PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying a CE Character



WhiteShark
2008-11-27, 04:23 AM
For a recently started campaign, I decided to play a Dread Necromancer since they looked cool. I glanced at the alignment restriction, and I realized I couldn't play my normal LG paragon of hope and justice type character, so I decided to take it to the other extreme: CE.

However, a recent session with this character proved very discouraging for my new alignment choice. My character planned to kill an NPC for punching him, and the rest of the party felt like it would destroy the group (even if no one found out).

So, playgrounders, I have come to ask this: how I can play a CE character without tearing apart my group?

Zen Master
2008-11-27, 04:28 AM
Well - being CE certainly means you might *want* to kill someone for punching you. Hell, you might want to kill someone for breathing down your neck while waiting in line at the local inn.

But it does not necesarrily mean you are going to. Even as CE, you are entitled to priorities. You may decide it's just not as important to kill a complete stranger for no really good reason as it is to remain with your reliable, profitable 'friends' and fight the 'good' fight to win gold, experience and fame. Possibly getting girls too.

Also, if said commoner dies from a horrible wasting disease days after your party leaves the inn, who can say where he contracted that Deathpox? And really, commoners have such disgusting social habits.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 04:36 AM
Also, if said commoner dies from a horrible wasting disease days after your party leaves the inn, who can say where he contracted that Deathpox? And really, commoners have such disgusting social habits.
See? The great thing about being Chaotic lies in finding imaginative solutions to your problems. :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2008-11-27, 04:55 AM
You're chaotic and evil, not stupid and incapable of restraint. Figure out what the character wants and have him pursue that without moral or ethical qualms, but don't have him needlessly antagonize useful allies.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 06:10 AM
The easiest way to play a CE character well - you're extremely selfish and will do anything that gives you benefits (unless risks are higher than potential profits), and you don't care about crap like the well-being of others, honesty, and stuff like that. You can still be friends with the others - just because you're evil doesn't mean you cannot be loyal to anyone.

Watch Firefly. Jayne is a perfect example of an evil character in an otherwise good/neutral party.

BobVosh
2008-11-27, 06:46 AM
You are not an unreasonable man. You just want things done quickly, efficently, and preferrably with no remaining trail leading to you. Decide what you want, get it done. Simple as that. Bonus points for the meat around you liking you and thinking you are a good, and honorable, man.

Don't go Joker on em, don't go stupid stupid, chaotic stupid, and stupid evil. Since you are a necromancer you should have the use and feel of minions. Disguising zombies and other fleshy undead as humans/w.e should be done. "Oh no, some citizen slaughtered this citizen!" Just make sure to make each situation happen when you are out of the area, and unique enough that even if the party heard it doesn't sound like the same thing.

Belial_the_Leveler
2008-11-27, 07:00 AM
Find the man's house. Cloudkill his family. Animate them as zombies. Command them to grapple and eat whoever comes in the house.

Avilan the Grey
2008-11-27, 07:04 AM
I agree wit the answers above, especially Acramos.
Remember that just like you wouldn't play Lawful Stupid, you don't play Stupid Evil. Or Chaotic Stupid.

Restraints, calculations and yes, at rare occasions, true friendship, will rule the day.
And remember, just because you are an evil b****rd does not mean you're not in love, or have a kid brother you would protect, or an elderly mother that you feel responsible for...

You don't kill people like a cat going after a fly, uncontrollable, instinctive and "screw the consequences". You mutter something under your breath, and you might (if you play a character with a long memory and a fascination for revenge) go after them later, maybe as much as 10 years later, after you have secured your power base, raised your undead army and killed the king.
Or you will most likely let it go, because people like that are just beneath you.

Oh and Belkar is a fairly good example of a realistic chaotic evil character, at least at the times when he does not kill innocent people in front of others.

Demented
2008-11-27, 07:24 AM
From the sound of it, your party just can't handle Evil characters. :p
Maybe you'll have to settle for "Evil Light".

That is, do small annoying things that clearly underline your lack of morals but fall short of actually killing anyone or actively threatening innocents.

Express enthusiasm for violence; 'borrow' when nobody's looking; look stereotypically evil.

Expressing enthusiasm for killing/harming things is almost as good (or is that 'evil') as actually killing things. It doesn't matter if the rest of your party actually does more of the killing/harming than you do, sometimes it's all in the presentation.

Aergoth
2008-11-27, 07:30 AM
Right so: I'm just going to breaky this up:
Chaotic; you don't have to give a damn about what you're doing helps or harms anyone else. You can do the whole "moral flip-flop/ Face Heel Turn" as much or as little as you want, with out great consequences if you're neutral.

Evil: You're self-serving, unnecessarily cruel, and your lust for blood/killing shows through much of the time. Given the choice between killing the swine and using speak to dead to get the information and torture... well, I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. You're the tyrant, the mastermind, the one pulling the strings. You advocate killing enemies

Chaotic Evil: Not Stupid Jerk, got it? You want to play up both of these strongly. One day you might advocate just roughing up the guy, the next you hack their head off without batting an eyelash. You're unpredictable and you're allowed to things that "good" characters wouldn't.

Riffington
2008-11-27, 07:40 AM
I think some of the people have been alluding to this, but I just wanted to say it explicitly. The majority of CE people have never killed anyone. CE people are likely to want revenge on those who harm them, but that revenge need not be violent. Getting his best friend mad at him, stealing his horse, seducing his wife, starting a rumor about him... all are evil but nonviolent.
Obviously, a Dread Necromancer might be more likely to be violent than the average Commoner. Also Dread Necromancers might not fit into certain parties - regardless of alignment.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 07:42 AM
Watch Firefly. Jayne is a perfect example of an evil character in an otherwise good/neutral party.
Late-series Jayne is Chaotic Neutral!

*breaks down sobbing and runs away*

Eloel
2008-11-27, 07:43 AM
Just make sure you're not near Paladins and you'll be OK

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 07:51 AM
I think some of the people have been alluding to this, but I just wanted to say it explicitly. The majority of CE people have never killed anyone.
Evil definitionally implies hurting, killing, or oppressing others. If you haven't killed someone, then you've done something just as bad in order to be Evil.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 07:53 AM
Oh and Belkar is a fairly good example of a realistic chaotic evil character, at least at the times when he does not kill innocent people in front of others.

Emphasis mine. He's more of a parody of the "stock evil character in an otherwise good group" than anything. If he wasn't a PC, he'd get killed by the others a long time ago.


From the sound of it, your party just can't handle Evil characters. :p


You're making it sound like a bad thing.


I think some of the people have been alluding to this, but I just wanted to say it explicitly. The majority of CE people have never killed anyone. CE people are likely to want revenge on those who harm them, but that revenge need not be violent. Getting his best friend mad at him, stealing his horse, seducing his wife, starting a rumor about him... all are evil but nonviolent.
Obviously, a Dread Necromancer might be more likely to be violent than the average Commoner. Also Dread Necromancers might not fit into certain parties - regardless of alignment.

So you're saying that revenge is an inherently evil act? I am not sure do I agree. I am not sure do I agree with the "the majority of CE people have never killed anyone" statement, either - just being a jerkwad is not enough to be evil in my book, you have to actively hurt others in some way.


Late-series Jayne is Chaotic Neutral!

*breaks down sobbing and runs away*

For me, Serenity Jayne is Chaotic Neutral. Firefly Jayne is CE or NE, with neutral tendencies.

Shades of Gray
2008-11-27, 07:54 AM
You don't BECOME evil once you perform an evil deed. A man may think about torturing people his entire life, but he many not have broken the law. That man is still evil.

Eloel
2008-11-27, 07:56 AM
You don't BECOME evil once you perform an evil deed. A man may think about torturing people his entire life, but he many not have broken the law. That man is still evil.

Those are different axis, there are LE characters...

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 07:58 AM
You don't BECOME evil once you perform an evil deed. A man may think about torturing people his entire life, but he many not have broken the law. That man is still evil.

Depends. Would he torture someone if given the opportunity? If yes, then he's evil. If not, and torturing people is just a fantasy that stays in his head and will never leave it, then that alone doesn't make him evil.


Those are different axis, there are LE characters...

Breaking the law is usually a chaotic act, but it can also be an evil one, and sometimes it's neither chaotic nor evil.

mikej
2008-11-27, 08:06 AM
Alignment issues always puzzle me, I seen far too much slide with people playing chaotic neutral or picking a alignment just because of the class restriction or PrC choice and never playing it right or cheating it. It annoys me to see someone play " Lawfull Good " Monk are never play it except write it down because the book said soo.

Chaotic Evil in general is in many cases worse the CN because you don't care if you kill someone and your DM says " your alignment is going to switch to Evil ". I wouldn't allow any of my players to play that alignment and how the overlook alignment in general ( above mentioned ) I strongly thought of banning CN alignment just too remove the immediate headaches.

Alignment is a base to start off with...not the entire manual on how to play such character. In my opinion to get the whole character and how he/she acts look at alignment and the mental stats. Right now I'm playing a CE vampire wizard, she has Int 22/Wis 12/Chr 20. Now she can go around killing people that look at her the wrong way but since she is intelligent she just plan out there death or better corupted someone else into doing it. If it was lesser stats maybe the snap at any moment and kill people would also be believable.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 08:11 AM
Alignment is a base to start off with...not the entire manual on how to play such character. In my opinion to get the whole character and how he/she acts look at alignment and the mental stats. Right now I'm playing a CE vampire wizard, she has Int 22/Wis 12/Chr 20. Now she can go around killing people that look at her the wrong way but since she is intelligent she just plan out there death or better corupted someone else into doing it. If it was lesser stats maybe the snap at any moment and kill people would also be believable.

