PDA

View Full Version : I come to the playground with a roleplay problem.



denthor
2020-04-03, 03:19 PM
I am off track somewhere.

Want to run a NE 1/2 elf Sorcerer.

In three sessions the chaotic good cleric is praising me. I cast dispel magic from a scroll to keep myself from burning alive in a wall of fire. I accidentally save him and three other party members. So 5 of a party of 8.

I need evil acts that can be done unnoticed. I know that something's can be done with my spells. For example animate rope entanglement of a person in front of someone if they kill the helpless creature in front of them is that a nudge towards evil? Same with deeper slumber.

My spells
1st
Animate rope
Shield
Mage armor
Enlarge person
Chill touch

2nd
Glitter dust(only invisibility finding spell in the party)
See invisibility
Spider climb

3rd
Deeper slumber

Any ideas?

icefractal
2020-04-03, 03:26 PM
Two things -
1) A character can be evil without frequently doing evil things. A willingness to do evil when it benefits them, plus a few instances (just one instance if it was bad enough) are plenty to earn that E.

2) Even the most ruthless characters don't generally betray their teammates (unless it comes down to their own survival), because then they stop having any allies and get killed. Unless this is a PvP game, don't try to kill (or even intentionally not save) the other PCs. Even if it is PvP, only betray when it really pays off.

That said, Deep Slumber is a good one to use on targets where you're not sure of their strength. If it works, great, you can CdG them. If it fails, you can pretend you were just trying to sneak past or avoid a fight.

Chill Touch isn't that impressive, but it's enough to kill low-level NPCs and you can cast it out of sight, then walk around with it active. This works best in small settlements where people don't know much about magic. If they do, it becomes much more identifying than a knife.

Petty evil thing, which may come back to bite you in the add but is easy to slip under the radar - when in a populated area, use Chill Touch to make undead flee, then declare the battle won and leave before they come back. It's someone else's problem now!

Edit: WOW is Chill Touch a good anti-undead spell.

Segev
2020-04-03, 04:08 PM
Seconding the notion that you're doing fine. Just be willing to do things to benefit yourself and your party that more squeemish people might foolishly disregard as "evil." Play your character, not your alignment. If you've no reason to do something...upsetting to the close-minded...don't. Why borrow trouble?

Saint-Just
2020-04-03, 04:55 PM
Tripling the notion that you're doing fine. Evil (NE even more so than LE/CE) by default means merely extremely selfish (as in "willing to harm others a lot if it helps you a little"). Unless you specifically want to play character that is sadistic, backstabbing, or promoting the cause of Evil (as opposed to the cause of You) - you needn't to. If the quickest route to riches and power is to slay the (chromatic) dragon and save the princess - plenty of Evil characters will do so.

So if you specifically want to maintain that Evil alignment dismiss the cleric's sanctimonious preaching and keep doing what you are doing. Or maybe pay him at least a lip service and see where it would lead you both - to you ditching that E or to him being seriously (and unexpectedly for him) disappointed. In fact it is a fine opportunity to roleplay even if it would lead nowhere.

OldTrees1
2020-04-03, 06:30 PM
Intelligent evil can appear indistinguishable from good.

Yeah you saved the life of your party members, just like some evil people would.
You are probably on a quest to stop some heinous villain, just like some evil people would.
You might even help out some village for free, just like some evil people would.

Rather than seek out an evil act. Ask yourself what goals your character has. Pursue those goals. When confronted with obstacles, find what lines they are willing to cross. Remember your character values having their allies. Losing an ally for a paltry gain is not worth it. Leverage those allies to continue pursuing your goals.

False God
2020-04-03, 07:42 PM
Saving other party members is in your interest. Evil, like the Chaotic alignments places high value on the self. Ensuring your team is successful just ensures your own longevity. Protecting yourself (especially if there is an option to help others) can be an evil act.

It is not Evil that need to look for "evil deeds to do", but good must constantly prove that it is good. You have no need for that.

You're not simply not kind, you're cruel when given the chance. You provide disproportionate response (ie: someone hits you, you beat them to death with their own feet) when provoked. But you don't need to go out and murder puppies to prove your evilness.

Matuka
2020-04-03, 09:38 PM
I play an evil character in an evil campaign and we have a saying, "we're friends, everyone else can die in a ditch."

Segev
2020-04-04, 12:28 AM
I don't get to play the character I use as my screenname much. But I have developed him over nearly my entire gaming career. He is evil, because he refuses to let sentiment get in the way of his goals. He is ruthless, even with himself. And his goals are power, safety, and knowledge, in no particular order.

He will work with heroes. In fact he prefers to. Heroes are lauded. People give them support and resources for free, and sometimes even lie to themselves to help cover up the heroes' peccadilloes. Avoiding making enemies who will work together to take revenge is key to avoiding wasting resources. So don't threaten when you can bargain. Friends will do a lot for you that you don't have to pay back. But that does mean you have to be willing to do things for them...so do things for them that you don't mind doing, and make sure they benefit you as well. They're friends; they won't mind you benefiting as long as you're not screwing them in the process.

Hone a reputation for honesty and honor. Not because these things are important, but because the reputation for them is a resource that lets you gain trust. All the better if you never have to violate it.

Your lines are not there because you feel bad about crossing them. Your lines are there so you don't make mistakes. When the lines get in the way, ignore them completely. There is no line you should not cross to achieve your goals. Only lines you should avoid others knowing you've crossed if they'll feel the need to...treat you unfortunately over it.

One of my favorite examples is sadly nothing that's come up in play, but helped me crystalize the essence of an evil character. I was watching Doctor Who, and the bad guy du jour was sacrificing hundreds or even thousands of innocent "lower class" people to some eldritch horror that, in return, guaranteed him prosperity.

"Why," asked the Doctor, "is your life more valuable than theirs?"

The villain started blustering about how he creates jobs, creates and moves wealth, and all this is for the Glory of the [British] Empire, and how that justifies making him more important than others.

I was...disappointed.

Segev, had he been in a similar position, and been asked that question by the Doctor (or anybody), would have had a much simpler, more honest answer.

"Why is your life more important than theirs?" he would be asked.
He would answer: "Because it's mine."

You know, if he was being truthful. Which he usually is. He cultivates the conception that he's honorable, but he doesn't really try to lie and claim so. He's only okay at lying. He'd rather be honest whenever possible, because, again, people will trust you more if you are. Especially if you're honest about things like your own honesty and the reason for it. Scruples make people think that you hold to them and are denying something to yourself. The key is not to do that.

But also, never revel in the twist of the knife. That is as much a weakness as allowing a loved-one to be held hostage against you. Best not to love, but if you can't help it, grieve rather than give in. (Do punish with as much revenge as you like, but remember that it's a show for the world, not to truly sate your own pain. It won't sate your pain. But if you do it right, it will make everyone who sees your vengeance think twice about incurring it.) But don't revel in the vengeance. Don't revel in hurting; hurting is impractical. Hurt people can develop grudges.

