What's with the popularity of playing an evil murder hobo?

[Phillyg]

I know that, in a way, it goes all the way back to first edition -- the dynamic tension between the rogue and the paladin. I also know that DPR is a thing, and the most powerful toys are evil.

My take is that D&D is, at its core, all about good versus evil. The PCs represent good and the DM represent evil. Just kidding, DMs; its April 1! The BBEGs are the evil ones. That's what the "E" in BBEG stands for. The DMs make D&D possible, and that's a GOOD thing!

Back on topic: The power, the toys, the DPR were all meant to seduce PCs over to the Dark Side. In first edition, alignment was tracked!

DMs don't track alignment anymore, and players don't care either.

What's with that?

[Red Fel]

I know that, in a way, it goes all the way back to first edition -- the dynamic tension between the rogue and the paladin. I also know that DPR is a thing, and the most powerful toys are evil.

My take is that D&D is, at its core, all about good versus evil. The PCs represent good and the DM represent evil. Just kidding, DMs; its April 1! The BBEGs are the evil ones. That's what the "E" in BBEG stands for. The DMs make D&D possible, and that's a GOOD thing!

Actually, if I remember correctly, D&D was, at its core, originally about Law and Chaos. That the PCs were Good was simply a given.


Back on topic: The power, the toys, the DPR were all meant to seduce PCs over to the Dark Side. In first edition, alignment was tracked!

DMs don't track alignment anymore, and players don't care either.

What's with that?

Citation needed. I know a lot of DMs who track alignment, and a lot of players who care - for certain definitions of "track" and "care."

For example, when you say, "DMs don't track alignment anymore," do you mean that DMs don't care what's on a character sheet? Don't check whether Smite Evil should fail against a target? Or do you mean that DMs don't hold players to their alignment, or punish them for straying from it, or require players to modify their alignments when they do so?

My view of "best DM practices" is that a DM will take note of your alignment at start of play. If you stray too far from it, the DM will take you aside after a session and warn you that your character is acting out of alignment, or offer you the opportunity to rewrite your alignment yourself. If you continue to show a pattern of deviation, eventually the DM will simply inform you, "Your character's actions show an XY mentality, so please rewrite your alignment to XY at this time." But that's my view; it's not universal law. (Even though my views really should be.)

My point is, this is a pretty bold claim. Are you going someplace with this?

[ezekielraiden]

What's with that?

Well, firstly, I don't think it's quite correct to say that evil tools/tricks are categorically better. Metallic dragons are, in general, stronger than the comparable chromatic ones, with high-age gold dragons being among the strongest non-outsider creatures. Solars are noticeably more powerful than pit fiends. Though the BoVD has plenty of powerful tools, I find the BoED is more commonly used, because its effects are more useful. So I don't really know that Evil categorically wins. Sometimes it does, but it also often doesn't, and can easily paint a target on you.

As for people not caring, a lot of it comes down to alignment being used as a cudgel rather than a tool. People don't like moral policemen in the group, but they also don't like constant fear of being stabbed in the back by their "allies" even if it's unlikely. So alignment often becomes the subject of a gentleman's agreement, don't be a ****, generally share some of the party's ethos. You totally CAN make a fun and exciting game where alignment matters and you'll have to weather temptation, but waaaay too many people see that as an excuse to screw over the player. The classic "if you choose Law, it's Evil so you fall, but if you choose Good it's Chaotic, so you fall." Much of that can be blamed on inexperienced DMs, but when it happens too often it poisons the well, so to speak.

[Kayblis]

I believe this tendency of turning into evil murder-happy hobos is usually one of two cases. First one, the group wants freedom from politics and organizations so they can do their own thing, and you can't do that if you have to report twice a week to your local church to state how many rats you killed. This usually happens on mid to high levels, as the players get enough resources to have a reason to challenge authority.
The second is a case of a DM trying to make a "gritty, realistic" setting, which translates into "everyone is a **** for no reason". There is nothing more frustrating than dealing with four different kinds of NPC, two of which are your boss, in the same session and everyone treats you like garbage.

[MeimuHakurei]

The Fighter is considered the most iconic class of D&D and is also the most played across most editions (although not really the most popular necessarily). I wonder why giving a player a character who has no problem solving tools other than violence makes them seek out violent solutions.

