PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else had to deal with "evil is cool, good is dumb" players?



Dr. Killjoy
2008-11-30, 05:39 PM
My entire D&D group is like this. My character is NG. The other characters are LN (he's a monk, though, so he's only Lawful because he has to be), CG (In name only, he's more like CN), 2 CNs, and a NE. The upshot of this is that every session feels to me like we're playing Paranoia - constantly wondering when we betray each other or slaughter each other (except, of course, I can't do this because of my alignment - ingame, my character doesn't know any of this is happening, meaning he'll be at a huge advantage if things fall apart). Generally, this means I can choose between my character leaving (not really an option since I actually like to, y'know, participate) or acting Stupid Good, thus furthering the stereotype.

Now here's something interesting. Recently, we playtested a sci-fi RPG I've been designing on my own. Upon character creation, each player was to assign their characters a 'morality' - Altruistic (simiilar to LG, NG, or CG), Dutiful (LN), Pragmatic (CN or TN), Self-Serving (LE/NE), or Sadistic (CE). I gave descriptions of these, but did not compare them to any D&D alignments. The result? Most players made their characters Altruistic or Dutiful, and generally avoided Stupid Good/Lawful Stupid quite well, and I saw no signs of the Paranoia-esque tension that ran so high in our D&D game.

While I realize this isn't exactly an epic sweeping discovery here, I just thought I'd share the experience, and would like to hear stories from others who have dealt with players who hold the "good is dumb" mentality.

Toliudar
2008-11-30, 05:42 PM
A couple of my RL group's players tend to play out CN, not because they're aiming to...it's just the way their gaming minds work.

We experimented for a while with the alignment-free Arcana Evolved ruleset, but the characters ALL evolved into selfish backstabbing a**holes.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-30, 05:47 PM
...The result? Most players made their characters Altruistic or Dutiful, and generally avoided Stupid Good/Lawful Stupid quite well, and I saw no signs of the Paranoia-esque tension that ran so high in our D&D game.
That's quite interesting, actually.

cloneof
2008-11-30, 05:48 PM
I have only neutrals in my group, always.

No hope for good, no. No way.

Yukitsu
2008-11-30, 05:49 PM
I'm currently playing a paladin who is surrounded by people who have migrated to evil. I tend to take it in stride that I solve problems pretty much just as well as they do without resorting to horrendous evils.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-30, 05:50 PM
I'm currently playing a paladin who is surrounded by people who have migrated to evil. I tend to take it in stride that I solve problems pretty much just as well as they do without resorting to horrendous evils.
Should you kind of have... fallen, by now? I mean, there is some rule about non-association with evil characters, if I recall...

Yukitsu
2008-11-30, 05:53 PM
God told me I had to cooperate. It has led to me complaining in character about the atrocities, but they try to do those when I'm not around.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 05:55 PM
given that there are novels out there in 2nd ed where paladin has to cooperate with demons and yugoloths, there is precedent.

Darkshade
2008-11-30, 05:56 PM
its the setting
people always want to play more heroic when its sci-fi and be more altruistic maybe they wanna be jedis, maybe trekkies, but they tend to associate a modernistic view of helping others with the future.

DnD on the other hand tends to net a lot of the evil is cool i can be selfish and greedy and backstabbing because its the way the world works.

its hard to be the good guy when everyone else is evil, but since your neutral good take a step to chaotic and use the other characters paranoia and inherent mistrusts to befriend them after all your the only one they can really trust and then use them to do good in the world :P

Samurai Jill
2008-11-30, 05:57 PM
Yeah, but there should at least be a good in-character rationale involved. Not just DM fiat.