Destroy the ability of those you must hurt to ever reciprocate.

But strive to never have to. You will have to, but strive against it. Seem, if not kind, at least gentle and fair. You needn't be lying most of the time.

You're the one who will get his hands dirty, but that doesn't mean you should be looking for the opportunity. The opportunity that requires it will come up. Just take it when it does, if there's no better way.

Make sure there are no witnesses to bring word back to your squeamish friends, if at all possible.

Chronic
2020-04-04, 12:29 AM
Also you are a sorcerer, so do yourself a favor, use subtle spells and make sure the others characters don't realize you can cast spells in this manners. Even if the players know what you do if they roleplay fairly it should allow you to commit many many evil acts without being caught.

Isocahedron
2020-04-05, 03:45 PM
Sorry, I'm probably blind here, but what system, so I can see the spell descriptions?

Shpadoinkle
2020-04-05, 07:40 PM
"Evil" basically means you have the "I am more important than other people" mentality. It doesn't mean you won't save someone else if you're also saving yourself in the process, or that you don't care about people - you can like and even love other people (as much as an evil character can, anyway,) but at the end of the day, 'Evil' basically means that you'd put your own well-being ahead of that of others, unless there's more of a benefit to you to put THEM first.

For instance, if there' s a plague, and you and the cleric and the fighter are all infected, and you're the only one with a Cure Disease potion, giving it to the cleric would be perfectly in character because then he can cast Cure Disease on both you and the fighter, and then the fighter can go up and get clawed at and chewed on by the monsters so YOU don't have to. Being Evil doesn't NECESSARILY mean you act like a selfish jerkass or that you're actively malicious (you can be, but you don't have to be) - you can totally help other people and still be in-character - but it pretty much DOES mean that you're constantly looking out for yourself, first and foremost, and if that means other people have to suffer then that's fine.

D&D_Fan
2020-04-05, 08:29 PM
Is your character truly evil, or only intending to be evil?

You can continue to build trust be being a responsible, and helpful party member, and act good, but once you've built trust, you can cause all sorts of damage, by blackmail, unexpected murder, thefts which won't be blamed on you, etc. True evil isn't about actions. It's about motive; You can be extremely evil and still act good, but it isn't with good intent.

Another possibility, is that the character tries to be evil, but turns out to be more helpful than hurtful. Maybe they don't have to be evil...

It's all up too you, and what you consider evil.

also:

...but it pretty much DOES mean that you're constantly looking out for yourself, first and foremost, and if that means other people have to suffer then that's fine.

I don't agree with this. ChaotNeutral is looking out for yourself, and you alone. Good people can look out for themselves, and will look out for others. Evil people can also be in the "look out for #1" mindset, but actively try to harm, and ruin others.

Segev
2020-04-06, 12:23 AM
I'm actually surprised not to see Red Fel in this thread already. I am looking forward to his take (though I suspect I know what it will be, it's fun to read his eloquent way of putting it).

Friv
2020-04-06, 10:26 AM
I don't agree with this. ChaotNeutral is looking out for yourself, and you alone. Good people can look out for themselves, and will look out for others. Evil people can also be in the "look out for #1" mindset, but actively try to harm, and ruin others.

It's always interesting how people define alignments. I wouldn't consider Chaotic Neutral "look out for yourself and you alone."

My usual rule of thumb:

Good people help others if it is viable, and hurt others if it is unavoidable.
Neutral people help others if it is convenient, and hurt others if it is justifiable.
Evil people help others if it is profitable, and hurt others if it is convenient.

Obviously, there are people you care more or less about, but that just affects how these labels are applied. It is rarely convenient to hurt someone whose help you are relying on, or someone that you want to have around.

For the topic at hand - everyone's mostly said it best, but I think it's important to note that as an evil character who can work with a party, it's particularly important to decide what your sorcerer's goals are. Do they seek wealth? Arcane might? Hidden knowledge? Do they just want to be in a position in which no one has power over them ever again? Or are they looking to have power over other people?

Once you have a goal, you have an idea about when to do evil - when it is convenient for accomplishing your goals. That probably means finding the line the party will turn on you if you cross, and not crossing it.

Segev
2020-04-06, 10:57 AM
It's always interesting how people define alignments. I wouldn't consider Chaotic Neutral "look out for yourself and you alone."

My usual rule of thumb:

Good people help others if it is viable, and hurt others if it is unavoidable.
Neutral people help others if it is convenient, and hurt others if it is justifiable.
Evil people help others if it is profitable, and hurt others if it is convenient. I like this...mostly. I quibble over the last clause. I would phrase the third point more thusly:

Evil people help others if it is profitable, and have no problem hurting others.

While there ARE evil people who enjoy hurting others and thus will do so, the implication that all evil people will take opportunity to cause harm just because it's there is incorrect. It implies that you lose your evil cred if you don't kick that puppy that happens to be in convenient reach of your foot, and it also suggests that a person who only hurts others if it profits him (rather than whenever it's convenient) is non-evil.

Sadly, my rephrasing of your third point is not as rhetorically rhythmic as your original version, but I do think it's more accurate.


For the topic at hand - everyone's mostly said it best, but I think it's important to note that as an evil character who can work with a party, it's particularly important to decide what your sorcerer's goals are. Do they seek wealth? Arcane might? Hidden knowledge? Do they just want to be in a position in which no one has power over them ever again? Or are they looking to have power over other people?

Once you have a goal, you have an idea about when to do evil - when it is convenient for accomplishing your goals. That probably means finding the line the party will turn on you if you cross, and not crossing it.

Here, too, I would alter the underlined portion. Not "when it is convenient for accomplishing your goals," but rather "when it makes accomplishing your goals more convenient." Once again, it's a difference over whether you're meeting your mustache-twirling quota for the day, or just don't mind the price for your success as long as you can make others pay it.

paddyfool
2020-04-06, 11:10 AM
In addition to "what are your character's goals", think "what are your ideals"?

Being evil doesn't mean you don't have them. It just tends to mean they aren't along the lines of compassion, hugs, rainbows etc.

You might be an egotist. There are a couple of good examples of that on this thread already.

Or it could be that power is the ideal. And that you respect the powers and capacities of your teammates for what they are, and scorn the weak (quietly or noisily, as you choose). But you'd be happy enough to accept a quest that involves defending the weak, if the pay is adequate to your pride... because depending on you for their defence gives you yet more power over others.

Or you might be a magical supremacist, thinking that those born with a sorcerous inheritance are better than all others. All the non-spellcasting people in your group, or those who have to bow to a god for power or study endless dusty tomes? Means to an end. Secretly, you despise and almost pity them.

Or you might be in love with something or someone, and it is your overwhelming love itself that leads you to commit evil actions, a la [comics but not movie] Thanos. Your teammates? Ultimately, they don't matter, but you've no reason to sabotage a useful alliance... as long as they don't come in between you and your love in any way.

