people through Illusions etc. He would not go for a random kill unless necessary, because he knows that it will bring him more trouble to deal with the investigation than merit, and the dead do not have feelings he can feed on.

[Eric Diaz]

Both can be fun...

I played a fanatical vengeance paladin one... But I played him straight, not for laughs.

Other PC: "The monsters is too dangerous for us..."
Me: "Our lives are of no importance when compared to the safety of the realm".

The avatar of my deity: "tell me what item would you want to help me in your quest"
Me: "I mean only to serve and I'll obey every order".

Other PC: "Wait, so he church has been hiding the fact that the whole village was slain! They are certainly implicated!"
Me: "Well, I guess we all have our secrets".

Best part was when somebody was trying to save a witch from a little hanging we were doing... And this PC cut her in half, pronouncing justice must be served.

So he was not EVIL per se, but could be callous, hypocritical, petty, and self-righteous, etc., while at the the same time courageous, selfless, etc.

In short, "Lawful Neutral", but all about the shades of grey.

BTW, he died because he refused to flee from a battle that was lost and leave a companion - that was as good as dead - behind. While the other PC ran away and survived...

[Unoriginal]

But on the other hand, what about the character so zealous, so 'pure', that they're so convinced their mindset is correct that its almost tyrannical?
[...]
Or the cleric so zealous that the world must be 'purified' in flames?

This is not so "good" it's almost evil, it's just straight up evil.

Try that as the Cleric of any good god, you'll lose your powers faster than you lost your mind.

[Honest Tiefling]

Hrm...When evil is usually done as a PC, they tend to be pragmatic, reasonable and loyal to something (just not necessarily the party). When OOC business demands it, you can talk them down from a course of action that makes the roleplaying weird. Maybe don't animate the corpse of the paladin, yeah? Just go for the criminal instead.

As for tyrannical good? No thanks. I've seen that be used to justify really batpoop insane actions from paladins and I reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally do not want that again. I do think that an uncompromising character is probably better off in a group that can elegantly weave a story of their downfall when and if they become too much to function within the party. But not a lot of players I've personally encountered are so willing to murder their PC, even if they do go down in a blaze of glory.

[Tanarii]

Killing in cold blood is very evil.
Killing intentionally is evil, especially if you have a choice of not doing so.
Neither of these are true in 5e. If they were, it would not be possible to play adventurers doing adventuring things without every character being evil.

[DivisibleByZero]

As for tyrannical good? No thanks.

He isn't talking about tyrannical good. He's talking about tyrannical evil, which he is mistaking for good.

[Asmotherion]

Both can be fun...

I played a fanatical vengeance paladin one... But I played him straight, not for laughs.

Other PC: "The monsters is too dangerous for us..."
Me: "Our lives are of no importance when compared to the safety of the realm".

The avatar of my deity: "tell me what item would you want to help me in your quest"
Me: "I mean only to serve and I'll obey every order".

Other PC: "Wait, so he church has been hiding the fact that the whole village was slain! They are certainly implicated!"
Me: "Well, I guess we all have our secrets".

Best part was when somebody was trying to save a witch from a little hanging we were doing... And this PC cut her in half, pronouncing justice must be served.

So he was not EVIL per se, but could be callous, hypocritical, petty, and self-righteous, etc., while at the the same time courageous, selfless, etc.

In short, "Lawful Neutral", but all about the shades of grey.

BTW, he died because he refused to flee from a battle that was lost and leave a companion - that was as good as dead - behind. While the other PC ran away and survived...

That's a Lawful Evil Character role played correctly by my book :3

[Honest Tiefling]

To be fair, 'So 'Good' but is really actually just evil without realizing it' is far less catchy for a forum thread title.

[jaappleton]

To be fair, 'So 'Good' but is really actually just evil without realizing it' is far less catchy for a forum thread title.

'Good' is certainly in the proverbial air quotes for a reason. :smalltongue:

Additionally, while I think overall I could've phrased the original post a tad better, you all know what I'm saying.