Neithan
2008-11-30, 05:58 PM
Bad thing: Take any two authors and they will contradict each other.
Good thing: This underlines the fact, that everyone is free to make his own interpreation for his story or game.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 05:58 PM
And a succubus who became a paladin after falling in love with one.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-30, 06:02 PM
Good in D&D is consistently dumb (at least lawful good). Most of the peopel I game with are generally neutral.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:07 PM
that's your interpretation. Not every author of D&D novels does this- Dragonbait, in Azure Bonds, for example. And there are other novels.

lord_khaine
2008-11-30, 06:09 PM
Good in D&D is consistently dumb (at least lawful good). Most of the peopel I game with are generally neutral.

i must disagree with this, personaly i think being evil is stupid.

my main point for this is the quality of afterlife you get depending on if you are good or evil.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-30, 06:14 PM
i must disagree with this, personaly i think being evil is stupid.

my main point for this is the quality of afterlife you get depending on if you are good or evil.

No, being good isn't dumb (being evil get's a much worse afterlife). Those that are good also happen to be consistently less than intelligent in practice. The lawful good D&D guy won't just execute the prisoner who's trial could easily destabilize the nation and result in a civil war. It's simply not in their nature. I'm not saying evil is much more intelligent (destroying the world when your afterlife is eternity in hell isn't an intelligent act), just that is can be without breaking character.

An evil person can be nice without breaking their alignment, a good person can't be mean and nasty without breaking theirs.

Crow
2008-11-30, 06:14 PM
That's quite interesting, actually.

There is definitly something to it. The biggest (potential) butthole in my group tends to want to play paladins, angels, archons, etc...

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:19 PM
Pragmatism = More intelligent? that is an interesting opinion.

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 06:21 PM
God told me I had to cooperate. It has led to me complaining in character about the atrocities, but they try to do those when I'm not around.
Man, your DM doesn't screw around. That's one way to solve the Paladin + evil characters problem, at least. :smallbiggrin:


i must disagree with this, personaly i think being evil is stupid.

my main point for this is the quality of afterlife you get depending on if you are good or evil.That depends on the setting. In many settings, evil deities reward their followers just like good deities do. In others, everyone goes to the same afterlife regardless of alignment. Often the good reward isn't very nice, either -- you get your memories and individuality wiped, then end up physically becoming a part of a fluffy-cloud good-aligned plane? Woo. I think I can see why most Stabby McEvilface characters are not excited by that prospect.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-30, 06:22 PM
An evil person can be nice without breaking their alignment, a good person can't be mean and nasty without breaking theirs.
Sadly, I can't disagree with this. The BoED seems to effectively mandate 'Good characters as short-sighted morons' since it rules out any possibility of greater-good thinking.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:25 PM
Maybe the writers had read enough of where "Greater Good" thinking tends to end up-

"some of the worst things in the world have been done by people with the best of intentions"

and so on.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-30, 06:25 PM
An evil person can be nice without breaking their alignment, a good person can't be mean and nasty without breaking theirs.

I'd like to introduce you to exhibit A, Samuel Vimes, and exhibit B, Esmeralda Weatherwax.


Sadly, I can't disagree with this. The BoED seems to effectively mandate 'Good characters as short-sighted morons' since it rules out any possibility of greater-good thinking.

One badly-written book for one game. People are good and evil in games that aren't DND, too, although it's not written on their sheets explicitly as there's no alignment.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 06:26 PM
There is definitly something to it. The biggest (potential) butthole in my group tends to want to play paladins, angels, archons, etc...

Sounds more like a problem with the player than the alignment. Its entirely possible to play a sensible, intelligent LG paladin who can actually function in a society of other alignments. If you or your fellow player can't, thats your shortcoming, not that of the class and alignment.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:27 PM
i'd have said one book with a mix of good and bad ideas, but thats me.

Samurai Jill
2008-11-30, 06:32 PM
"some of the worst things in the world have been done by people with the best of intentions"
It's true that about 90% of evil characters start off down that road, but it happens to be a valid line of argument in many cases- Mace Windu vs. Palpatine, for starters.

One of the things I like about BSG, for instance, is that it genuinely tries to make a compelling case for both Means-the-end and No-exceptions thinking. Sometimes, you have to be willing to do evil to do greater good, and sometimes, the toll that takes upon the soul is too great to bear. What I dislike are systems that wag their finger and presume to judge what's best for a given situation without regard for context or individual character.