And from the ideals, it's a very short step to then develop the goals.

Lord Athos
2020-04-06, 12:27 PM
-snip-

Just dropping in to say that's a great read with some excellent pointers I will think about when creating my next evil character. Thanks!

D&D_Fan
2020-04-06, 12:32 PM
Good people help others if it is viable, and hurt others if it is unavoidable.
Neutral people help others if it is convenient, and hurt others if it is justifiable.
Evil people help others if it is profitable, and hurt others if it is convenient.

Look out for yourself and you alone is only one example a a behavior that is popular in the Neutral Mindset, but not the only one. A neutral character could also actively aid both the forces of good and evil, as well as be against both.

icefractal
2020-04-06, 01:25 PM
I don't agree with this. ChaotNeutral is looking out for yourself, and you alone. Good people can look out for themselves, and will look out for others. Evil people can also be in the "look out for #1" mindset, but actively try to harm, and ruin others.
It's fuzzy, but I'd say there's definitely a point where sufficiently callous self-interest becomes evil, even if you never instigate the harm.

Let's say you see someone's tripped onto the train tracks, and is going to be crushed by an incoming train.

Not sacrificing yourself to save them: neutral.
Not sacrificing an arm to save them: still neutral
Not taking some bruises and scrapes to save them: getting evil
Not dropping your sandwich (disclaimer: you are not starving) to save them: evil
Just watching them die even though you could have saved them at no cost to yourself: definitely evil

Edit: This is obviously contrived, like most trolley problems. And yes, people often don't react fast enough because of shock, which is different. This is purely in terms of degree of non-assistance with a spherical cow, etc.

Segev
2020-04-06, 01:36 PM
Just dropping in to say that's a great read with some excellent pointers I will think about when creating my next evil character. Thanks!

Thank you for the compliment. Glad it was interesting and helpful!

I will note that you can absolutely be evil and violate a lot of what I wrote there. Segev is a necromancy-focused wizard, which means he's highly intelligent, so he has highly-analyzed philosophies and principles on which he acts. Evil can be incredibly petty. Evil can be self-destructve (and often is, in practice). But usually, you don't want to play those kinds of evil in a party, because it is short-lived and can be detrimental to the game. If you do, be careful to find reason why the party is exempt from your pettiness and cruelty. The "maintain alliances" justification is a good one. As is "they're my friends." An evil person can have friends, and even respect good people. He just doesn't get it when they refuse to take the stuff that's easy enough to get; who cares if those orphans will starve, it's not like they're your kids. And woe betide anybody who is not in his "in group" that hurts somebody he cares about, because the evil person will do mean things to them, and won't have that whole "conscience" thing to get in the way when he has them at his non-existent mercy.

The key, overall, to playing an evil character is to remember that very few are mustache-twirlers. "Being evil" is almost never their goal. (Unlike good people, who will generally agree that "being good" and "not being evil" are both positives for which to strive.) At most, they'll tend to acknowledge that they ARE evil, but they'll hold that it's more about strength, or pragmatism, or self-respect, or... any number of things that let them paint "good" as "foolish" or "weak." Evil people have motives and motivations, and while they CAN include sadistic cruelty, they usually don't...at least not beyond a certain petty need to assert power over others. They do tend to be more vengeful, because punishing those who hurt you feels good and is good for your rep. They can be petty. But they should - when played as PCs - always be good friends to their friends, families, and allies. Because party cohesion is important to playable games.

Xervous
2020-04-06, 01:37 PM
A proper Evil is not the comical puppy kicking orphanage burning caricature. That sort of individual is more deranged than anything. They risk much in public displays of “doing what I want because I can” with no real benefit in sight as a result of their actions. This is behavior you’d expect of some frothing half mad cultist of Demogorgon. Just about any sort of folk will reject the puppy kicking orphanage burning crazy. (Including but not limited to execution or becoming roadkill due to passing adventurers)

Logical Evil on the other hand covers a large portion of the setting’s population. It’s the miller mixing sawdust into the flour because he thinks he can get away with it. It’s the butcher presenting cuts wrapped to conceal just how much is in fact bone rather than meat. They don’t go home, kicking a puppy on the way, beat their neighbor and berate their kid. They have a place in society and everything goes smoother if they can maintain their standing, plus the unfair advantages they can sneak in for them and theirs.

Good functions on the understanding that their helpful stance will be reciprocated. Neutral fulfills the basic societal requirements. Evil rides on the generosity of good and the indifference of neutral to reap a higher rate of return without being rejected by the social system.

Segev
2020-04-06, 02:29 PM
A proper Evil is not the comical puppy kicking orphanage burning caricature. That sort of individual is more deranged than anything. They risk much in public displays of “doing what I want because I can” with no real benefit in sight as a result of their actions. This is behavior you’d expect of some frothing half mad cultist of Demogorgon. Just about any sort of folk will reject the puppy kicking orphanage burning crazy. (Including but not limited to execution or becoming roadkill due to passing adventurers)

Logical Evil on the other hand covers a large portion of the setting’s population. It’s the miller mixing sawdust into the flour because he thinks he can get away with it. It’s the butcher presenting cuts wrapped to conceal just how much is in fact bone rather than meat. They don’t go home, kicking a puppy on the way, beat their neighbor and berate their kid. They have a place in society and everything goes smoother if they can maintain their standing, plus the unfair advantages they can sneak in for them and theirs.

Good functions on the understanding that their helpful stance will be reciprocated. Neutral fulfills the basic societal requirements. Evil rides on the generosity of good and the indifference of neutral to reap a higher rate of return without being rejected by the social system.

All valid, but I will point out that in the demi-feudal pseudo-medieval structures that D&D and its ilk present, there is room for puppy-kicking evil. It's the bandit king, the orc warlord, and the conquering tyrant. They have an army (perhaps merely a small one, but an army nonetheless) that follow them, and enjoys the puppy-kicking and orphanage-burning. They sack villages, burning everything and taking the women and children after killing the men, forcing them to serve them with victuals stolen from their own stores. They extort towns, demanding tribute to go away and not burn their fields. They revel in the power they have over the helpless, and woe betide the peddler or merchant who stumbles across them.

But it requires that you have your own power structure that enables you to be a independent (if parasitic) civilization with your own rules and laws.

denthor
2020-04-06, 06:04 PM
I'm actually surprised not to see Red Fel in this thread already. I am looking forward to his take (though I suspect I know what it will be, it's fun to read his eloquent way of putting it).



Red Fel would call my character worthless due to the neutral part. He would of course be nicer about it.

But since you brought him up.

Red fel
Red fel
Red fel

You are summoned just like you want to be. You told me for reasons!