Which is exactly what the majority of people suggested here - just because you're evil doesn't mean you're stupid and kill people for no reason.

Most non-DND games ditched alignment long ago, anyway. If they even had something like that in the first place. Alignment is a relic - what is the point of it when a character already has a described and complex personality?

Kami2awa
2008-11-27, 08:12 AM
Black Mage from 8-Bit theatre is a good example of how a CE character can get along with a stereotypical D&D group.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 08:15 AM
Black Mage from 8-Bit theatre is a good example of how a CE character can get along with a stereotypical D&D group.

I assume that's sarcasm.

random11
2008-11-27, 08:19 AM
You're chaotic and evil, not stupid and incapable of restraint. Figure out what the character wants and have him pursue that without moral or ethical qualms, but don't have him needlessly antagonize useful allies.

I'll second that.

"ARRRG I'm EVIL" is not the only way to play CE.
The best way to play a character that the group will tolerate, is to think about your character's goals, then decide that the CE alignment comes from your decision to reach that goal at any cost, and role play it that way.

For example, you can be generally a good and helpful man, that became totally irrational from need to revenge someone for something.
You will see any task that will not contribute to your goal as a waste of time, and become dangerously violent when looking for clues about your target.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 09:16 AM
You don't BECOME evil once you perform an evil deed.
Quite correct. You'd have to perform several to an extent that is at least as bad as killing someone. By alignment definition.

A man may think about torturing people his entire life, but he many not have broken the law. That man is still evil.
Then he has found other ways to hurt, kill, or oppress people that are valid within legal boundaries. No amount of thinking about or wanting to do something will affect your alignment until you go and actually do it.

But yeah, putting a CE character in a mostly G-aligned party is probably going to be problematic- you'll need to be very smart and very sneaky to find a way to reconcile selfish, short-term interests with whatever over-arching plot structure the group is following. Lawful Evil characters are generally easier to work with, since they tend to be better at working in a group, following orders, cementing affiliations and pursuing long-term ambitions that make keeping odd company 'just for now' more plausible. Heck, even CG can be a pain in the ass...

Athaniar
2008-11-27, 09:20 AM
Alignment is a relic - what is the point of it when a character already has a described and complex personality?

See, that's exactly what I think, too.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 09:22 AM
See, that's exactly what I think, too.
It provides you with a quick and straightforward method for determining which monsters you meet require smiting.

...I'm sorry, but that's basically what it boils down to.

Rad
2008-11-27, 09:30 AM
I would also mention this article on this very website. The relevant part is the second half (scroll down until you see the bold title of the second section):
Making tough decisions: (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)
where Rich explores the whole issue in a very clear and practically useful way.

banjo1985
2008-11-27, 09:38 AM
It's important that you have a group that will actually agree to have a CE character amongst them, which many will not.

Evil works best in a non-evil party when it's undercover, and can do it's evil deeds without destroying the goals of the rest of the party. For example, you have a party of generally good characters, who require information from a captive. Said captive refuses to talk. CE character can get the info, he's an expert torturer, but seems to enjoy it rather too much. Do the party let him get the info, no matter the cost? After all, it's useful to them too.

There is room for an evil character in a non-evil party, but an outright lunatic killer isn't really going to fit. In the OP's case it sounds fairly reasonable for his character to swear a grim death on the NPC that punched him. Thing is, it's the players that are bringing him down rather than the characters. The characters don't necessarily know that the NPC's house burns down the day after with him in it. An evil character won't ruin a group if played maturely, and if the other players are mature enough to let it happen.

Zen Master
2008-11-27, 09:42 AM
Evil definitionally implies hurting, killing, or oppressing others. If you haven't killed someone, then you've done something just as bad in order to be Evil.

I'd say that's debatable. You can do a great many evil things without killing anyone. Heck, you can do evil things without hurting anyone, as such.

Whom amongst these men is good? Who is neutral?

The boss of the mining concern in afrika, who violent displaces peasants on the land he wants to dig for diamonds or precious metals.

The Sandline mercenary, who does the violent displacement.

The dutch diamond cutter, who buys stones in full knowledge of how they were obtained.

The random girl who wears the ring - and reads the papers, and thus has reason to suspect how the stone was obtained.

See - the above was the easy one. How about this:

The mining boss bought the land of a landowner. The peasants who live there are now squatters, and the boss calls the local law enforcement to (violently or otherwise) remove the squatters. These people are now doomed to starvation.

The boss is legally in his right. The police man in question is taking entirely legal orders from his boss. But in effect, the second example is identical to the first.

So who goes to Hell? Maybe all of us :)

Teeka
2008-11-27, 10:33 AM
At the moment I'm playing the only evil character in an otherwise good group, and maybe my group and DM are a bit different than most, but things are working out fine for us.

The way I play my character is that he has different motivations from the rest of the group. For instance, if the party were asked to stop a group of goblins from attacking a town, the rest of the party would see it as protecting innocent people from savage monsters, while he would think of it as killing for fun and profit, not to mention people will regard him as a hero once it's over. His alignment doesn't stop him from working with the rest of the group, it just gives him different reasons for doing what the others are doing.

I see the challenge of an evil character as being to figure out why he sticks with a good aligned group. You don't just have him do random evil things, you think of how he can work with the group in an evil way. Evil people can still have friends and maybe a party member is a friend of his. You can have him be evil in small ways like not wanting to take prisoners, failing to see the point allowing enemy noncombatants to live, being quick to suggest torture as a way to get information from a captured foe, taking pleasure in killing enemies rather than just seeing it as something that needs to be done. Evil doesn't need to hurt the party and it shouldn't stop him from being a team player, after all they are helping him towards his goals, whatever you determine those goals to be.

If your character is a necromancer you need to figure out why he would want to travel with the group and what he can do to benefit them and build the character from there. The important thing to remember is that you are in control of your character and his alignment isn't what determines his actions, you use his alignment to explain his motivation for his actions.

Or at least that's how my group does things. It might be totally different for everyone else.

Riffington
2008-11-27, 10:35 AM
So you're saying that revenge is an inherently evil act? I am not sure do I agree. I am not sure do I agree with the "the majority of CE people have never killed anyone" statement, either - just being a jerkwad is not enough to be evil in my book, you have to actively hurt others in some way.


Obviously revenge tends towards evil (though good people are often tempted towards it).
You are correct that evil people have to actively hurt others in some way. That way can be theft, cruel jokes, spreading gossip, etc. It does not have to involve physical harm.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 10:46 AM
I'd say that's debatable.
No, no, it really isn't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil).

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.


The boss of the mining concern in afrika, who violent displaces peasants on the land he wants to dig for diamonds or precious metals.
Oppressing! If they starve as a consequence, also hurting, and possibly killing! And yes, everybody else involved, directly or indirectly, is to a greater or lesser degree complicit!

The mining boss bought the land of a landowner. The peasants who live there are now squatters, and the boss calls the local law enforcement to (violently or otherwise) remove the squatters. These people are now doomed to starvation.
Unequivocally Evil! Law/Chaos has a separate axis for a reason!

TheCountAlucard
2008-11-27, 11:01 AM
So, playgrounders, I have come to ask this: how I can play a CE character without tearing apart my group?

Easy. Play the character, not the alignment. Alignment's purpose is to be a guideline to players about how a character of that alignment might behave, but it's ultimately up to the player to decide just how the character interacts with the world.

EDIT: Just so you know, I kinda skimmed this thread after it started turning into an argument, so if someone had already posted something like this, I apologize...

Zen Master
2008-11-27, 11:13 AM
No, no, it really isn't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil).

Sorry - but it most certainly is. The whole alignment system is the thinnest, most inexcusably crappy approximation of anything useful in D&D ever. Also, how it should be roleplayed isn't anything the books have any say on what so ever.

paddyfool
2008-11-27, 11:28 AM
Play the character, not the alignment.

Seconded for truth. If your chaotic evil necromancy has no motivation, no personality beyond "being evil and chaotic and doing necromancy", then there's no fun in playing him. But all of the following would be chaotic evil character types that might turn to necromancy and might work at least moderately well with a good-aligned party:

- A manipulator. Likes necromancy because of the way it can be used to (a) make person-shaped puppets, and (b) scare the bejebus out of people. Would be nice to the party according to their utility value and how easily he could manoevre them into being helpful. Would respond to a slap in the face by making the other person widdle themselves with terror, but would be aware enough of his own self interest as to not actually step over the line and hurt them.

- A stereotypical angsty, fiercely independent type with an obsession with death. Such a character could work if they weren't keen on social interaction, leaving that to the rest of the party, and went adventuring as an opportunity to exercise their darker appetites (sort of like a less lawful Dexter). Would respond to a slap in the face by letting the beefy party fighter sort out the problem, and take out his anger on the next pack of goblins he meets.

- A power-obsessive. Took the route of necromancy because he had a better opportunity to achieve great power through that route than others due to some facet of his backstory. Travels with a good party because they're less likely to backstab him. Might lash out with overwhelming arcane force in response to a punch in the face, then pretend to be contrite. ("My god! I lost control! What have I done!" etc.)