The other thing I disliked about BoED is that it provides a near-exact mirror-image of BoVD, right down to diseases-and-poisons-that-aren't-evil-because-we-say-so.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:34 PM
main problem I have is when someone says: the pragmatic approach is never evil, and player character is still morally perfect.

Ascension
2008-11-30, 06:35 PM
its the setting
people always want to play more heroic when its sci-fi and be more altruistic maybe they wanna be jedis, maybe trekkies, but they tend to associate a modernistic view of helping others with the future.

I disagree with that. People also want to be Sith, Mandalorians, pirates, smugglers, Imperial officers, Klingons before their racial Heel-Face turn, etc... There are just as many chaotic and/or evil archetypes in Sci-Fi as there are lawful and/or good archetypes.

Yukitsu
2008-11-30, 06:36 PM
main problem I have is when someone says: the pragmatic approach is never evil, and player character is still morally perfect.

There are two forms of pragmatism. Self serving pragmatism, which can be evil, neutral, or appear good. There is society serving pragmatism, which is almost inevitably good unless taken to extremes.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:38 PM
mm, maybe. not all writers feel that way- some are wary of the "for the good of society" justification. Though some might take it a little too far the other way.

Star Trek's Kodos the Executioner is classic example of a little too much "good of the many"

rayne_dragon
2008-11-30, 06:39 PM
Personally I enjoy playing amoral or outright evil characters simply because heroes are so stereotyped as being good. I've been known to play good characters, but I get bored of them quickly. I can really only play a character (and still desire to play them) continuously if they're somewhat neutral.

I also like the challenge of being evil right under the noses of goody-two-shoes without getting caught.

SurlySeraph
2008-11-30, 06:42 PM
Sadly, I can't disagree with this. The BoED seems to effectively mandate 'Good characters as short-sighted morons' since it rules out any possibility of greater-good thinking.

And that's why I disregard the BoED (well, except for the feats) and point at the Gray Guard and Shadowbane Inquisitor whenever anyone says DnD characters can't do evil for the greater good.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:44 PM
in 2nd ed, was a bit like BoED- Burn the plague-village in hope of saving the country- and not just fall, but change alignment to evil, as well.

Champions of Ruin, BoVD etc- you can do evil acts and be Good. But not for very long- it is consistantly doing evil acts that causes alignment change to Evil.

the mix of evil acts and good ones, with evil ones being rare and not routine, is more Neutral. But if its regular, deliberate, consistant- Evil.

tgva8889
2008-11-30, 07:09 PM
And this is why there shouldn't be "Effects that work better against evil" and "Effects that work better against good". The ideas of evil and good are in many cases undefined and debatable, meaning that if a spell affects someone better despite the general belief as that person being good, then in reality the universe does have a strict belief on what good and evil are. So there shouldn't really be any interpretation.

I've personally enjoyed playing more neutral characters, and I believe that if you do "evil things to accomplish good purposes" then you're neutral. If the purposes you're trying to accomplish aren't actually good (like maintaining the rule of the tyrannical overlord), then it's an evil act. Doing "good things to accomplish evil purposes" would probably be neutral, if you can do good things to accomplish evil. I'm pretty sure that many things that are seen as "good" are actually more neutral than good.

Aquillion
2008-11-30, 07:28 PM
Yeah. The DM has enough to worry about without having to be the Ultimate Arbiter of Good and Evil.

IMHO, it would be much better for the game to use a system like Shin Megami Tenshi: Pure 'light' and pure 'dark' creatures exist (angels and demons and so forth), but that's limited to supernatural things. Humans, animals, and other 'natural' things, though, are always considered 'neutral' with respect to dark and light; even if you act completely evil, it's different from being a Dark creature. A few classes or races might grant a player a supernatural alignment (like becoming a lich, say), but this is separate from how they act -- almost all Dark creatures act 'evil' and Light creatures act 'good', but the players can be some of the exceptions if they want.