Saint-Just
2020-04-06, 06:44 PM
All valid, but I will point out that in the demi-feudal pseudo-medieval structures that D&D and its ilk present, there is room for puppy-kicking evil. It's the bandit king, the orc warlord, and the conquering tyrant. They have an army (perhaps merely a small one, but an army nonetheless) that follow them, and enjoys the puppy-kicking and orphanage-burning. They sack villages, burning everything and taking the women and children after killing the men, forcing them to serve them with victuals stolen from their own stores. They extort towns, demanding tribute to go away and not burn their fields. They revel in the power they have over the helpless, and woe betide the peddler or merchant who stumbles across them.


What's especially interesting is that in IRL medieval times some people could do some Moral Event Horizon crossing things (let's say cut off hands of the peasants belonging to his enemy, because describing the heights of fun some people aspired to is verboten here) and the next year do things we would today recognize as a significant humanitarian effort (endowed a hospital, sent relief to the neighbouring region struck by a drought). And then turned back to fun. So even Evil people do things without any proximate benefit for themselves.

Red Fel
2020-04-07, 08:04 AM
Red Fel would call my character worthless due to the neutral part. He would of course be nicer about it.

But since you brought him up.

Red fel
Red fel
Red fel

You are summoned just like you want to be. You told me for reasons!

Hey, folks. You wouldn't believe how busy we've been in the Nine. Apparently some fool decided to go to the Abyss on vacation and, well, he brought a little something back, and... no matter. At least it's given me an excuse to work from home, and it's nice to be able to get some work done while simultaneously kicking my shoes off and letting the ol' cloven hooves breathe a bit.

In any event, let's dive right in!


I am off track somewhere.

Want to run a NE 1/2 elf Sorcerer.

In three sessions the chaotic good cleric is praising me. I cast dispel magic from a scroll to keep myself from burning alive in a wall of fire. I accidentally save him and three other party members. So 5 of a party of 8.

I need evil acts that can be done unnoticed. I know that something's can be done with my spells. For example animate rope entanglement of a person in front of someone if they kill the helpless creature in front of them is that a nudge towards evil? Same with deeper slumber.

My spells
1st
Animate rope
Shield
Mage armor
Enlarge person
Chill touch

2nd
Glitter dust(only invisibility finding spell in the party)
See invisibility
Spider climb

3rd
Deeper slumber

Any ideas?

Alright. I'm not going to help you with the spell part, because - here's the thing, and I've emphasized it before - Evil isn't about mechanics. It's also not about screwing over the party. That's not being Evil, that's being a dingus. Don't be a dingus. Evil, even Neutral Evil (at least it's not Chaotic) should have the sense to realize that you need these mooks alive if you want to get what you want. Getting them killed off, or making them mad that you (almost) let them die, does not help you to succeed.

So let me be clear. Your Evil acts should never be pointed at the party. Instead, they should be pointed at the enemy. Your Evil acts should promote the party's agenda.

Taken a prisoner? Interrogate him. For funsies, mostly, but if it helps, it helps. Enemy caster specifically? Break his fingers, that's just good practice with respect to casters, but do it slowly. While he's conscious. Make a game out of it.

See? That's Evil.

Your specific spells don't exactly offer you options. Maybe Animate Rope to tie someone up, I guess. So you have to get creative on your own. Threaten enemies, creatively. Gather information, with prejudice. Obtain five-finger discounts at stores. Teach your enemies true terror, so they speak your name with awe and reverence. Establish a network of spies, thieves and assassins to benefit your party's goals. And so forth.

Your goals should be, in order: (1) acquire power for myself, (2) acquire power for my party, thus also benefiting myself, and (3) doing so at the expense and suffering of others whenever possible. Simply follow that paradigm and you're good. And don't let it bother you if the party praises you for helping out - it's just rational self-interest. The more they praise you, the more they must approve of your actions, right? That just means that your Evil is pragmatic and effective - the two best things Evil can be.

Segev
2020-04-07, 10:55 AM
Hey, folks. You wouldn't believe how busy we've been in the Nine. Apparently some fool decided to go to the Abyss on vacation and, well, he brought a little something back, and... no matter. At least it's given me an excuse to work from home, and it's nice to be able to get some work done while simultaneously kicking my shoes off and letting the ol' cloven hooves breathe a bit.You'd think the Nine would have better screening before allowing re-entry. Whose heads are rolling for that slip-up?



Alright. I'm not going to help you with the spell part, because - here's the thing, and I've emphasized it before - Evil isn't about mechanics. It's also not about screwing over the party. That's not being Evil, that's being a dingus. Don't be a dingus. Evil, even Neutral Evil (at least it's not Chaotic) should have the sense to realize that you need these mooks alive if you want to get what you want. Getting them killed off, or making them mad that you (almost) let them die, does not help you to succeed.

So let me be clear. Your Evil acts should never be pointed at the party. Instead, they should be pointed at the enemy. Your Evil acts should promote the party's agenda.This just cannot be emphasized enough. It is my primary worry over the questions asked by the OP, to make sure he understands this. You do not need to prove your evil bona fides by being a jerk to the party. Even CE can (and often does) have more sense than that. (Not always, sadly, but then, I've seen LE, NE, and even LG that were stupid that way.)



Your goals should be, in order: (1) acquire power for myself, (2) acquire power for my party, thus also benefiting myself, and (3) doing so at the expense and suffering of others whenever possible. Simply follow that paradigm and you're good. And don't let it bother you if the party praises you for helping out - it's just rational self-interest. The more they praise you, the more they must approve of your actions, right? That just means that your Evil is pragmatic and effective - the two best things Evil can be.

While you certainly can play a sadist who enjoys the cruelty and the power over others that abusing them lets you feel, I still advise caution with (3). If your personal jollies come from hurting others, or making them pay heavier prices than necessary, or otherwise proving your superiority by rubbing victims' faces into the (metaphorical or literal) dirt, that's "fine," I guess, in terms of being evil. But don't assume you have some sort of obligation to screw others over, even those outside your party. Your enemies? Yeah, make them lose out as much as you can; that's just common sense. You want them unable to act on their enmity. But strangers? Non-aligned business transactional partners? Screw 'em only if it actually serves your goals. Certainly do not screw yourself or your party over even a little to cause them more pain, not for no gain for yourself.

Again, if you're playing a sadist, or somebody who just really enjoys twisting the knife, play (3) straight. Exact as much pain as possible while getting what you want. But if you're not playing that kind of sadist, remember that being evil need not be "earned." You don't have anything to prove to anybody. Being evil is as simple as making others pay the prices for your gains. If you can make those prices low, or trick them into being grateful to pay them, so much the better.

denthor
2020-04-07, 12:22 PM
My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

Both spells disable an opponent. If they happen to be disabled in front of a good PC. That good PC may just kill them ruthlessly. Pulling them towards evil.

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?

Friv
2020-04-07, 12:48 PM
denthor, I'd suggest reading the thread - you got some very good replies, and it'd be a shame not to use them. In reference to your statement:


My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

Both spells disable an opponent. If they happen to be disabled in front of a good PC. That good PC may just kill them ruthlessly. Pulling them towards evil.