[opaopajr]

Fun Evil! :smallsmile: It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to have intent, not 'purpose'. :smallcool:

"Candy! Candy! Candy for all the children in the world! And soon they will all succumb to my brand of toothpaste! :smallamused: Mwa ha ha!"

[G mayes]

Fun Evil! :smallsmile: It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to have intent, not 'purpose'. :smallcool:

"Candy! Candy! Candy for all the children in the world! And soon they will all succumb to my brand of toothpaste! :smallamused: Mwa ha ha!"

But my toothpaste gives them the runs and they have to buy my anti diarrhea medicine.

And that gives them acid reflux. 😈

[Tiadoppler]

A slight alternative I like to play with is the extraordinarily pragmatic Neutral Evil. A character who has grandiose personal goals, is completely willing to kill innocents and destroy nations to accomplish those goals, but has decided that the best, most reliable way to succeed is to act Good: be a hero, be honest, loyal, honorable, well-regarded and kind.

This character has decided not to use any morally questionable methods at all, ever. This character tries to never harm innocents or kill unnecessarily. This character appears to any most non-magical observers as a completely Good person, but is in fact pure Evil.

Even their end-game, their grand scheme (becoming a deity/taking over a nation/whatever), is not cruel. If their plan succeeds, they would act justly and morally, so as to avoid suspicion and not become a target for legitimately Good heroes. They would work tirelessly to improve their followers lives and not hurt anyone without cause, because that's what would be expected of them.


The fun part of this is that the character doesn't have to keep this aspect of their personality a secret from their friends. They can be very open about their ambitions and their desires, and even engage in occasional the occasional villainous monologue, but because they never actually do anything Naughty, much less Evil, it becomes a funny character quirk rather than a party-damaging trait.


"My plan is nearing completion! Soon, I will control the empire, and bring about a universal educational system which will raise the quality of life for all peoples! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

[opaopajr]

But my toothpaste gives them the runs and they have to buy my anti diarrhea medicine.

And that gives them acid reflux. 😈

See!? :smallcool: The fun never has to stop! Mwa ha ha! Cartoonish evil is the most adorable evil! :smalltongue: Like light, it has mass but no volume -- you can stack it atop itself indefinitely! :smallbiggrin:

[Xihirli]

...because they never actually do anything Naughty, much less Evil, it becomes a funny character quirk rather than a party-damaging trait.


I swapped all of your socks so now none of them match.

I'm doing evil.

SOCK-RELATED EVIL

[jaappleton]

I swapped all of your socks so now none of them match.

I'm doing evil.

SOCK-RELATED EVIL

Universally agreed to be the absolute worst kind of evil.

[the_brazenburn]

Universally agreed to be the absolute worst kind of evil.

No, it is second only to puppy-related evil.

"I have all the world's puppies in this box. Give me all your money, or I shall throw them into the Grand Canyon. Mwahahaha!"

[jaappleton]

No, it is second only to puppy-related evil.

"I have all the world's puppies in this box. Give me all your money, or I shall throw them into the Grand Canyon. Mwahahaha!"

You sick, twisted sonofa-

FINE HERE’S MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER!

[PhoenixPhyre]

No, it is second only to puppy-related evil.

"I have all the world's puppies in this box. Give me all your money, or I shall throw them into the Grand Canyon. Mwahahaha!"

I'm allergic to dogs. But then again I'm also a soul less monster, so I guess you're right. Darn.

[2D8HP]

Neither of these are true in 5e. If they were, it would not be possible to play adventurers doing adventuring things without every character being evil.