This allows for detect good, smite evil, and other thematic alignment-oriented things, without requiring constant judgment calls over alignment. It fits in with the positive energy is good / negative energy is evil thing they have going -- instead of constantly trying to link the two, just say that the only alignment the game mechanics care about at all are whether you're infused with positive energy, negative energy, or neither. It doesn't necessarily make you good or evil (though there's a strong correlation), and actual morality is kept separate from game mechanics.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 07:31 PM
Uh... D&D does have universal, objective definitions of Good, Evil, Law and Chaos... Thats the whole point of alignment and alignment based effects and why alignment disscussions constantly pop up. At least for 1st-3.5. I hear they got rid of that in 4th though.

Darkshade
2008-11-30, 07:41 PM
mm, maybe. not all writers feel that way- some are wary of the "for the good of society" justification. Though some might take it a little too far the other way.

Star Trek's Kodos the Executioner is classic example of a little too much "good of the many"

i would say the agent in the movie Serenity is a great example of someone doing incredibly evil things for the greater good, but at least he realizes that in the perfect world he is working to create that there is no place for him

Curmudgeon
2008-11-30, 09:02 PM
No, but I've many times encountered groups that assume that having a Good alignment was a license to do pretty much anything they wanted because their ultimate goals were noble. Like kill pretty much anybody at random if they detect as Evil, regardless of their actions. :smallfrown:

Ascension
2008-11-30, 09:17 PM
I was in an evil campaign once, and I just couldn't enjoy playing the character. I find it harder to derive sadistic joy out of an RPG than out of a videogame. Tormenting random AI constructs is one thing, tormenting D&D commoners is another. Characters in RPGs feel more real to me, and it's just not fun (for most sane individuals, at least hopefully) to hurt real people for no reason.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-30, 09:32 PM
I was in an evil campaign once, and I just couldn't enjoy playing the character. I find it harder to derive sadistic joy out of an RPG than out of a videogame. Tormenting random AI constructs is one thing, tormenting D&D commoners is another. Characters in RPGs feel more real to me, and it's just not fun (for most sane individuals, at least hopefully) to hurt real people for no reason.
Evil does not mean that you are a sadist. Or disloyal. Someone who simple doesn't care what happens to anyone he doesn't count as a friend in the pursuit of his goals is evil. He could be a nice person to have a drink with and be a great friend. While at the same time being responsible for a genocide. And not take pleasure in said genocide (not that he takes any particular displeasure in it either).

The Minx
2008-11-30, 09:41 PM
No, being good isn't dumb (being evil get's a much worse afterlife). Those that are good also happen to be consistently less than intelligent in practice. The lawful good D&D guy won't just execute the prisoner who's trial could easily destabilize the nation and result in a civil war. It's simply not in their nature. I'm not saying evil is much more intelligent (destroying the world when your afterlife is eternity in hell isn't an intelligent act), just that is can be without breaking character.

An evil person can be nice without breaking their alignment, a good person can't be mean and nasty without breaking theirs.

This seems especially true for paladins.

Ascension
2008-11-30, 09:51 PM
Evil does not mean that you are a sadist. Or disloyal. Someone who simple doesn't care what happens to anyone he doesn't count as a friend in the pursuit of his goals is evil. He could be a nice person to have a drink with and be a great friend. While at the same time being responsible for a genocide. And not take pleasure in said genocide (not that he takes any particular displeasure in it either).

Well, yes, you can be that sort of evil. But it doesn't really mesh well with most evil campaigns... they generally require at least a bit more moustache-twirling than that. Granted, I could have created a better, more well-motivated character than I did, but I still think the same general principle would apply: I find it harder to be evil to RPG NPCs than to videogame NPCs.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 10:14 PM
This seems especially true for paladins.

What does?