- A death-cultist. Nerull is Neutral Evil; nothing wrong with a Chaotic Evil follower. Would do all the worship in secret, and try to direct the party's mission choices etc. to steer them away from destroying undead and instead towards destroying living things, like, y'know, kobolds, goblins etc. The goals of his cult could best be served through secrecy about his true dark nature and intentions, so he might pretend to be a relatively ordinary guy most of the time, and act accordingly. Would probably roll with the punches and hit back as best he can, or answer with a suitable insult if he really can't hit for toffee (at least until the beefy fighter can come help).

I'm sure you can think of other ideas, or a better twist on any of the above, which would fit nicely with what you want to play.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 11:28 AM
Lots of books have something to say, just not much.

Savage Species; Evil person can be nice as pie to most people but really evil to those who aren't within person's circle of friends, family, lovers. Also has a little advice for playing Evil campaigns.

Fiendish Codex 2: For the purpose of being consigned to Nine hells, you have to have actually Done something evil- Thinking evil doesn't count.

BoVD- but not till the back of the book- in the back are descriptions of various playstyles, from merely antiheroic, to out-and-out villainous.

Champions of Ruin- While written for Faerun, much of the advice is generic and could apply to any D&D setting.

Exemplars of Evil- covers a lot of the various ways of giving evil character personality.

Vexxation
2008-11-27, 11:37 AM
Unequivocally Evil! Law/Chaos has a separate axis for a reason!

I'm sorry, but evicting squatters is not evil, regardless of what will happen to them. It's a neutral act, as backed by the Lawful circumstance.

You own land, you have every right to kick anyone off it. Now- should he feel bad? Yes. But is it really evil? No. He has done nothing himself to worsen their circumstance. They will, logically, go from squatters on this farm to squatters on another farm. The landowner who sold the deed is the only person, if any, who could be accused of doing an evil deed. However, even that's pushing it.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 12:00 PM
in Quintessenial Paladin 2 (a third party book, so not necessarily valid) the example given, was evicting a very old person who had gotten behind on rent, into bad weather in winter- it may not be cutting their throat, but its not far off.

Consequence of act sould probably be clear and forseeable, for an Evil descriptor to apply, if it isn't on the "evil list" in Vile Darkness.

paddyfool
2008-11-27, 12:06 PM
Yep, deliberately choosing to kill people for personal profit is evil. Classic cold-hearted punch-clock villainy right there ("the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference"). It really doesn't matter if you can justify it legally or not.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 12:13 PM
being paid for killing people isn't quite the same thing- executioner, adventurers hired to kill Dark Lord.

But, in general, if your sole motive is profit, closest thing to non-evil is restricting it to Evil Dragons and the like- BoVD "Not evil act, but certainly not a good act"

Keld Denar
2008-11-27, 12:16 PM
Wanna know how to RP an evil character? Grow a sketchy goatee. Seriously, every evil character has one. No matter what you do afterwards, people will know you are without a doubt evil!

paddyfool
2008-11-27, 12:20 PM
Hamish,

That last post of mine was regarding your debate with Vexxation - sorry if I didn't make that clear. Oh, and killing people and profitting by it not always being evil? Sure, executioners, soldiers, and killers of dark lords do profit by killing, but killing in those circumstances isn't necessarily evil if profit isn't the primary motivation. (For an executioner, it might be so that law be done, and/or so that the evil be punished; for a soldier, it might be to defend his loved ones; for the heroes-dark-lord bit, any of the above). Whereas kicking people who have newly been made squatters off your land to starve so that you can profit by it is evil, imho.

Aergoth
2008-11-27, 12:21 PM
Alright: Breaking a tyrant's law makes you: CG or NG
Stealing and giving to the poor: also CG
The Vizier? That guy behind the throne whispering to the king? LE. What he does is to further his own goals, but he doesn't break a single law doing it. He abuses power
The Berserker? That guy that enjoys hacking off the heads of people at random on the battlefield? The one that's stabbing innocent bystanders and soldiers? CE.

That about covers it.

Turning someone out in the cold when you KNOW it would kill them? At the very least you're not LG any more, but certainly not CE, you'd be stuck either at LN or TN.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 12:33 PM
BoED suggests even LG can break Laws, if the system is badly corrupt. A conquerer who proclaims is "right of conquest" as justification for rules. Even LG characters can oppose him and join resistance.

but LG charcters find Order very important- though not necessarily as important as Freedom- Slavery is defined in BoED as evil.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 12:33 PM
Sorry - but it most certainly is. The whole alignment system is the thinnest, most inexcusably crappy approximation of anything useful in D&D ever. Also, how it should be roleplayed isn't anything the books have any say on what so ever.
Your complaints about the alignment system may be perfectly valid, but within that context, the rules are the rules, and this one point on which they miraculously managed to be clear. 'No being Evil without hurting, killing, or oppressing others.'

I'm sorry, but evicting squatters is not evil, regardless of what will happen to them. It's a neutral act, as backed by the Lawful circumstance.
Making conscious decisions that you know will result in death, pain, or oppression is Evil- Period. Yes, you may well be technically entitled to under whatever frame of legal custom prevails in the locality, but the right (under Law) and the justification (under Good) are entirely different things.

They will, logically, go from squatters on this farm to squatters on another farm. The landowner who sold the deed is the only person, if any, who could be accused of doing an evil deed. However, even that's pushing it.
He could be accused of doing an evil deed only insofar as he made their eviction likely by selling it to you. You are responsible for the foreseen consequences of your own actions. The fact you didn't foresee there being squatters at the time you bought the deed is irrelevant- you do know now. Nowhere in the rules does it say that property rights trump human welfare. Heck, that's half of what Chaotic Good is about.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 12:37 PM
actually property rights in the sense of actual theft are pretty fundamental; theft is an evil act in BoVD. Not a major one, and by Champions of Ruin description, a good guy can get away with commiting minor evil acts for a non-evil purpose, but not for long.

taking stolen goods from a thief, is arguably not theft (if goal is to return it to the robbed). Same with items of a slain foe "plunder" or maybe, a CG person might define unjustly imposed taxes as theft (Robin Hood)

Fiendish Codex 2 calls out a specific form of Theft as Evil- Theft from the Needy.

7th lvl scrub
2008-11-27, 12:41 PM
One way to roleplay a CE character is to have him thinking outside the box. Making him swear vengeance on all those who have ever wronged him, and then actually upholding his oath later on in his lifetime is one way.

Another way that I've even run by my players is being the party's torturer, since torture is a blatantly evil act, it gives your character something else to do other than exacting revenge.

Stealing valuables, threatening people with death, pillaging, plundering, and raping the innocent(all behind the party's back of course) are also other fairly viable evil acts to roleplay a CE character.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 12:44 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 calls out a specific form of Theft as Evil- Theft from the Needy.
Yes! Because it's an indirect form of hurting, killing, or oppression- the needy, well need that wealth in order to survive. Sheesh!

The reason why Robin Hood's theft was Good is very simple- the Greater Good was served by taking money from the rich (to which it made very little difference) and giving it to the poor (to whom it made a great deal of difference.) The principles involved here are actually quite straightforward.

kpenguin
2008-11-27, 12:47 PM
You could always play a well-intentioned extremist. That seems to be the norm for LE PCs, so why not try that with a CE character as well? Just change the ideal you're advocating violently from order to freedom.

Vexxation
2008-11-27, 12:47 PM
The reason why Robin Hood's theft was Good is very simple- the Greater Good was served by taking money from the rich (to which it made very little difference) and giving it to the poor (to whom it made a great deal of difference.)

Be careful using the "Greater Good" as a justification. The Greater Good is probably what leads more heroes to evil than anything else.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 12:47 PM
depends on perspective: I remember reading that Robin hood was first and foremost a champion of the oppressed, not a protector of the poor, and that the legends have changed a lot over time.

EDIT:
Word for Theft from Needy should have been Corrupt- Corrupt acts are more serious evil acts. Betrayal is not listed- maybe because its so common an act of Good people infiltrating bad groups, that it has to be only a very tiny act of evil?

Sequinox
2008-11-27, 01:06 PM
It's important that you have a group that will actually agree to have a CE character amongst them, which many will not.

Evil works best in a non-evil party when it's undercover, and can do it's evil deeds without destroying the goals of the rest of the party. For example, you have a party of generally good characters, who require information from a captive. Said captive refuses to talk. CE character can get the info, he's an expert torturer, but seems to enjoy it rather too much. Do the party let him get the info, no matter the cost? After all, it's useful to them too.

There is room for an evil character in a non-evil party, but an outright lunatic killer isn't really going to fit. In the OP's case it sounds fairly reasonable for his character to swear a grim death on the NPC that punched him. Thing is, it's the players that are bringing him down rather than the characters. The characters don't necessarily know that the NPC's house burns down the day after with him in it. An evil character won't ruin a group if played maturely, and if the other players are mature enough to let it happen.

Exactly. I have had to run 2 campaigns with evil characters. My first one was just stupid and evil in an Elan way - or at least Elan crossed with Belkar. It was annoying, and downright frustrating when he tried to amass an army to take over his old country which he had been exiled from when he got kicked out. He was attacking the most influential and powerful nation in the world, so, naturally he lost. His wife divorced him, seeing what he was, he died and got reincarnated as a dwarf (he had always made fun of dwarves, which made this bad for him), and all of his friends/party members rejected him (in game, not out of game, out of game we were all laughing hard, and he was laughing alonog with the rest of us, so...)

The other time, a different character made an evil wizard. He tried to be an evil mastermind, constantly exploited loopholes, and used everything that was broken that he could find (spell compendium, for one. He got mad when I told him that he wasn't using it.)

Finally, I had a player who wanted to play a serial killer, which only suceeded in getting me pissed again. Some people don't understand what my problem with evil characters is. My answer: They ruin the game.