Additionally, too many DMs tend to view solutions that avoid combat as "breaking" encounters, from negotiating and sneaking up to simply disabling enemies with control spells.

[Biggus]

I also know that DPR is a thing

I don't. What is it?


DMs don't track alignment anymore, and players don't care either.

This is also news to me. In all the groups I've played in, alignment is dealt with pretty much in the manner Red Fel describes.

[Bphill561]

The Fighter is considered the most iconic class of D&D and is also the most played across most editions (although not really the most popular necessarily). I wonder why giving a player a character who has no problem solving tools other than violence makes them seek out violent solutions.

Additionally, too many DMs tend to view solutions that avoid combat as "breaking" encounters, from negotiating and sneaking up to simply disabling enemies with control spells.

I completely agree. If you have a group/DM that is geared towards combat, every planned encounter begins with "roll initiative" before any kind of situational details are determined. Some groups have lots of roll players with no out of combat abilities and get annoyed at not getting to attack things. Other groups are the exact opposite playing characters with less combat specialization and are uninterested in combat in general. So it kind of depends on the group. I try to focus one or the other, but have some abilities/skills so I can roleplay something even if it is not my character's specialty.

As for evil murder hobo, I have mostly played in good murder hobo games. Character's are often mostly on the move, there are no repercussions for killing something that is "evil" or of a threatening race. Killing often generates XP, plus you get to take their stuff so peaceful encounters are less favorable. I have seen many Tolkien styled fantasy games were Orcs are always bad and freely killable, nothing like a little racial genocide in a clear good vs evil setting. Luckly my current group is much more balanced down the middle. I can fend off encounters with quick wit and Bluff/Diplomacy checks if necessary.

[magic9mushroom]

Well, firstly, I don't think it's quite correct to say that evil tools/tricks are categorically better. Metallic dragons are, in general, stronger than the comparable chromatic ones, with high-age gold dragons being among the strongest non-outsider creatures. Solars are noticeably more powerful than pit fiends. Though the BoVD has plenty of powerful tools, I find the BoED is more commonly used, because its effects are more useful. So I don't really know that Evil categorically wins. Sometimes it does, but it also often doesn't, and can easily paint a target on you.

The statement is generally about PC-available stuff. Metallic dragons are stronger, but generally have more LA and/or racial HD - same for solars vs. pit fiends (and I'll note that there are stronger fiends in a few books, whereas stronger generic celestials than the solar don't exist).

On the PC end, Evil has Cancer Mage, Ur-Priest, Tainted Scholar, religious sacrifice and Love's Pain; Good has nothing in that tier except maybe Hathran (which is LG/NG/LN). Also, there are a number of things where the evil version is straight-up better than the good version; examples are Ambrosia vs. Liquid Pain (the latter is 50% stronger per dose) and turning vs. rebuking (rebuking gives you minions to use against other things).

EDIT: You probably find the BoED more commonly used because a) it's 3.5 (BoVD is 3.0), b) most of the good stuff from BoVD is so good that it's frequently banned (not to mention that evil PCs are often banned).

[frogglesmash]

It's incentive based. Killing and looting are the most efficient methods of character progression, and evil characters have less qualms about both, so unless the DM takes steps to disincentivize that kind of behaviour, the frequency at which players play evil murder-hobos will be inversely proportional to how much they care about RPing a non-evil character (provided the campaign isn't meant to be an evil campaign).

[Malphegor]

Good is a hard job, often poorly paid, and it's not all that attractive as most of your career, you're doing hard physical labour in dirty environments and nobody trusts you really.

Evil is sexy. Everyone looks good in black, and skull motifs are always evocative. Who has the dread fortress? Who has the resources?

Who wants to be Luke, when they could be Vader, or better yet, Sidious? Total domination of the universe! Absolute control! The power to change things to your liking, beyond the purview of heroes railing against a system they barely inhabit.

Plus it's way less difficult. Kill all the dissidents versus rational debate and rallying them to your cause. One needs a few seconds to cast a spell, the other needs days and days of negotiations.

[Morty]

Citation needed.

This kind of applies to the entirety of the OP. It seems to be a vague rant against some poorly-specified bad behavior, with no examples to support it. And pining for the "good old days".