And an Evil character can break the stereotypes, but a Good character has to be a one dimensional robot? A paladin cant have a few guilty pleasures or be a ladies man but a blackguard can donate to orphanages and have a stable, happy marrige?

Crow
2008-11-30, 10:17 PM
Sounds more like a problem with the player than the alignment. Its entirely possible to play a sensible, intelligent LG paladin who can actually function in a society of other alignments. If you or your fellow player can't, thats your shortcoming, not that of the class and alignment.

Bro. I never said anything about alignment. I was talking about players who are buttholes that insist upon playing "paragons of good" (at which they ultimately fail because they are really buttholes). The paragon of good ends up being a paragon of angst, jackassery, or totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with the alignment. It has everything to do with players that have no social skills yet think they are god's gift to the world.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 10:29 PM
*snipped due to PSP character limit*

The whole thread is about alignment and if you look at my post, the point was so many people blame the stick lodging on paladins being LG, when the problem is that the player had no idea how to be LG with out being an ***

Crow
2008-11-30, 10:32 PM
The whole thread is about alignment and if you look at my post, the point was so many people blame the stick lodging on paladins being LG, when the problem is that the player had no idea how to be LG with out being an ***

Yes, and my post was in response to a poster who was interested that these players chose to play "altruistic" characters when they were not very altruistic at all. I then brought up my buddy who (bless his heart) always does the same exact thing.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 10:40 PM
Yes, and my post was in response to a poster who was interested that these players chose to play "altruistic" characters when they were not very altruistic at all. I then brought up my buddy who (bless his heart) always does the same exact thing.

He made a different alignment system for a homebrew game and all the players who never chose good because of the stereotype chose and played the equivalent of D&D's good alignments.

Brauron
2008-11-30, 10:54 PM
Nope.

I've had my fill of buttmonkey "evil is so much cooler than good" players.

So I don't GM for them any more. I have a small cadre of excellent players who I cater to. I don't waste my time on players who are just going to aggravate me.

As for being a player in games where buttmonkeys are counted among my fellow players...I generally don't, any more. Most of the buttmonkeys have been weeded out of my gaming circle.

Agrippa
2008-11-30, 10:54 PM
What does?

And an Evil character can break the stereotypes, but a Good character has to be a one dimensional robot? A paladin cant have a few guilty pleasures or be a ladies man but a blackguard can donate to orphanages and have a stable, happy marrige?

A ladies man paladin makes perfect sense to me. Just think Roland from the legends of Charlemagne. He should be charming, kind, courtious, well-spoken, supportive, eager to help with household chores without being asked and willing to help take responsiblity for any children he has with his girlfriends. He could even let his girlfriends live with him if they want to. Though a strict "no having sex with other men's wives or girlfriends" rule is in order. I'd say that it's no sin for a paladin to be a womanizer provided her treats his ladyfriends along with any children he might produce with love and compassion. If he abuses, neglects or in any other way mistreats them he should fall and fall hard. With a very noticable splat on the ground.

Crow
2008-11-30, 10:55 PM
I didn't take it as them not choosing LG because of the stereotype. I took it as them not choosing it because it wasn't as "cool" as being evil/neutral/whatever.

In either case, I don't think there is anything wrong with the alignment system, but as you said, players not knowing how to use it. I think a lot of players *want* to be good, but can't seem to get a handle on it. I think this is because deep down they are buttholes, and they aren't very good at playing a role, so in the process of trying to stick to the expected behavior of the alignment, their "real personality bleeds through. Not everyone will agree with me though. It is possible that the way the alignments are written is what causes them not to work, but I really don't know. There could definitely be something to it.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-30, 11:09 PM
It's pretty simple. In D&D evil can get away with straying from it's alignment a lot more that good. Very few humans meet the D&D definitions of good or evil. And a character with an evil alignment can do good acts while still remaining evil (the guy who feeds homeless orphans while simultaneously waging a genocidal war against some other race for shinnies). But a good character can't do evil acts while remaining good. One or two? Sure, if they are properly contrite afterward. But you can't be good (say fighting to end the genocidal war fought by a dude who wants shinnies) while consistently kicking puppies. And even being reasonable pragmatic (which really does tend to keep adventurers alive) can easily result in less than good acts.