Unless the person explicitly tries to play smart evil, and doesn't try to ruin the game for his own fun, then evil is a bad path to walk in DnD.

FoE
2008-11-27, 01:08 PM
I can't believe I'm telling someone to read this comic, but Jacob from Dominic Deegan is a good example of the Chaotic Evil necromancer who's not too over-the-top you want to play here.

1) He hates others imposing their will on him. He believes he should be free to pursue whatever experiments or studies as he wishes.
2) Though he does not seek murder, he has no compunction about killing if it further his own goals. When he does kill, he usually puts on a bit of a show.
3) He does not care about personal ties and has no interest in 'making friends.'

Why is your necromancer adventuring with a 'Good' party? Perhaps he is seeking magical lore that he wouldn't be able to find alone, or he recognizes a far greater evil than himself and wants to stop it. He resents the others trying to control him, but he recognizes that he has a goal to achieve, so he plays by the rules only to the extent that it benefits him.

Zen Master
2008-11-27, 01:09 PM
Your complaints about the alignment system may be perfectly valid, but within that context, the rules are the rules, and this one point on which they miraculously managed to be clear. 'No being Evil without hurting, killing, or oppressing others.'


Possibly. To be entirely honest, I don't care. This discussion, as far as I can tell, isn't about RAW. It's about roleplaying, and roleplaying isn't RAW, it's opinion, taste and experience.

Now, down that road, you cannot discuss opinion. You can however ask me to explain the reasoning behind my opinion, and then you can discuss the reasons. Feel free to ask. Meanwhile, I stand by what I've said.

I'll even add: Never let the alignment system as written affect anything you do in-game, and if your GM refers to that part of the rules, explain to him that none of that is of any use whatever.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 01:12 PM
i agree in one respect- alignment has no effect on IC decisions, you run character exactly how you think they would act.

But, in the context of the game world, DM may wish a basic guideline as to whether to treat you character as a hero, or an antihero. the base assumption built into the game is, if you behave a certain way, eventually you will attract attention from both sides. The attention you attract will be dependant on the sort of acts you commit.

Zen Master
2008-11-27, 01:16 PM
I'm sorry, but evicting squatters is not evil, regardless of what will happen to them. It's a neutral act, as backed by the Lawful circumstance.

You own land, you have every right to kick anyone off it. Now- should he feel bad? Yes. But is it really evil? No. He has done nothing himself to worsen their circumstance. They will, logically, go from squatters on this farm to squatters on another farm. The landowner who sold the deed is the only person, if any, who could be accused of doing an evil deed. However, even that's pushing it.

So ... to sum it up. A landowner had some land, on which peasants lived. Now - they lived there legally, paying rent or what ever.

Now he sells the land to someone else, who is entirely uninterested in the rent involved. He wants the underground wealth.

The new owner evicts the peasants. They die from starvation.

And ... your point is, here, that NO ONE involved has ANY obligation towards the people who made their living off that land? Maybe you're right - legally, it's almost certainly so. But there is a level of heartlessness that I cannot attribute to a good man. Nor to a neutral man, for that matter.

While watching There Will Be Blood, at what point does Plainview step entirely into the Darkness and embrace evil without restraint?

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 01:20 PM
it happened historically- a lot. Scotland, the Highland Clearances.

And I do agree that starvation does come under foreseeable, if its at all likely that they won't find work elsewhere.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-27, 01:28 PM
Be careful using the "Greater Good" as a justification. The Greater Good is probably what leads more heroes to evil than anything else.
True, but practically tautological. Psychopaths aside, no believable character actually thinks of themselves as serving the greater evil.

Betrayal is not listed- maybe because its so common an act of Good people infiltrating bad groups, that it has to be only a very tiny act of evil?
Because loyalty is Lawful, not intrinsically Good.

Possibly. To be entirely honest, I don't care. This discussion, as far as I can tell, isn't about RAW. It's about roleplaying, and roleplaying isn't RAW, it's opinion, taste and experience.
I don't disagree, but for some reason or another the OP is set on playing a CE character, in which case he needs to know what that entails. I don't especially recommend it on practical grounds, but there you are.

Riffington
2008-11-27, 01:38 PM
Robin Hood wasn't exactly a thief. He took money from thieves* and returned it to the rightful owners as best as he could. A Lawful person might argue he should have waited until Richard got back to determine how best to return the money, but the Good response was clearly to return it as quickly as possible so the peasants wouldn't starve.

*the "tax collectors" were appointed against the will of the absent King. They had no actual authority to collect taxes, and were therefore stealing from the peasants.

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 01:43 PM
Another excellent example of a CE character is Richard the warlock of doom, from the webcomic "Looking for group".

-He gets away from the party to kill people when he feels assassin urges.
-Then when those people's families come asking for revenge he demands that they talk reasonably.
-And then he also kills them when the party isn't looking.
-He kills one of his teammates right in the beggining(but arranges for him to be ressurected)
-He tries to enslave sand dragons.
-He steals the food from the ranger's pet.
-When asked to help the minotaur race he demands to ride one of them as a mount, just for the humiliation.
-When sneackig trough a dungeon full of golems, he purposedly shot one of them to atract their atention towards the party.

So, I say, just like Belkar, if you're a CE character you pretty much have to be bastard who likes to hurts people.


The trick is knowing how to kill said people in creative ways whitout the party knowing it.

Think of yourself as a serial killer. You kill inocent people in horrible ways for fun, but you do your best to hide the tracks.

Morty
2008-11-27, 01:49 PM
Another excellent example of a CE character is Richard the warlock of doom, from the webcomic "Looking for group".


Sorry, but Richard is one of the worst CE characters that can happen to an RPG. In LFG, he gets away with everything without even trying because he's author's Mary Sue, he's more powerful than everyone else but it wouldn't fly in a real game.
A good example of reasonable evil character is Manshoon from Forgotten Realms. He's Neutral Evil, but loves his girlfriend and is polite and reasonable, if ruthless and ambitious. And that's FR which I remind you, isn't supposed to be a "gray and blurred moralty" setting.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-27, 01:56 PM
Okay, it has been said before, but I'll say it again because I'm going somewhere different with this:

Chaotic Evil does not mean stupid slaughterer incapable of keeping himself from slaughtering things.

You're a True Necromancer, devoted to delving into things which are too gross or depraved for a more moral individual to handle. Your personal quest is pure and simple: Power. Everything else is secondary to how it can help you improve your personal power.

You raise zombies. Why? Minions who cannot rebel against you. Thus, increasing your personal power. It has nothing to do with grossing out the pansies, it has nothing to do with creating undead being an evil act, you don't care.

And let me repeat that again: You Don't Care. The nation could be beset by the worst plague in recorded history and be attacked by the Dragon Queen. So what? Not my problem. Now, if you want, I might be able to solve this... how much is your kingdom worth to you in hard assets? I'm talking either gold or useful magic items, and this ain't going to be cheap either.

How do you keep someone like this under control? Bribery. Remember, he's out for #1 and ONLY #1. He doesn't really care about fellow party members so much as respect how they tend to increase his power by preventing mobs of pesants with pitchforks and torches from showing up and trying to kill you every so often.

You are an ultimately selfish and self-centered being. That doesn't mean you're stupid, however. Also, you can be a highly egotistical being. So you don't kill the pesant who insults you simply because he's not worth the trouble of killing. It takes more effort to stave off the law than you want to bother with for such a petty insult from a worthless peon.

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 02:01 PM
Okay, it has been said before, but I'll say it again because I'm going somewhere different with this:

stuff



So where's the evil part? What makes you diferent from a NC necromancer?

Raroy
2008-11-27, 02:04 PM
Think of yourself as a serial killer. You kill inocent people in horrible ways for fun, but you do your best to hide the tracks.

You don't know much about serial killers, do you? They kill because there is a giant gapping hole in their heart caused by something or another. In the end, serial killers want to be known. They want society to fear and respect them.

That's it basically. Try reading a book about it sometime. Or if your lazy, look stuff up on the internet.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 02:04 PM
evil subtype spells, lots of them, cast on a routine and regular basis.

V in V for Vendetta, more comic than movie, could pass as CE believing his cause is just (it is, but methods are appalling)

you can be CE and Fight For Justice if you really want.

monty
2008-11-27, 02:11 PM
I don't get all the people saying how you only use the party to further your personal goals. Evil people aren't that one-dimensional. They can have friends and relationships, too. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you don't care about anyone else.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-27, 02:12 PM
So where's the evil part? What makes you diferent from a NC necromancer?

CN is Chaotic Neutral, also sometimes known as 'True Chaotic". Chaos for the sake of chaos. Screw power, you just like to 'watch the world burn'. You have no rhyme or reason, you just do it. You want to bring down The Man, bring down the Established Order, using whatever tactics come to hand. You're not worried about building a power base, you're worried about stopping oppression. I might almost call Dark Knight Joker to be CN. He's evil, yes, but it's almost incidental to bringing down the established order. The perfect world for him is complete Anarchy. He doesn't want power, heck he burned a whole pile of money just to prove a point.

CE is a power-monger. He wants personal power, and he doesn't care what he has to do to get it. He will do anything and everything if it will get him more power. Everything he does, every action he takes, is carefully thought out with regards to this one litmus test. Does it get him more power? If not, then screw it. Make it worth my while, and I'll consider it.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 02:12 PM
yes- Savage Species points this out.

and destruction for its own sake is pretty evil. I see CN more they way PHB outlined it- interested in personal freedom, but not a burn-it-all anarchist.