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?

Why do you want to make your fellow party members more evil?

(Also, my suspicion is that if you create non-lethal ways to incapacitate people, the more likely outcome is the party thanking you for avoiding violence and praising you for your kind outcomes to dangerous situations...)


I like this...mostly. I quibble over the last clause. I would phrase the third point more thusly:

Evil people help others if it is profitable, and have no problem hurting others.

While there ARE evil people who enjoy hurting others and thus will do so, the implication that all evil people will take opportunity to cause harm just because it's there is incorrect. It implies that you lose your evil cred if you don't kick that puppy that happens to be in convenient reach of your foot, and it also suggests that a person who only hurts others if it profits him (rather than whenever it's convenient) is non-evil.

Sadly, my rephrasing of your third point is not as rhetorically rhythmic as your original version, but I do think it's more accurate.

...

Here, too, I would alter the underlined portion. Not "when it is convenient for accomplishing your goals," but rather "when it makes accomplishing your goals more convenient." Once again, it's a difference over whether you're meeting your mustache-twirling quota for the day, or just don't mind the price for your success as long as you can make others pay it.

Yeah, both of these alterations are spot-on; that was the way I'd written it in my mind, and it lost something I didn't notice when I added creative flourishes to make it sound pithier.

Segev
2020-04-07, 01:39 PM
My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

Both spells disable an opponent. If they happen to be disabled in front of a good PC. That good PC may just kill them ruthlessly. Pulling them towards evil.

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?Not really. Killing foes in combat isn't really a slide-towards-evil thing. And "tricking" your fellow PCs into "being more evil" seems a weird motive. Is your character a priest of some evil religion that you're trying to recruit your party into?


denthor, I'd suggest reading the thread - you got some very good replies, and it'd be a shame not to use them. In reference to your statement:



Why do you want to make your fellow party members more evil?

(Also, my suspicion is that if you create non-lethal ways to incapacitate people, the more likely outcome is the party thanking you for avoiding violence and praising you for your kind outcomes to dangerous situations...)This seems highly likely if they even realize there's no need to finish the monsters off now that they're down.

I think maybe you should try to spell out to us what your motives are, in character, and why you're looking to "be more evil" in the ways you're outlining.


Yeah, both of these alterations are spot-on; that was the way I'd written it in my mind, and it lost something I didn't notice when I added creative flourishes to make it sound pithier.The turn of phrase was glib and witty, and sounded poetic. Sadly, yeah, it altered the meaning. It's sometimes hard to be both precise and poetic.

denthor
2020-04-08, 02:20 PM
For years in this game I was the only good. The rest of the party wanted evil. The killed my mage several times only to say oh **** can we hit the reset button and we will not do that again.

She bribed people not to harass the party over their evil way out of character they all wanted to be evil scum. They paid better.

So the last time they killed my mage knew it was coming got rid of almost all major magic items including a wish to save a peasants life from another prime plane no less. They got nothing in return except a good deed.

I asked them do you want an evil game or do you want my blue 1/2 orc mage back. No answer other then we want a 3rd option.

So the one activity pushing the party evil has missed the 10,000 golp piece price on the head of my 1/2 orc. Allowed a CG cleric her only real NPC contact to sacrificed on an alter. They feel bad that this happened now are all pushing good.

Segev
2020-04-08, 02:23 PM
For years in this game I was the only good. The rest of the party wanted evil. The killed my mage several times only to say oh **** can we hit the reset button and we will not do that again.

She bribed people not to harass the party over their evil way out of character they all wanted to be evil scum. They paid better.

So the last time they killed my mage knew it was coming got rid of almost all major magic items including a wish to save a peasants life from another prime plane no less. They got nothing in return except a good deed.

I asked them do you want an evil game or do you want my blue 1/2 orc mage back. No answer other then we want a 3rd option.

So the one activity pushing the party evil has missed the 10,000 golp piece price on the head of my 1/2 orc. Allowed a CG cleric her only real NPC contact to sacrificed on an alter. They feel bad that this happened now are all pushing good.

I'm not sure I follow. You're playing the only evil character in a good party now because you were the only good character in an evil party for a while? Is that correct?

If I am parsing that right, the reason you want to be evil is just to be evil because it's...what's expected?

I don't think I understand correctly.

denthor
2020-04-08, 03:22 PM
Not the only but they wanted an evil game. the moment I relented and fine now they all want good.


Just not my mage I guess. They still want all the transportation spell I provided. They are complaining that I no longer provide for they do not want to pay.


But yeah. They seem to choose opposite of me

Segev
2020-04-08, 06:18 PM
Not the only but they wanted an evil game. the moment I relented and fine now they all want good.


Just not my mage I guess. They still want all the transportation spell I provided. They are complaining that I no longer provide for they do not want to pay.


But yeah. They seem to choose opposite of me

My advice: play however you want. Don't play to spite them. Don't play to "be evil." Play your character. Not an alignment, and not a role in the party.

paddyfool
2020-04-08, 09:46 PM
Indeed. Success is the best revenge - show them classy evil. Don't go for the backstab unless you're certain your character would see it as being in their own best interests... especially since, once again, it would likely be you versus all of them.

Psyren
2020-04-16, 02:16 PM
Just not my mage I guess. They still want all the transportation spell I provided. They are complaining that I no longer provide for they do not want to pay.


This has nothing to do with your alignment. Do you not want to play a sorcerer unless it has "Evil" written on the sheet?

Bohandas
2020-04-16, 02:21 PM
All you need to be evil as a spellcaster is a cavalier attitude towards collateral damage

Segev
2020-04-16, 02:41 PM
I get the impression that part of the problem here is that the OP has certain expectations of what it means to "play an evil character," or has play goals that are not made clear to us by the phrase "evil character."

It might be helpful for the OP to explain what his goals are with this character. I think we're missing something important, since a lot of the OP's responses sound like we're having two different conversations, to me. This suggests to me that we might sound the same way to him.

denthor
2020-04-16, 07:06 PM
I tend to play different characters. I do not like blaster mages for instance. I dread putting my party in the blast radius. So with the now dead mage I ran a universal mage that had 20% necromancy

Tiny hut drove my DM crazy he hated that spell gave us invisibility pick a square, then 50/50 cover then light to see out and needed a hurricane to get rid of.

I had the 3rd level spell phantom steed at 11th level caster. The thing walked on water. DM hated it they loved .

I ran what most people would call upon an NPC mage.

My DM has been famous for this quote "You just want to fight sheep in a pen with magic items strapped to their neck!" Being how he set up his game world I took 5th level spell break enchantment. We ran up against a basilisk. As you know they turn beings to stone. Spell specifically state it will turn them back to flesh.
Enraged my DM. I have the party go in 3 each locate all statues within 1/4 mile. If they can bring them back. Fine if not mark on ground where they are. Break enchantment turns them to flesh they may not survive the return get items. I turned back 5 DM tells I am not giving you any more magic item do use that spell again.
Party got mad me off not giving them enough treasure if we were evil we would not give any of this back. We got a wish for my spell casting because I pressed on wasted spell slots on spells like that.