Given an infinite amount of time and actual economic pressures, all adventuring groups become neutral evil (http://critical-hits.com/blog/2014/08/31/on-mid-medieval-economics-murder-hoboing-and-100gp/)

[Tanarii]

Given an infinite amount of time and actual economic pressures, all adventuring groups become neutral evil (http://critical-hits.com/blog/2014/08/31/on-mid-medieval-economics-murder-hoboing-and-100gp/)
Yes. But most games of D&D don't have actual economic pressures. :smallbiggrin:

And it's a staple of D&D games that the heroic PCs kill in cold blood and intentionally. Sometimes even when they have the option not to, although the that's not necessary the smartest choice. And doing so is heroic, not villainous. It all depends what the PCs are killing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. But most games of D&D don't have actual economic pressures. :smallbiggrin:

And it's a staple of D&D games that the heroic PCs kill in cold blood and intentionally. Sometimes even when they have the option not to, although the that's not necessary the smartest choice. And doing so is heroic, not villainous. It all depends what the PCs are killing.

And why. Killing an orc "because the only good orc is a dead orc" is (to me) worse than killing an orc because that tribe has had a habit of raiding your town and he's part of an armed group heading toward that town. That may just be me, however.

[Tanarii]

And why. Killing an orc "because the only good orc is a dead orc" is (to me) worse than killing an orc because that tribe has had a habit of raiding your town and he's part of an armed group heading toward that town. That may just be me, however.
Eh. In 5e the, the former attitude makes sense. Because almost all orcs are Chaotic Evil raiders who pillage and destroy everything around them, inspired by their Gods. It's not a matter of perspective, of understanding the orc point of view, of being unwilling to understand the other side. It logically and morally follows from the fact that the why is inherent to the what.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh. In 5e the, the former attitude makes sense. Because almost all orcs are Chaotic Evil raiders who pillage and destroy everything around them, inspired by their Gods. It's not a matter of perspective, of understanding the orc point of view, of being unwilling to understand the other side. It logically and morally follows from the fact that the why is inherent to the what.

Bad example then, sorry. Make that "suspected bandit" instead of orc.

[Tanarii]

Bad example then, sorry. Make that "suspected bandit" instead of orc.
For sure. There's still a line between hero (even a murderhero) and murderhobo, and between both of those and villain.

But killing in cold blood and intentionally isn't it. For example, PC Heroes can and often will intentionally execute proven bandits in cold blood after they've being captured. Usually it's proven by them attacking and trying to kill the PCs in the first place.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For sure. There's still a line between hero (even a murderhero) and murderhobo, and between both of those and villain.

But killing in cold blood and intentionally isn't it. For example, PC Heroes can and often will intentionally execute proven bandits in cold blood after they've being captured. Usually it's proven by them attacking and trying to kill the PCs in the first place.

I totally agree. Even Good PCs aren't under any obligation to be particularly nice or forgiving (if they run a risk of endangering innocents).

[jaappleton]

I totally agree. Even Good PCs aren't under any obligation to be particularly nice or forgiving (if they run a risk of endangering innocents).

That's the title of a Paladin optimization handbook; "Good is Not Nice"

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's the title of a Paladin optimization handbook; "Good is Not Nice"

And a TVTropes page. Either way, I heartily agree. Especially LG, who have the concern for law in there as well.

[Honest Tiefling]

I totally agree. Even Good PCs aren't under any obligation to be particularly nice or forgiving (if they run a risk of endangering innocents).

Same. If the alignment is so restrictive in life or death situations for hundreds of innocent people, then it's kinda unplayable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Same. If the alignment is so restrictive in life or death situations for hundreds of innocent people, then it's kinda unplayable.

You would say that, being fiendish and all :smallbiggrin:

I've never understood how someone can call themselves Lawful and Good if they let proven evil-doers (especially those who have shown their propensity to attack innocents) go (or abandon a pressing mission to bring them back to a town to face justice). Doing so drastically increases the chances that they'll go attack more innocents. Yes, a shining-armor paladin should seek redemption for the evil, but should prioritize the safety of innocents. Between towns, out in the wilderness, the paladin is the law. And the punishment for proven banditry (or attacking innocents) is death. Make it quick and as painless as you can, but do it and move on. If that bothers you, make sure you get deputized by the local government before you leave town--then you're simply giving them a summary trial. It's better than they'd get in town.