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 02:24 PM
CE is a power-monger. He wants personal power, and he doesn't care what he has to do to get it. He will do anything and everything if it will get him more power. Everything he does, every action he takes, is carefully thought out with regards to this one litmus test. Does it get him more power? If not, then screw it. Make it worth my while, and I'll consider it.

No, that is NE. He's ready to do anything for power, including following other people's orders and fiting in a society for years if it must, wich is definetely a thing a chaotic character would never do for long.

Also your definition of CN sounds a lot more like CE. CN don't go around hurting other people just because they feel like it. Beating up the guards that tell you what to do? CN. Blowing up bombs that kill the guard and dozens of inocents? CE.

Imo, hurting other people whitout a good reason it's always an evil action. And "because you would like to see how they bleed" surely isn't, like the Joker does.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 02:27 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 has list of extremely Lawful acts (Obesiant acts) that a Chaotic guy would not be expected to do on a regular basis. Helping superiors to your detriment, and following orders from a leader you don't respect, are most notable of these.

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 02:32 PM
Fiendish Codex 2 has list of extremely Lawful acts (Obesiant acts) that a Chaotic guy would not be expected to do on a regular basis. Helping superiors to your detriment, and following orders from a leader you don't respect, are most notable of these.

And following orders from a leader you don't respect is precisely the kind of thing a NE character would be willing to do to get moar power, but a CE would never do.

TheCountAlucard
2008-11-27, 02:35 PM
...this one point on which they miraculously managed to be clear. 'No being Evil without hurting, killing, or oppressing others.'

Err, it implies it. In fact, it even uses the word "implies."

You don't have to do evil acts to be evil, largely because there is no such thing is an evil act. There's also no such thing as a good act, a lawful act, or a chaotic act. There are only acts that have good/evil/lawful/chaotic intents behind them, and even then, that's a pretty poor system for determining alignment.

Your character's mindset should determine his/her alignment a thousand times more than his/her actions.

NEO|Phyte
2008-11-27, 02:42 PM
Err, it implies it. In fact, it even uses the word "implies."

You don't have to do evil acts to be evil, largely because there is no such thing is an evil act. There's also no such thing as a good act, a lawful act, or a chaotic act. There are only acts that have good/evil/lawful/chaotic intents behind them, and even then, that's a pretty poor system for determining alignment.

Err, not to poke holes in your argument, but there ARE such things as evil and good acts.
"Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUndead)"

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 02:42 PM
You don't have to do evil acts to be evil, largely because there is no such thing is an evil act. There's also no such thing as a good act, a lawful act, or a chaotic act. There are only acts that have good/evil/lawful/chaotic intents behind them, and even then, that's a pretty poor system for determining alignment.

Your character's mindset should determine his/her alignment a thousand times more than his/her actions.

The rules disagree with you. Casting alignment spells is an alignmed act. Thus if you cast animate dead(evil descriptor), you're doing an evil act.

Also, "Faith whitout deeds it's worthless". An evil character may think he's right in what he's doing, and that conquering the world and killing half the people there is the only way to save it, but it doesn't make him any less evil just because he has "good" intentions.

TheCountAlucard
2008-11-27, 02:45 PM
Err, not to poke holes in your argument, but there ARE such things as evil and good acts.
"Even if a cleric is neutral, channeling positive energy is a good act and channeling negative energy is evil. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#neutralClericsandUndead)"

Let's not go into the channeling positive/negative energy thing, because even WotC can't agree on it. Check the Tome of Necromancy for more on that. Heck, check just about everything by Frank and K. They're just better at discussing alignment and necromancy and all that jazz. Trust me on this.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-27, 02:47 PM
The rules disagree with you. Casting alignment spells is an alignmed act. Thus if you cast animate dead(evil descriptor), you're doing an evil act. So it doesn't matter what your character acts like, so long as it is chaotic, because by the very nature of the class (OP is wanting to play a True Necromancer), he'll be committing evil deeds left and right just by casting most of the spells on his list. He can go ahead and rescue orphanages, donate to churches, and in all other means be a saintly individual, but continue to maintain his CE alignment because most of the spells on his list are [evil].


Also, "Faith whitout deeds it's worthless". An evil character may think he's right in what he's doing, and that conquering the world and killing half the people there is the only way to save it, but it doesn't make him any less evil just because he has "good" intentions.

Right, that's why we are trying to encourage that in a thread talking about how to play evil characters. This is a discussion about how to play an evil character in a mostly good setting, and not cause too much friction. Being evil, but having a 'good intentioned cause' would be a perfect fit.

Deepblue706
2008-11-27, 02:47 PM
As far as playing Evil characters go, I tend not to have my character think in terms of right and wrong. Sometimes, they don't even acknowledge Good and Evil, and simply see things in terms of Strong and Weak. He or she may dismiss morality as a delusion, a device created to help the weak cope with who they are - when they truly wish they could be as those who are mighty enough to walk whatever path they desire.

Walking a path you desire never entails stupidity, although you may be less aware of the feelings and motivations of others. You could see the whole world as people who are either A) trying to stab whoever they can in the back for personal gain or B) Too weak, foolish or cowardly to try.

You do not hate the "good", they are quite beneath your contempt. The only thing you stand to do is serve yourself, and knock down anyone who hinders your climb to the top of the heap.

Nefarion Xid
2008-11-27, 02:48 PM
If it hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread...

Just wiki "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and mimic that. You're smart, you're superficially charming, you only need people in your life insomuch as they further your agenda, and it just doesn't click for you that their emotions are valid.

Unlike Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil who may very well have empathy (apart from the elemental evil creatures...like devils). Antisocial PD is marked by a complete lack of it.

Deepblue706
2008-11-27, 02:49 PM
Nefarion's suggestion isn't bad either.

NEO|Phyte
2008-11-27, 02:58 PM
Let's not go into the channeling positive/negative energy thing, because even WotC can't agree on it. Check the Tome of Necromancy for more on that. Heck, check just about everything by Frank and K. They're just better at discussing alignment and necromancy and all that jazz. Trust me on this.

Not planning on arguing whether or not the energies are in and of themselves aligned, but without having ToN handy, by the rules in the PHB, the act of Turning or Rebuking undead is aligned.
*wanders off to Google to see about locating this Tome of Necromancy*

Keld Denar
2008-11-27, 02:59 PM
Gah, no one even commented on my remark. You freakin know he's evil because he has a freakin goatee. Its cut and dry here. No goatee = no evil, goatee = evil. Like dragons, colorcoded for your convienence. End of debate! :P

A wise character in a movie once said: "Don't take life so seriously, you'll never get out alive!"

monty
2008-11-27, 03:00 PM
Gah, no one even commented on my remark. You freakin know he's evil because he has a freakin goatee. Its cut and dry here. No goatee = no evil, goatee = evil. Like dragons, colorcoded for your convienence. End of debate! :P

A wise character in a movie once said: "Don't take life so seriously, you'll never get out alive!"

I'm considering growing a goatee...does that make me evil?:smalltongue:

TheCountAlucard
2008-11-27, 03:03 PM
*wanders off to Google to see about locating this Tome of Necromancy*

Here you go! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562)

xPANCAKEx
2008-11-27, 03:07 PM
start framing people for things they didn't do
make their lives a misery
plant evidence is neccesary
ruin families, destroy dreams

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 03:12 PM
So it doesn't matter what your character acts like, so long as it is chaotic, because by the very nature of the class (OP is wanting to play a True Necromancer), he'll be committing evil deeds left and right just by casting most of the spells on his list. He can go ahead and rescue orphanages, donate to churches, and in all other means be a saintly individual, but continue to maintain his CE alignment because most of the spells on his list are [evil].


Since each of it's spells will bring more and more evil in the world, then yes. All those saved children well just live to suffer a more dark energy infested world(wich altough isn't evil just by itself, it still damn hurts you), where brain eating undead now strive, all thanks to the actions of a certain necromancer. Comiting some good deeds to camophlage your eviliest deeds, that's worthy of the greatest villains:smallbiggrin:

EDIT:That actually makes it even more worthy of a CE character! He kills and zombifies people because he thinks it's doing them a favor!



Right, that's why we are trying to encourage that in a thread talking about how to play evil characters. This is a discussion about how to play an evil character in a mostly good setting, and not cause too much friction. Being evil, but having a 'good intentioned cause' would be a perfect fit.

So why don't you tell that to the guy that I was replying to, and was saying it was just the intentions that matered?

NEO|Phyte
2008-11-27, 03:15 PM
Here you go! (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=632562)

Yeah, turned up right quick on google, nifty stuff, but it doesn't seem to have much to say regarding the acts of Turning or Rebuking undead, so either it never came up enough to be considered an issue, or they don't feel there's anything wrong with it. Could also be that they're not exactly related to the necromancy issues that tome is about.

Stupendous_Man
2008-11-27, 03:18 PM
Since each of it's spells will bring more and more evil in the world, then yes
I am given to understand that divorce rates rise with each casting.

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 03:20 PM
I am given to understand that divorce rates rise with each casting.

Who said divorce is evil? In my country couples divorce but keep living and loving togheter because this way they pay much less taxes than if they were legally married.

Riffington
2008-11-27, 03:31 PM
I'm considering growing a goatee...does that make me evil?:smalltongue:

I thought that one had been covered. Just considering evil doesn't make you evil. You need to actually grow the goatee.