My party would outright kill me for putting them inside the radius of a cone of fear I took a feat that up the DC to a save of 20 no damage to them. They killed this mage 7 times. Said a fireball was fine.

They did not like the combo of spectral hand and vampiric touch. They felt 2 rounds to do damage was just wrong fireball we do not care if were in it see above.

All the while they would make comments like were giving the treasure. Being good sucks your th he only one. In this game the natives would work with you if you took care of threats would declare you outlaws if you harmed them. My party wanted to harm them. They wanted evil.

So now after they murdered my mage again, I decided to go evil as they wished 4 sessions ago they lost all of my support spells. Current character wants to help the party be worthy of the lower planes. Upon hearing my intentions they are all neutral being good.

They want an evil game not me. I will do evil right. They now have changed the tune after I started. So I must push them evil. Get them to go against their better judgment. Because after 5 years they finally understand what I was saying. Now that their 5 teleports a day are gone. They in game called me weak and worthless for not having more per day at 11th level.

This virus has been the best thing no game.

denthor
2020-04-16, 07:12 PM
I tend to play different characters. I do not like blaster mages for instance. I dread putting my party in the blast radius. So with the now dead mage I ran a universal mage that had 20% necromancy

Tiny hut drove my DM crazy he hated that spell gave us invisibility pick a square, then 50/50 cover then light to see out and needed a hurricane to get rid of.

I had the 3rd level spell phantom steed at 11th level caster. The thing walked on water. DM hated it they loved .

I ran what most people would call upon an NPC mage.

My DM has been famous for this quote "You just want to fight sheep in a pen with magic items strapped to their neck!" Being how he set up his game world I took 5th level spell break enchantment. We ran up against a basilisk. As you know they turn beings to stone. Spell specifically state it will turn them back to flesh.
Enraged my DM. I have the party go in 3 each locate all statues within 1/4 mile. If they can bring them back. Fine if not mark on ground where they are. Break enchantment turns them to flesh they may not survive the return get items. I turned back 5 DM tells I am not giving you any more magic item do use that spell again.
Party got mad me off not giving them enough treasure if we were evil we would not give any of this back. We got a wish for my spell casting because I pressed on wasted spell slots on spells like that.

My party would outright kill me for putting them inside the radius of a cone of fear I took a feat that up the DC to a save of 20 no damage to them. They killed this mage 7 times. Said a fireball was fine.

They did not like the combo of spectral hand and vampiric touch. They felt 2 rounds to do damage was just wrong fireball we do not care if were in it see above.

All the while they would make comments like were giving the treasure. Being good sucks your th he only one. In this game the natives would work with you if you took care of threats would declare you outlaws if you harmed them. My party wanted to harm them. They wanted evil.

So now after they murdered my mage again, I decided to go evil as they wished 4 sessions ago they lost all of my support spells. Current character wants to help the party be worthy of the lower planes. Upon hearing my intentions they are all neutral being good.

They want an evil game not me. I will do evil right. They now have changed the tune after I started. So I must push them evil. Get them to go against their better judgment. Because after 5 years they finally understand what I was saying. Now that their 5 teleports a day are gone. They in game called me weak and worthless for not having more per day at 11th level.

This virus has been the best thing no game. I want them to eat babies that is how evil I want to push them. I am upset they would not consider doing good with the prior character. Actively said I was holding hem back from a fun game. So now evil me stating I will be playing an evil they are now attempting to change their collective minds. I took all the falls and reproach for their actions no more.

Then I get a good cleric singing my praises for saving them all. When the truth is I was just saving myself heedless and with disregard of how it helped the others.

Saint-Just
2020-04-16, 10:21 PM
denthor, from looking at your posts you are most likely more experienced with D&D than I (at least if we count sessions or hours)...and yet you are still bringing out-of-character motivation into the game.

As weird as your examples sound it looks like they could be honest attempts at roleplaying (and in fact if they were roleplaying "evil *******s" that was a good roleplaying; DMs usually caution players not to create non-cooperative characters, but that's for out-of-game reasons, not because such characters are implausible). Meanwhile your motivations seem to be entirely out-of-character (it's you who want other guys' player characters to fall, not the sorcerer who wants these people to fall).

About that "in game called me weak and worthless" - it seems like it's worth focusing on. I'll note in passing that unless you abide by certain roleplay conventions nigh unheard of in D&D they didn't call you weak and worthless, they called your character. It could be an honest attempt to roleplay a bullying personality, it could be actually getting dig at you (and not your character). Same could be said about good cleric praising your evil character - may be roleplay (given his imperfect information) may be something less desirable at the table. In any case there seems to be reason for out-of game communication and not for trying to one-up them. And if after that you still want to corrupt their characters (as opposed to letting it lie, or ditching the game altogether or anything in-between) then godspeed to you.

RazorChain
2020-04-17, 01:08 AM
The Devil is sometimes in the details. One of my player characters had just cast control limb and taken control of both arms of his opponent who had a knife. So I asked him what his next action was and he answered "I make him cut his throat". Ok I prompted and what is your next action after that and he answered "I watch him cut his throat while I look into his eyes and make sure the last thing he sees is my grinning face" and then my player smiled sweetly while the rest of the table fell quiet. Oh what a beautiful evil character that turned out to be.

paddyfool
2020-04-17, 03:11 AM
A lot of the issues seem to be an ooc antagonistic relationship with the other players rather than ic issues. Maybe consider whether the relationship with the other players is something you'd like to fix... and if so, how you'd go about that.

In the meantime, keep striving for moments of awesome evil in game of one kind or another that don't sabotage the other players' fun. If you find yourself being tempted by bitterness towards other players, remember to both keep the game and real life separate, and that success is the best revenge.

Or secretly discuss with the DM if you could have your PC be swayed to the side of the antagonists, and plot your way to a sudden and horrific betrayal within the larger storyline. That works too (but be prepared for the fact that your PC will likely die and not be rez'd unless as an NPC if you go down this route).

Segev
2020-04-17, 08:19 AM
This does sound like an OOC problem. Discuss with the players what they want the game to be. Build a character that fits in with the party.

If you do succeed in tempting them into evil, I doubt it will feel like a victory; they’ve played evil before and it’s just them slipping into old habits. If they’re playing good characters now, play the mage you wanted to play before.

But do discuss this with the players and DM out of character. You’re clearly upset by how the game has been going for a while. “Showing them” isn’t going to make it better, nor you feel better; it will just make them mad at you while you feel picked-on because you’ll feel like you’re held to standards they never were.

You don’t need to “play more evil.” You need to play in alignment with the party, and they with you. Discuss this with them. Let them know what you’ve told us, that you feel unappreciated and that you don’t like how you or your characters have been treated. Discuss solutions.