Unless your whole group is good or you are ok with in group conflict you will get the good characters rationalizing evil acts and becoming less than good. Because the not good characters will commit them and the player of the good character won't have their character leave the group.

Kris Strife
2008-11-30, 11:17 PM
See Crow and I agreed on the overall topic, but due to misunderstanding, not on the details. Similarly, not everyone of X race, Y alignment and Z class acts the same. For every Snidley Whiplash, theres a Magus. For every Dudley Doo Right, theres a Superman.

Tippy, thats one of my big pet peeves and I wish I was on a PC so I could state my full argument on that topic.

leperkhaun
2008-12-01, 12:50 AM
my group started a game, we all agreed to do no evil, so i had an idea for a pally that i wanted to play.

Got to the game and found out my pally would be in the same group as a cleric of hextor...... yeah.

Trizap
2008-12-01, 01:05 AM
well see the problem with DnD, is that its too black and white, and human nature, is not really all that black and white, far too complex to be broken down into nine categories, I've heard a lot of people say that the alignment system is a relic, and they might be true.

Xefas
2008-12-01, 02:22 AM
Really, I've only ever had one player who wanted to be Evil all the time. Ironically, he only ever did anything evil if we reminded him that he hadn't done anything evil in a while. He would act pretty much True Neutral with some Good and Lawful tendencies until someone went "Hey, maybe your alignment should start shifting to neutral?"

He would then immediately and wantonly slaughter and destroy everything around him and then ask "Okay, am I Chaotic Evil again?". God help the plot if I said "No". After affirming that he was, in fact, Chaotic Evil again, he would then go back to acting perfectly normal.

Really, my problem is everyone wanting to be Chaotic Neutral. Generally, the moment I say a lawful/good/neutral person might not do something, they blurt out that they want to be Chaotic Neutral. The idea of them not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, even if its Unspeakably Lawful or Unspeakably Good scares the hell out of them. They profess that someone would have to be stupid to play any other alignment.

This behavior confuses and exasperates me to no end.

Crow
2008-12-01, 03:20 AM
He would then immediately and wantonly slaughter and destroy everything around him and then ask "Okay, am I Chaotic Evil again?". God help the plot if I said "No". After affirming that he was, in fact, Chaotic Evil again, he would then go back to acting perfectly normal.

Sounds pretty Chaotic Evil to me... =)

zugschef
2008-12-01, 09:36 AM
my experience: people love to play chaotic neutral, because this alignment basically serves as an excuse for any action they take.

Avilan the Grey
2008-12-01, 09:42 AM
its the setting
people always want to play more heroic when its sci-fi and be more altruistic maybe they wanna be jedis, maybe trekkies, but they tend to associate a modernistic view of helping others with the future.


Funny, my experience is the opposite. Of course most players I have come across still play "not evil", but there are a lot of anti-heroes and dark heroes as well as scoundrels when we have played Sci-fi settings.

Usually it ranges from Mad Max types, Han Solo types to Boba Fett types.

mikeejimbo
2008-12-01, 09:44 AM
For my group, good is hard and evil is easy. We consistently say that we're too dumb to be good, really, so we tend toward evil and neutral.

FinalJustice
2008-12-01, 09:51 AM
my experience: people love to play chaotic neutral, because this alignment basically serves as an excuse for any action they take.


Really, my problem is everyone wanting to be Chaotic Neutral. Generally, the moment I say a lawful/good/neutral person might not do something, they blurt out that they want to be Chaotic Neutral. The idea of them not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, even if its Unspeakably Lawful or Unspeakably Good scares the hell out of them. They profess that someone would have to be stupid to play any other alignment.

I don't know anyone who effectivelly enjoys people telling what his character would or would not do, most of them, like me, just hate it. I, myself, prefer the logic 'the character's actions and intentios define the alignment' opposed to the 'the alignment defines the characters actions and intentions'.