Separately, a lot of CE people (and people with antisocial personality disorder) will do lots of good deeds -if they are getting love/praise/respect for it. As long as they get plenty of credit, they're happy to be generous. Once that goes away (or if nobody's watching), they'll go back to being a jerk - or very rarely change alignment. See Jaynestown.

hamishspence
2008-11-27, 03:33 PM
Concerning Tome of Necromancy- it's good, but its criticisms make excessive assumptions- it says- Either negative energy is evil, or it isn't, and if it isn't, undead can't be inherently evil, and if it is, non-evil undead can't exist.

But, maybe the evilness of the spell is not entirely connected to negative energy.

If your body has been animated, you cannot be raised or ressurrected until the undead is slain.

Also, Libris Mortis covers these sort of issues in more detail- suggesting that the skeleton or zombie is kept animate by evil spirit. its still mindless, but the thing animating it is evil.

same principle applies to ghosts and revenants- they are- the spirit or soul of the victim, strong-willed enough to live beyond death. I can see why they complained that Revenants should be Evil, but, revenge in BoVD is defined as "not necessarily evil, but the evil mindset redefines it as revenge at any cost.

so, if you're wondering why Inflict Wounds and Energy Drain aren't evil, but Animate Dead is, maybe the "evil spirits" explanation from Libris Mortis is for you.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-27, 03:36 PM
Who said divorce is evil? In my country couples divorce but keep living and loving togheter because this way they pay much less taxes than if they were legally married.

If I respond honestly to that statement, I would be bringing RL religion into the debate, and I'd rather not get hit with the ban-bat, so I think I'll just let it slide. Suffice to say, many people do find divorce to be morally wrong and evil. I don't understand it either, but I suppose everyone has a right to their own belief systems.

And I think we have the perfect CE character persona! He will commit good deeds, if those deeds further his ultimate plan of personal gain. Case in point: saving an orphanage with his undead minions, and ruthlessly killing the people attacking without a shred of mercy or remorse, forcing them into undead slavery for all eternity as punishment for their deeds...

On the surface, that sounds like an almost good deed, however it also furthers the power base of the individual, and the creation of undead certainly isn't anything but evil. And so, his evil plot has been furthered... and perhaps even complimented by his fellow adventurers... which only serves to increase his own safety.

Stupendous_Man
2008-11-27, 03:39 PM
Can we please just take a joke and move on? Really...

Deepblue706
2008-11-27, 05:53 PM
I am given to understand that divorce rates rise with each casting.

Oh, how terrible is that magic which is fueled by the power of love...

The Glyphstone
2008-11-27, 06:08 PM
HADOKEN!!! (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041127)

Oslecamo
2008-11-27, 06:23 PM
And I think we have the perfect CE character persona! He will commit good deeds, if those deeds further his ultimate plan of personal gain. Case in point: saving an orphanage with his undead minions, and ruthlessly killing the people attacking without a shred of mercy or remorse, forcing them into undead slavery for all eternity as punishment for their deeds...


Well, he will have to kill the childrens later.

It's just so much more evil to watch the children come trying to hug you one year later, calling you uncle for saving their lifes, and then cloudkilling them all. Really worth the effort of saving them that time.

The village will all be awed by your sudden change, and then you run away, just killing a few of them.

The survivors become a xenophobic people, deciding no outsider is worth their trust, and killing anyone who comes visit them during their sleep. Eventually, they evolve into a militarized nation who decides to purge all other nations.

A massive bloody war ensues, full of chaos and evil, all thanks to your efforts.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-27, 07:01 PM
Sorry, but Richard is one of the worst CE characters that can happen to an RPG. In LFG, he gets away with everything without even trying because he's author's Mary Sue, he's more powerful than everyone else but it wouldn't fly in a real game.


THANK YOU.

In terms of stock CE evil characters, Richard and Black Mage are awful examples - they only work because they're comedy characters, but in real game they'd get killed by their teammates extremely quickly. Belkar is an okay example, if you ditch the indiscriminate homicide tendencies. Jayne is a good example.

And, slightly off-topic, I find those characters to have the most annoying fanboys, and jokes that consist of "X kills someone, har har har" get old extremely quickly.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-27, 07:06 PM
Well, he will have to kill the childrens later.

It's just so much more evil to watch the children come trying to hug you one year later, calling you uncle for saving their lifes, and then cloudkilling them all. Really worth the effort of saving them that time.

The village will all be awed by your sudden change, and then you run away, just killing a few of them.

The survivors become a xenophobic people, deciding no outsider is worth their trust, and killing anyone who comes visit them during their sleep. Eventually, they evolve into a militarized nation who decides to purge all other nations.

A massive bloody war ensues, full of chaos and evil, all thanks to your efforts.

Oh by all means, don't kill the orphans. Why bother? Making the bandits into your minions will probably cap out your max HD of undead you can control at that level anyways. No, you simply tell them that if they want to be bad like you, they need to learn the real secret of life, the one their mentors won't tell them: Don't Give A Damn.

Now you've created an apethetic generation which, when grown up, will become willing servants because they remember your generocity. By that time, you'll have gotten your power base good and established, and looking for a few good (or evil) henchmen to do things for you.

lisiecki
2008-11-28, 02:41 AM
No, no, it really isn't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#goodVsEvil).



IT will never cease to amaze me what people will argue on message boards.
One day, ill log on to one and see some one say that energy can be created and destroyed.

That person will tell me they have an IQ of 230

monty
2008-11-28, 02:48 AM
IT will never cease to amaze me what people will argue on message boards.
One day, ill log on to one and see some one say that energy can be created and destroyed.

That person will tell me they have an IQ of 230

Ever studied quantum mechanics? It happens all the time.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-11-28, 02:52 AM
Ever studied quantum mechanics? It happens all the time.

Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Energy might be changed into matter, and vice versa, however there will always be the constant E=MC2, even on a quantum level. Granted, it starts playing fast and loose with Enstein's formulae, but energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely... redefined.

lisiecki
2008-11-28, 02:52 AM
Ever studied quantum mechanics? It happens all the time.

I KNEW IT!

monty
2008-11-28, 03:03 AM
Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. Energy might be changed into matter, and vice versa, however there will always be the constant E=MC2, even on a quantum level. Granted, it starts playing fast and loose with Enstein's formulae, but energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely... redefined.

Classical physics break down under uncertainty. All that's really valid on that level is probability.

Nefarion Xid
2008-11-28, 03:24 AM
"As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means anything can happen at any time for no reason." - Hubert J. Farnsworth

Ravens_cry
2008-11-28, 03:26 AM
Ever studied quantum mechanics? It happens all the time.
Yes, but it is created AND destroyed in balance so that at the scale approaching the Middle sized world we know and love, it is like a constant null, like a sound is made of peaks and valleys, yet we hear a constant sound.

monty
2008-11-28, 03:26 AM
Ahh, I love this forum. One of the only places I can satisfy my geekery when my friends are busy.


Yes, but it is created AND destroyed in balance so that at the scale approaching the Middle sized world we know and love, it is like a constant null, like a sound is made of peaks and valleys, yet we hear a constant sound.

It balances out in the long run, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that it is spontaneously occurring.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-28, 03:33 AM
Ahh, I love this forum. One of the only places I can satisfy my geekery when my friends are busy.



It balances out in the long run, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that it is spontaneously occurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles
Define 'long', as used in this instance. And yes, I too love the geekery I can have here and at the Bad Astronomy forums.

monty
2008-11-28, 03:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles
Define 'long', as used in this instance. And yes, I too love the geekery I can have here and at the Bad Astronomy forums.

"Long" being "more than zero." By the laws of thermodynamics, any imbalance, no matter how slight, cannot happen.

WhiteShark
2008-11-28, 03:39 AM
Thanks for your help, everybody.

I suppose I should give a little more background on the character. He wasn't always a bad person, in fact he used to be the trusted and respected leader of his liege lord's troops. While he was out on a mission, a cult of the campaign's evil deity took the opportunity to begin a violent uprising in my character's hometown. He was recalled to crush the cultists, but by then they had already slaughtered many townsfolk, including the woman he was engaged to.

After destroying the cult he developed an obsession with death and swore vengeance on all worshipers of that particular deity, but when he asked his lord permission to carry out his quest he was denied because he was needed to protect the borders. He became increasingly despondent and frustrated, until he deserted to see through his mission on his own.

Now he adventures to gain power and root out the cultists wherever he finds them. He has lost empathy for his fellow man and trusts almost no one, viewing them all as tools or enemies. He especially dislikes those of other races, and bears an outright hatred for non-humanoids.

The CE alignment choice followed because he pursues vengeance indiscriminately, not caring about who he puts in danger or harms. Either people can be made to serve him (living or dead), or their existence is pointless and therefore doesn't warrant any consideration.

Again, thanks for the help. I think I can pull this off now, if I can convince my group that it won't be a problem in the future.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-28, 03:42 AM
HADOKEN!!! (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=041127)
That's The Power of Love! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLV7WntttY&feature=related)

lisiecki
2008-11-28, 03:57 AM
Lina Inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Inverse)

Shes not a BAD woman, Just an evil one.

Oslecamo
2008-11-28, 05:43 AM
Lina Inverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Inverse)

Shes not a BAD woman, Just an evil one.