If they’re your friends, they want you to have fun as much as they do. If they’re not...stop playing with them. You won’t win if they’re just bullying you; the rules will continue to change to “justify” your character being on the outs.

denthor
2020-04-17, 08:11 PM
Do the cleric in and had a 3 hour chat. Should note he is not the problem. I am upset with myself for getting his character praising me. He knows my spell selection and brought up a really good point. My character is not being brutal enough, he is attempting to get a redemption arc.

He would prefer I not sway the party evil. He also knows the friend that brought him to the table is causing problems like stealing from the party. He is also the character that took my mage out. His character got hanged for it. Leaving a player with 4 months of experience total the cleric party leader.

To Red Fel point the party leader does enjoy my counterculture to his. I get to continue what I am doing.

This campaign has been painful to me from the beginning denthor does not like boats in real life. We are based on a ship.

We agreed I get to be in charge the NPC'S handle most of the details of their deployment. He selects the NPC'S.

We will after this enforced break we may just start as first level.

Bohandas
2020-04-18, 12:05 AM
Glitterdust is more for blinding people

OldTrees1
2020-04-18, 12:29 PM
I am upset with myself for getting his character praising me. He knows my spell selection and brought up a really good point. My character is not being brutal enough

That sounds like a mistaken point, not a good point.

A good character might set out to do good for good's sake. They might see benevolence, being nice, being charitable, being helpful, etc as an end in and of itself.

However Evil rarely ever sees malice, harm, or brutality as an end in itself. Who in their right mind would willingly enslave themselves? Attempting evil for evil's sake, aka being evil as an end in and of itself, is willingly enslaving yourself. You would become a paragon of self sacrifice as you find yourself constantly sacrificing your own self interest merely to cause some suffering. Nobody does that for its own sake.

Instead Evil has its own goals that it promote. Instead of constant self sacrifice, imagine what does your character imagine their ideal life being? What do they want that they don't currently have? Immortality? A kingdom? Wealth? Health? Sex? A cult of worshippers? A devoted fan base? A pet snake cat octopus?

Likewise Evil is not limited in its methods. Good will avoid Evil acts because it wants to do Good for its own sake. However Evil does not care if it does Good or Evil acts. All it cares about is whether the acts promote their goals. If charity helps create the cult Dr Malvin desires, then charity will be done. If blood sacrifices help create the cult Dr Malvin desires, then blood sacrifices will be done. Dr Malvin doesn't care which happens, and that is why they are Evil. Evil is the willingness to do Malice, not a requirement to do Malice.

There are two exceptions to this rule:
1) Evil that knowingly does Evil for Good's sake.
2) Evil that unknowing does Evil for Good's sake.
Both of these are examples of Evil characters that believe they are Good. While this is a common character concept I don't think you are going for either of these.

In summary: An evil character will probably be less, not more brutal than you have been. And an evil character might even relish in the goodly priest's naivety. Now if the circumstance presents itself where you gain more than you lose from an act of malice, do that act of malice. Remember your allies are useful pawns, therefore losing their free labor would be a heavy opportunity cost. So don't burn bridges if you don't have to.

Bohandas
2020-04-21, 12:20 PM
Also, an evil guy could theoreticalky do good things alk the time if they do them in an evil way.

Picture this: A guy comes along and snatches an old lady's purse. The old lady shouts that she's been robbed. Hearing this the evil hero picks up a child and tosses them forcefully at the purse snatcher, knocking him down. The child and purse snatcher are now both bleeding on the ground clutching broken legs, allowing our evil hero to retrieve the purse and return it to the old lady

Segev
2020-04-21, 01:11 PM
Also, an evil guy could theoreticalky do good things alk the time if they do them in an evil way.

Picture this: A guy comes along and snatches an old lady's purse. The old lady shouts that she's been robbed. Hearing this the evil hero picks up a child and tosses them forcefully at the purse snatcher, knocking him down. The child and purse snatcher are now both bleeding on the ground clutching broken legs, allowing our evil hero to retrieve the purse and return it to the old lady

As a warning, this is either black comedy material (a la Richard from Looking For Group, or the Addams Family in general), or horrific. And either way is "cartoonishly evil."

Bohandas
2020-05-05, 12:50 PM
Continuing this line of investigation, of how one can be both evil and heroic, here is a parable I wrote for another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561642-Deities-and-Legends-for-Everyone/page4):

Yet Another Parable of the Abyss

There is a story tody in the Abyss of a country ensnared by the devils.

The baatezu had insinuated themselves into a country and manipulated its economy to be reliant on slavery for food production and thus convince the populace to support slavery, therefore ensnaring their souls for Hell.

Representatives of the planes of Celestia, and Arborea, and the Abyss followed the devils into this land to stop them.

The Celestial Archons came to the corrupted nation and insinuated themselves into the government as the devils had before them, and began a long, slow, and inneffectual process of reform.

The Eladrins of Arvandor came to the corrupted nation and began a piecemeal and ineffective process of sneaking slaves out one by one.

Then the wise Demons came to the corrupted nation. They slew the masters, and that slew slave catchers, and they slew the families and business partners thereof, and they slew any other living being - man or beast, slave or free - who happened upon them during the slaughter. They cut them into hundreds of pieces, and strung the bloody flesh onto necklaces. Then they burned the crops and all the stores of food, and they sowed the land with salt so that nothing would grow again.

Thus by the forces of the Abyss was the land freed of Devilish influence.

Segev
2020-05-05, 01:35 PM
Continuing this line of investigation, of how one can be both evil and heroic, here is a parable I wrote for another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?561642-Deities-and-Legends-for-Everyone/page4):

Yet Another Parable of the Abyss

There is a story tody in the Abyss of a country ensnared by the devils.

The baatezu had insinuated themselves into a country and manipulated its economy to be reliant on slavery for food production and thus convince the populace to support slavery, therefore ensnaring their souls for Hell.

Representatives of the planes of Celestia, and Arborea, and the Abyss followed the devils into this land to stop them.

The Celestial Archons came to the corrupted nation and insinuated themselves into the government as the devils had before them, and began a long, slow, and inneffectual process of reform.

The Eladrins of Arvandor came to the corrupted nation and began a piecemeal and ineffective process of sneaking slaves out one by one.

Then the wise Demons came to the corrupted nation. They slew the masters, and that slew slave catchers, and they slew the families and business partners thereof, and they slew any other living being - man or beast, slave or free - who happened upon them during the slaughter. They cut them into hundreds of pieces, and strung the bloody flesh onto necklaces. Then they burned the crops and all the stores of food, and they sowed the land with salt so that nothing would grow again.

Thus by the forces of the Abyss was the land freed of Devilish influence.

Perhaps this is part of the hidden point of the parable, but these "wise" demons seem to have consigned the entire country's souls to Hell, just as the devils planned.