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 09:53 AM
yup- and unless act is very severe, alignment changes slowly.

Emperor Tippy
2008-12-01, 10:04 AM
Really, I've only ever had one player who wanted to be Evil all the time. Ironically, he only ever did anything evil if we reminded him that he hadn't done anything evil in a while. He would act pretty much True Neutral with some Good and Lawful tendencies until someone went "Hey, maybe your alignment should start shifting to neutral?"

He would then immediately and wantonly slaughter and destroy everything around him and then ask "Okay, am I Chaotic Evil again?". God help the plot if I said "No". After affirming that he was, in fact, Chaotic Evil again, he would then go back to acting perfectly normal.

Really, my problem is everyone wanting to be Chaotic Neutral. Generally, the moment I say a lawful/good/neutral person might not do something, they blurt out that they want to be Chaotic Neutral. The idea of them not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it, even if its Unspeakably Lawful or Unspeakably Good scares the hell out of them. They profess that someone would have to be stupid to play any other alignment.

This behavior confuses and exasperates me to no end.

See, that's my point. That character is solidly chaotic evil because he goes and randomly slaughters whole towns for no reason. Most of the time he is perfectly nice and reasonable but then he goes nuts.

Now a character who is most of the time a complete **** who kicks beggars, executes prisoners, and generally acts how you would expect a chaotic evil guy to act but then every once in a while goes and does some massively lawful good act is still chaotic evil in D&D.

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 10:07 AM
yup- if you go by Champions of Ruin + Fiendish Codex 2, and not 2nd ed's "balance" stuff.

Quietus
2008-12-01, 10:30 AM
An evil person can be nice without breaking their alignment, a good person can't be mean and nasty without breaking theirs.

I've got to disagree with this. I measure alignment by actions, not words - And I would have absolutely no problems with a Paladin of, say, St. Cuthbert, who was a total and enormous jackass to everyone around him.. but when push comes to shove, he's still the guy who will stand toe-to-toe with the demon so that no one else has to.

On the one hand, we have the Evil guy who can be perfectly nice to his friends, and have a good, stable marriage to a woman who loves him very, very much. On the other hand, if someone is Good-aligned, I would have no issue with him being mean and nasty to anyone in word, and possibly even in actions depending on who those actions are directed toward. The Paladin who has hunted down the tyrannical bastard that's been demanding 75% taxes and expects all those in his kingdom to bow down to him, executing anyone who doesn't... can perfectly reasonably walk up to said bastard, tell him off, and cut off his head. Now, that sort of leniency is only given where someone is clearly deserving of it; If it's clearly POSSIBLE to redeem a person, that is, of course, the preferred result for a Paladin. But someone who can't be held legally responsible for his atrocities, and is totally unapologetic for them, deserves no mercy.

Evil people can be nice to their friends.
Good people can be nasty to their enemies.

Doesn't seem that far out of line to me?

Quietus
2008-12-01, 10:41 AM
::Edit:: Wow, Firefox caused a really late double post. Whee!

Narmoth
2008-12-01, 10:42 AM
If you want to show players that good alignment is good, simply include some npcs that represent the virtues you want to advertise, and give them cool stuff, making players want to ally with them and their goals

hamishspence
2008-12-01, 10:50 AM
depends how nasty is nasty- Killing, depending on the context, can be non-evil. Torture, at least in some books (BoED, Fiendish Codex 2) is evil whatever the motive.

fusilier
2008-12-02, 06:04 PM
I think the argument about evil people can perform good acts, but good people can't perform evil acts, hits the nail on the head. That's the problem.

So it seems like the DM can force (or pressure) good characters in to performing good acts, even if they are detrimental. So why can't a the DM force evil characters into performing evil acts that are detrimental?