If she was truly evil, she wouldn't try so hard to don't kill inocent bystanders, instead of just smoking them a little. CN.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 09:03 AM
"truly evil" seems to be term used for malicious evil- but thats not a requirement of being evil. Lawful evil characters, In PHB, may have compunctions against killing children, the innocent, etc. You could just as easily have CE characters with their own compunctions.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-28, 09:08 AM
Lack of compunctions isn't what defines malicious evil- lack of secondary motives does. Malicious evil is evil for evil's sake, rather than, say, personal gain or to maintain the social status quo. Specific ethical limitations- such as compunctions against killing children, etc- are pretty well intrinsically lawful. Heck, it's pretty well impossible to be evil if you have compunctions against harming the innocent.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 09:20 AM
Torture of Anybody is evil by BoED and Fiendish codex 2. A character who tortures evil characters to death in order to get info from their last dying words. Routinely. Evil by these rules.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-28, 09:35 AM
Fine. It is unusually difficult to be Evil with compunctions against harming the innocent.
I still reckon the whole torture issue depends on what you use the information for- if it reliably saved lives... I know, I know, it's really not a healthy hypothetical to rely on, but Dwight from Sin City is a candidate example.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-28, 12:53 PM
Lack of compunctions isn't what defines malicious evil- lack of secondary motives does. Malicious evil is evil for evil's sake, rather than, say, personal gain or to maintain the social status quo. Specific ethical limitations- such as compunctions against killing children, etc- are pretty well intrinsically lawful. Heck, it's pretty well impossible to be evil if you have compunctions against harming the innocent.
Not really, you just have to have a very narrow definition of who is innocent, and a very broad definition of who is guilty, like some form of the classic Lawful Evil Inquisitor type.

lisiecki
2008-11-28, 03:52 PM
Fine. It is unusually difficult to be Evil with compunctions against harming the innocent.
I still reckon the whole torture issue depends on what you use the information for- if it reliably saved lives... I know, I know, it's really not a healthy hypothetical to rely on, but Dwight from Sin City is a candidate example.


No its not.
I mean, this isn't a philo class. For what is Evil with in the bounds of DandD directly spelled out at every stage.


Also

Lina

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.
She is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If she is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 03:58 PM
while thats the simplest form, there is plenty of room for more complex CEs- Savage Species, Champions of Ruin, Exemplars of Evil.

Obould Many Arrows is CE by FRCS, and he seems rather more interesting, in The Orc King, than earlier.

Or possibly Liriel Baenre, priestess of Lolth, yet quirky and not entirely malevolent. She was very close to the CN border, even at start of book, though.

monty
2008-11-28, 03:59 PM
Just say "Screw the rules! I have necromancy!" and do whatever the hell you want. Because that's basically what CE is. Doing what you want without caring about the consequences. In other words, you don't necessarily want to kill people, but you couldn't care less if someone dies while you're doing whatever it is you like to do.

Keld Denar
2008-11-28, 09:34 PM
Didn't they just prove Einstein's Theory (E=Mc^2) true beyond just theory just recently? I'm up in Alaska where I feel like I'm in the dark all the time (bad pun), but I remeber hearing some people talk about it not too long ago in the halls around my office.

Yay geekery!

horngeek
2008-11-28, 09:40 PM
Watch Firefly. Jayne is a perfect example of an evil character in an otherwise good/neutral party.

Hmmm, is Jayne really CE? Him telling Mal to not tell the others how he died, does not seem CE to me. Maybe CN.

Oslecamo
2008-11-28, 09:45 PM
Just say "Screw the rules! I have necromancy!" and do whatever the hell you want. Because that's basically what CE is. Doing what you want without caring about the consequences. In other words, you don't necessarily want to kill people, but you couldn't care less if someone dies while you're doing whatever it is you like to do.

And again, how exactly is this diferent from CN?

Tengu_temp
2008-11-28, 09:59 PM
Hmmm, is Jayne really CE? Him telling Mal to not tell the others how he died, does not seem CE to me. Maybe CN.

Even evil people can have loyalties, friends, comrades and loved ones - and real ones, not just some they plan to use and ditch later. Jayne is extremely loyal to Serenity's crew, and he sold out River and Simon only because he didn't consider them to be a part of it at that point. Even an evil guy wouldn't like his pals to consider him a traitor.


And again, how exactly is this diferent from CN?

The difference is how much far are you going to go with pursuing your selfish intentions - CN won't kill anyone, well maybe steal or cheat a bit. CE will steal a starving kid's last coin and won't object to murder, if he sees the benefit and knows he can get away with it.

Oslecamo
2008-11-28, 10:26 PM
The difference is how much far are you going to go with pursuing your selfish intentions - CN won't kill anyone, well maybe steal or cheat a bit. CE will steal a starving kid's last coin and won't object to murder, if he sees the benefit and knows he can get away with it.

Yeah, I'm chaotic allright, altough I never act impulsive and make carefull plans for my future and think of the consequences of all my actions, despite claiming I don't care about those consequences.

I think I'm seeing something wrong on this logic...

Demented
2008-11-28, 10:45 PM
...Is that an argument for why any particular character is CN and not CE?

Tengu_temp
2008-11-28, 11:34 PM
Yeah, I'm chaotic allright, altough I never act impulsive and make carefull plans for my future and think of the consequences of all my actions, despite claiming I don't care about those consequences.

I think I'm seeing something wrong on this logic...

You're confusing "chaotic" with "short-sighted idiot".

WhiteShark
2008-11-29, 03:32 AM
Hey Keld Denar, I'm in Alaska too! Crazy!

Anyway, I was thinking more on all the advice and I suddenly realized that a lot of it suggested being "smart evil." Unfortunately, my DN only has a 10 in intelligence, so he's more like "average evil." Hmm.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 11:18 AM
Once again, Firefly. Jayne isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and he doesn't go around killing people for no reason.

Neithan
2008-11-29, 11:22 AM
It's always: Alignment is the result of personalty.
Never the other way round.

Oslecamo
2008-11-29, 11:49 AM
You're confusing "chaotic" with "short-sighted idiot".

You're confusing chaotic with neutral.

You're not doing what you want to do. You're doing what you want to do when the situation allows it with minimal risk.

This is, if chaotic is carefully planing, not taking risks, and restricing themselves to codes, what would lawfull be?

Chaotic is short sighted. Wich doesn't mean he's an idiot. It's great at improvising. But it will act first and ask questions later. Lawfull asks questions first and acts later. Each has it's own advatages and disadvantages.

NEO|Phyte
2008-11-29, 11:51 AM
This is, if chaotic is carefully planing, not taking risks, and restricing themselves to codes, what would lawfull be?

Where has ANYONE implied that chaotics plan carefully or not take risks? All they've said that I can see is that outside of chaotic evil, they tend to not kill innocents. Y'know, because they aren't evil.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 11:53 AM
I got impression that Chaotic had many aspects- you don't have to fulfil them all.

A person who is obsessed with his own personal freedom, who hates laws that restrict it, and spends a lot of his time showcasing the unfairness, to him, of said laws, would be Chaotic.

A person whose concern is with other people's freedom, who actively works to counter the authoritarian tendencies of the rulers, who thinks best laws are minimal laws- might be Chaotic Good, depending on his methods.

Creativity is associated with Chaos in PHB- artists, poets, painters are more likely to tend towards Chaos than Law, though its not a hard-and-fast rule.

paddyfool
2008-11-29, 12:07 PM
...
I suppose I should give a little more background on the character. He wasn't always a bad person, in fact he used to be the trusted and respected leader of his liege lord's troops. While he was out on a mission, a cult of the campaign's evil deity took the opportunity to begin a violent uprising in my character's hometown. He was recalled to crush the cultists, but by then they had already slaughtered many townsfolk, including the woman he was engaged to.

After destroying the cult he developed an obsession with death and swore vengeance on all worshipers of that particular deity, but when he asked his lord permission to carry out his quest he was denied because he was needed to protect the borders. He became increasingly despondent and frustrated, until he deserted to see through his mission on his own.

Now he adventures to gain power and root out the cultists wherever he finds them. He has lost empathy for his fellow man and trusts almost no one, viewing them all as tools or enemies. He especially dislikes those of other races, and bears an outright hatred for non-humanoids.

The CE alignment choice followed because he pursues vengeance indiscriminately, not caring about who he puts in danger or harms. Either people can be made to serve him (living or dead), or their existence is pointless and therefore doesn't warrant any consideration.

...


Anyway, I was thinking more on all the advice and I suddenly realized that a lot of it suggested being "smart evil." Unfortunately, my DN only has a 10 in intelligence, so he's more like "average evil." Hmm.

So, your reasons for him being evil are clear - he's a classic fallen type, steeped in hatred, a need for vengeance, and an obsession with death. All of which will give him ample motivation to do bad stuff and fits E just fine. The C part comes in with his having severed his ties, broken off his loyalty to his old lord out of frustration, and gone off on an independent vengeance spree. OK.

Meanwhile, even if unempathic, he's still human, and even if his party members are only "useful" to him at the start, that's not to say he might not get a little attached. And since they are useful to him against the cult, he's got no reason to turn against them or backstab them. He's also got no obvious reaon to be too greedy or randomly violent. The most obvious conflicts with the party come in if:

1) An opportunity presents itself to go after the cult, but the rest of the party want to go off and do some other quest.

2) Collateral damage; your character would be fine with it, the rest of the party might not be. (e.g. many characters would be upset if he turns some hostages held by the cult into zombies).

3) Your character sounds, to me, like he'd be happy enough to sacrifice party members if he thought it useful; or if he thought trying to help them would be useless (he might not be willing to risk his neck over it given a small chance of success).