Bohandas
2020-05-05, 03:07 PM
However, they've "sowed the land with salt" from the devils' prespective as well. The devils no longer have that steady supply of souls not that foothold in the world.

Friv
2020-05-06, 10:59 AM
Oh, the devils have plenty of influence.

These so-called wise demons have killed the ruling powers, slave-catchers, and the people who do business with them, and then destroyed all of the region's food. In doing so, they have displaced the millions of people who were not part of the ruling elite, but did believe that the current system worked. They've probably killed most of the slaves, since they're killing everyone who happens upon them has been slaughtered. And since we're assuming that the devils are still paying attention (since if they weren't the demon attack wouldn't affect them at all,) they'll be helping the refugees. Just huge numbers of desperate, starving people who have literal devils on their shoulders encouraging them to do bad things in order to survive.

So, in addition to not saving anybody, the demons have committed genocide and also created dozens or hundreds of new devil-cults. They've done zero good and ultimate evil.

(This parable also assumes that the Celestial approaches don't work because (...) and then just kind of keeps going. The demons have enough manpower to raze a country to the ground, but the Celestials don't have the power to move all the slaves out of the area? The Archons have instituted reform processes that are ineffectual, even though the devils were able to change the whole country's power structure? Why is that? Just to say that murder is the best approach?)

Bohandas
2020-05-06, 11:13 AM
(This parable also assumes that the Celestial approaches don't work because (...) and then just kind of keeps going. The demons have enough manpower to raze a country to the ground, but the Celestials don't have the power to move all the slaves out of the area?

A lot of powerful outsiders have self-only teleportation powers. These powers are of limited usefulness to the eladrins, who need to get out with other people, but useful to the demons, who can use scry-and-die tactics.

As for burning down the countryside, that relies on fire having a tendency to spread.


The Archons have instituted reform processes that are ineffectual, even though the devils were able to change the whole country's power structure? Why is that? Just to say that murder is the best approach?)

It's ineffectual in the sense of being slow and not producing immediate results.

Segev
2020-05-06, 11:17 AM
So, in addition to not saving anybody, the demons have committed genocide and also created dozens or hundreds of new devil-cults. They've done zero good and ultimate evil.


To be fair, they're demons. "Ultimate evil" is a plus, not a minus, to them. No, the problem is that they've also encouraged these people to seek out Lawful solutions to the Chaotic problem. Chaos has done nothing but ruin their formerly-comfortable lives, and now Law is encouraging them to rebuild and helping them to do so.

The demons have aided the cause of the devils by providing the very proof the devils needed that chaos is the people's enemy, and good is as undesirable as chaos (since the reforms were also going to be uncomfortable and doubtless can be spun as weakening the society to enable the demons to succeed).

So the demons have sent those they slaughtered to hell, and pushed the survivors more firmly into the devils' arms.

Bohandas
2020-05-06, 11:31 AM
The idea was to make further institutionalized slavery untenable via the mechanism of a complete breakdown of law and order

Friv
2020-05-06, 11:47 AM
A lot of powerful outsiders have self-only teleportation powers. These powers are of limited usefulness to the eladrins, who need to get out with other people, but useful to the demons, who can use scry-and-die tactics.

As for burning down the countryside, that relies on fire having a tendency to spread.

So why aren't the devils responding to calls for aid from their cultists, providing them with anti-demon weapons, and whatnot? Why aren't the eladrins following in the demons wake and saving innocents from their claws? Why aren't they, I don't know, fighting fires, say? Stopping crops from burning?

The demons have all the power because the parable wants them to have all the power. There are no forces who can fight them, and the other supernatural forces present appear to have agreed not to even try.


It's ineffectual in the sense of being slow and not producing immediate results.

That's not what ineffectual means. Ineffectual means "won't produce results", not "won't produce results fast enough for my liking."

And that's not a quibble. It is essential to the parable that the methods of Good be ineffectual, because otherwise the demons are not committing a heroic act; they're committing an act of impatience and cruelty. If the demons hadn't killed literally everyone, or if they'd been stopped, the archons could have reformed the society and created a land whose souls were empowering Good forever. If the eladrin had functional ways of saving slaves, instead of just going for a "sneak them out of the country more slowly than new slaves are being snuck in", the demons are slaughtered millions of people who would otherwise have been saved; hardly a heroic act.

And while that is definitely demonic, you presented this parable as an example of how to be both heroic and evil, so that can't be the goal.

Bohandas
2020-05-06, 12:10 PM
Also the other reason its ineffectual is that the devils political manipulations came in unopposed by any existing supernatural force, but the archons conversely have to oppose the entrenched devils to get them out.

aglondier
2020-05-08, 05:40 AM
I played a NE Red Wizard of Thay in a Dalelands campaign for years. I worked for, and believed in the mission of, an evil organisation. I had selfish goals, and sought power for my own ends. I took any advantage I could, without regard to conventional morality.

That said, my mission was basically to generate good PR for the Thayan Trade Enclaves. I had a little red book with a set of rules on "how to be heroic" and, despite not really getting it, followed the rules. Things like "don't kill the common peasants", "collateral damage is not really acceptable", and "torturing captives is not heroic"...

Hilariously, my NE selfish minion of evil type character was the party's voice of reason and morality far too often...

Segev
2020-05-08, 09:51 AM
I played a NE Red Wizard of Thay in a Dalelands campaign for years. I worked for, and believed in the mission of, an evil organisation. I had selfish goals, and sought power for my own ends. I took any advantage I could, without regard to conventional morality.

That said, my mission was basically to generate good PR for the Thayan Trade Enclaves. I had a little red book with a set of rules on "how to be heroic" and, despite not really getting it, followed the rules. Things like "don't kill the common peasants", "collateral damage is not really acceptable", and "torturing captives is not heroic"...

Hilariously, my NE selfish minion of evil type character was the party's voice of reason and morality far too often...

I played a Fiend-Caste Infernal Exalt in a game with mostly Infernals, but unlike mine, most were Exalted by an unorthodox process that never gave them connection to the Yozis (think "Elder Evils" and you are close enough) that makes Infernals ACTUALLY typically evil. Mine was sent to investigate this Circle of Infernals who had never been indoctrinated, and to try to lure them to serve the Yozis anyway.

Black Hole Sun Shining in the Darkness, my character, was a really nice teenager, but also was willing to do "what was necessary" for his goals, even if it saddened or hurt him. He frequently would be the one, when the party was going over options, to point out the full consequences of what they were discussing, and explain what would be necessary to pull off some of their ploys that, on examination, turn out to be pretty dark. He came off as warning them against these things, and the voice of morality and restraint, and they'd wind up arguing with him about the necessity and going and doing it.

Shining got all sorts of kudos from his dark masters for his masterful corruption of this group, and all he had to do was be a very clear moral compass with good insight into how to achieve nefarious ends, because the party chose "necessity" over morality four times out of five.