Most of these can be handwaved, if you simply roleplay arguing against it, but going along with the rest of the party in such situations; or, alternatively, if you can think of a reason why your character would really want the other PC to stay alive. But antisocial loner vengeance-driven types tend not to play with others regardless of alignment - see the Punisher/V/[insert western here]

Longer-term, you've got another problem: What's your bloke going to do with himself when and if the cult falls? This one can only be answered by whatever character development happens to your character as things go along... but if an answer doesn't present itself, you might even have to retire him at such a point.

Neithan
2008-11-29, 12:22 PM
Law is deciding by logic. Chaos is deciding with your guts, even when your logic has very good arguments against it.
Lawful characters very often say "Silence guts, this is not your business", and chaotic characters very often say "I know of the consequences, but right now I really don't give a damn!"
The important part is "very often", not always. Also, I belive that this is the most detailed description of law and chaos you will ever need.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 12:27 PM
is certainly a good start- an utterly logical Chaotic would be very tricky- maybe someone who has logically reasoned that Freedom is one of the most vital things in existance, and turns most of his talents to working for it for himself or others.

monty
2008-11-29, 03:02 PM
Yeah, I'm chaotic allright, altough I never act impulsive and make carefull plans for my future and think of the consequences of all my actions, despite claiming I don't care about those consequences.

I think I'm seeing something wrong on this logic...

Just because you don't kill people doesn't mean you're not chaotic. Or what do you think chaotic good is? Chaotic people still care about the consequences of their actions.

WhiteShark
2008-11-29, 03:30 PM
Thanks paddyfool, that's a good breakdown of the situation.

It's unlikely that the cult will ever fall completely because the setting is a homebrew of the DM's, and there are two deities in total: the good one and the bad one, with the cult being of the bad one. Even if he did manage to destroy the cult, he would most likely try to become powerful enough to destroy the deity itself.

As for the antisocial/loner-type problem, I guess I hadn't thought too hard about that. I'm thinking that my DN could reveal his backstory the the rest of the party overtime, and as he did so he would gain an amount of trust for them out of necessity, and (dare I say it) friendship. Of course, if they acted in a way contradictory to this trust then he would be quick to withdraw it, and cautious about trusting anyone again.

In this way he could become less of a loner type and actually begin to consider the party more than tools, but trusted companions in his quest to rid the world of the cult.

One problem remains, however: how are good characters going to react to me using undead? Likely they won't be too pleased with the notion, and seeing it in action would be even worse. Convincing them that the rotting corpses following me aren't undead would be hard and ridiculous to boot. What to do, what to do.

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-29, 04:43 PM
Law is deciding by logic. Chaos is deciding with your guts, even when your logic has very good arguments against it.
Lawful characters very often say "Silence guts, this is not your business", and chaotic characters very often say "I know of the consequences, but right now I really don't give a damn!"
The important part is "very often", not always. Also, I belive that this is the most detailed description of law and chaos you will ever need.
I realize that a lot of D&D players, maybe even a lot of D&D writers, prefer to run Law and Chaos like this. And that's fine, if that's what your group prefers. However, it's not the 3.5E RAW, like, at all. RAW Law is honor* and RAW Chaos is individualism. So by RAW, you can totally have a hot-headed Lawful guy who stands up to anyone who insults his clan even when this is a very bad idea, or an intellectual Chaotic dude who insists on doing things in what he sees as the "ideal" way even if others disagree, because he thinks that his way has benefits that outweigh the disapproval of others. RAW Chaos vs. Law may correlate with Emotions vs. Stoicism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EmotionsVsStoicism), but they're not actually the same thing. At all. Just FYI.

*Honor is conformity, honesty, or both. I recommend picking one or the other, because they really are two distinct things. They'll often overlap, but they also sometimes conflict. I favor Law as Conformity because Law is supposed to be the opposite of Chaos. And because being willing to kill but unwilling to lie is dumb, so if killing gets to be situationally aligned, lying had damn well better be too.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 04:49 PM
willing to kill- in defence of self and others, but unwilling to lie, except to bad guys, is actually pretty common. Druss in David Gemmell books, for example.

he does occasionally lie to good guys to keep their morale up, but its far from common.

Demented
2008-11-29, 04:59 PM
Just because you kill people doesn't mean you're not chaotic.

Whoa there with the double negative.

monty
2008-11-29, 05:06 PM
Whoa there with the double negative.

Hmm, I missed a word there. Fixed now.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:07 PM
Sir Gareth Cormaeril of Waterdeep is an ex-paladin, CE, Never tells a lie (big user of omission and being misleading though.)

Neithan
2008-11-29, 05:10 PM
I realize that a lot of D&D players, maybe even a lot of D&D writers, prefer to run Law and Chaos like this. And that's fine, if that's what your group prefers. However, it's not the 3.5E RAW, like, at all.
Certainly true. But the 3.5e PHB talks **** regarding alignment. :smallbiggrin:
I looked it up in the 2nd Ed PHB and there it sounds all much more sensible and actually logical.

My personal oppinion, but I don't care too much about RAW. If we had Christianity by RAW in the western world, we would wish for an Ayatolah to replace the pope! :smallbiggrin:
I belive in the end one should use what works best for the group. The guy who wrote the 3.5e chapter about alignment presented just his own, in my opinion very silly, view about how alignment works.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:16 PM
i lost my liking for 2nd ed alignment when I noticed that compared to 3rd ed, True Neutrals tended to suffer from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder, and CG's were happy to ignore people in need (check description of CG in 2nd ed PHB)

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-29, 07:22 PM
Warning: Following spoiler contains lengthy tangential discussion. Open at your own risk.

Intuition and reason are really more skills than values, and also aren't fundamentally opposed. If you've got a basic level of sanity goin' for ya, your intuition will inform your reasoning and vice versa. It'll also tend to be pretty clear in a lot of situations which approach you're better off using. In a battle, you probably don't have the time to think things through, because standing there analyzing your options is a great way to get stabbed. When building a house, you shouldn't saw a board at the point that "feels right".

That sort of personality trait strikes me as something that rightly belongs outside of alignment, because it's not a matter of morals and ethics. My initial thought was that intuition over reason is best modeled as high Wis, low Int and reason over intuition is best modeled as high Int, low Wis. But upon reflection, that just determines what characters are good at. You could have a character who always followed his horrible intuition, he'd just tend to fail a lot. :smallamused:

Anyway, Chaos definitely shouldn't be about disregarding the likely consequences of your actions; that makes Chaos inherently stupid. That's quite different from going with your gut regarding which choice will lead to better consequences. That can be smart, if your gut has a good track record.

But anyway, you can see what I'm getting at. For example, dumb animals that operate entirely on instinct become super-Chaotic instead of purely Neutral if Law is intellect and Chaos is instinct.


i lost my liking for 2nd ed alignment when I noticed that compared to 3rd ed, True Neutrals tended to suffer from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder
As I understand it, 2E True Neutrals wanted to preserve the balance between the universe's opposing forces, up to and including the forces of Good and Evil, right? That's an utterly bizarre goal. I'm pretty sure that almost no actual human beings in the real world hold to that philosophy, and any that do would rightly be considered insane. You can have a character with that philosophy, but he'll be bizarre and inhuman. Having a whole alignment for that is like having a whole alignment for characters who want to fill the universe with the maximum possible number of park benches. Possibly the alignment won't wind up underrepresented, because the mere fact of its existence as an alignment sort of implicitly encourages the inclusion of such characters. But this is not a redeeming feature.

Same deal with making Chaotic Neutral characters all total nutjobs. (Incidentally, in 3E, madness is best represented by horribly low Wisdom.)


CG's were happy to ignore people in need (check description of CG in 2nd ed PHB)
As it happens, I wrote a bit about this recently:


Since I've got a dictionary lookup thingy built into my web browser toolbar, I've sort of fallen into the habit of checking the definitions of terms when I'm at all uncertain about them. I mention this because it turns out that merriam-webster.com gives "morally lax" as one of the definitions of "easy-going", which ties in with the point I'm about to make.

If you're dedicated to helping others, then you're pretty much not going to take a lackadaisical approach to it. If you approach something lackadaisically, then you're not terribly dedicated. I know that D&D sort of has a tradition of labeling eh-kinda-good characters as Chaotic Good, but that's a stupid tradition. If you're kind-hearted but lazy, or kind-hearted but greedy, or kind-hearted but reckless, or kind-hearted but some other thing that interferes with virtuous behavior, that just plain makes you less Good, and not any more Chaotic unless there's something Chaotic about your vice.

The above tradition is so prevalent that fake Chaotic Good has basically become the standard for things labeled CG. So it's really refreshing to see a Chaotic Good group that's actually all "THE PRICE OF LIBERTY IS CONSTANT VIGILANCE!"

I gather that AD&D alignment was also more prescriptive, rather than descriptive. As in, everyone has to have one of these 9 types of personalities, and characters with different personalities than those aren't supposed to exist. Heck, did AD&D even have plain ol' boring average people? I don't know what alignment they would have been... Certainly they wouldn't be all balance-crazy. Come to think of it, didn't 2E kinda spin Law as rule-abiding and organized, so if you wanted to play a character who was just one, by RAW you were just kinda out of luck? 3E seems to do a better job of just covering whatever character you come up with, because everyone sits somewhere on each of the two axes, and e.g. Law doesn't have to turn into a totally different thing when combined with Evil.

All in all, 2E alignment doesn't seem particularly sensible and logical to me, but that's only going off of what I know about it secondhand. 3E's alignment system is basically sensible at its core, though, although the specifics do get very tricky. It's fairly straightforward whether someone harms or helps others, or whether he conforms to popular standards or does things his own way.