I should point out that I play D&D, but I don't run it, and that I prefer GURPS. In gurps an "evil" character would have some trait or impulse (i.e. disadvantage), that the GM can use against him. Forcing them to act evil even when it's not in their best interests. Also, even if the character chooses to do something illegal or "wrong" as a shortcut, it's usually possible to incur serious consequences.

As far as I know, D&D doesn't have anything like this. Threatening to change someones alignment to good, doesn't seem to carry much weight. Also the nature of D&D probably makes it hard to simply send the police or angry mobs after evil doers.

Any ideas on how evil can be punished in a D&D campaign?

In a homebrew (d20-ish) game I played in, we had an interesting event take place. It was a sci-fi campaign and we were stranded on a primitive frontier planet for several weeks waiting for the next cargo ship to arrive. We had no money to pay for passage, so we had to find some. A couple of the players decided to go on a crime spree, robbing everybody and everything, and effectively taking over an entire settlement through intimidation. I decided to go work as a laborer in another town. I made more money through honest work, than the other players did with their crime spree! :-)

Rinzy
2008-12-02, 06:43 PM
Evil people can be nice to their friends.
Good people can be nasty to their enemies.

Doesn't seem that far out of line to me?



Agreed. I’m currently playing a cleric of Hextor, and he’s likeable, in a loving relationship, and is trying to save the world. The character is Hextorian to the core, but he's perfectly civil about it (when applicable). The reactions from NPCs who have been chatting with him for a while tend to be pretty funny, though. :smallamused:

My friends and I do have a problem with one guy taking alignment stereotypes way too seriously, though. He either plays stereotypical heroes or (more to the point) the CE “Muahahaha, I kill this random NPC suddenly, without provocation and in front of various witnesses!” With this particular player though, I get the feeling that he does it for the attention…so I doubt it’s applicable in most other situations ;)

Fortunately, he’s the only one. We like evil characters in our campaigns sometimes, but we try to take precautions to avoid TPK via backstabbing. We tend to forget literal alignment and just play our characters true to their personalities. If the actual alignment tag is important (i.e, my cleric or a paladin or something) we watch a little more closely, but we almost never have problems.

Doomsy
2008-12-02, 06:59 PM
I generally like to treat evil as pretty self-destructive, especially if the player likes to play chaotic evil smashy smashy murder/rape/burn style stupidity. Usually the 'self destructive' part is when the high level party of magistrates catches up to them, and the smarter evil guys turn in the dumb one for the bounty. Or they wreck something plot critical and I actually just let things fall on their heads while moving on.

Evil generally screws itself if you give it enough rope. People who play smart in the first place are rarely issues and are usually blessings for the DM. It is the dumb ones who burn down a town and then scream, "OH MY GOD RAILROADING" when a powerful posse comes to hang 'em from the tree. No, that is *consequences*. You don't need those kind of people and they'd probably be happier playing CRPGs.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-12-02, 07:26 PM
I haven't had to deal with players who wanted to play Stupid Evil since I was 13. A more frequent problem I've had is with players of Good characters who refuse to act reasonably when confronted with an Evil (or even a very selfishly Neutral) character. I dunno, I guess it depends on how you want to run your campaign, but this whole Manichean idea of a universe divided, "us vs them" style between monolithic blocks of Good and Evil just bores me to tears, and I hate it. I've played in games where other PCs refused to show my character the smallest amount of trust because he was Lawful Evil (and they weren't even Paladins, it was just plain metagaming) or because he was a True Neutral Hexblade with a slightly sarcastic disposition (that last one really gets me. You won't trust a competent and trained warrior to watch your back because his sense of humor offends you? Stupid.) I didn't stay long in any of those games.

Zergrusheddie
2008-12-03, 02:51 AM
Well, we are currently running an evil campaign and we are sure as hell going full out on it. We've all taken the Feat from LMBotD that makes you heal off of negative energy. Our Cleric is a disciple of the God of Undeath and Disease. He is currently building an army of undead.

"Well, wait a minute! I've played Evil campaigns before and that's pretty much standard. Not very exciting..."

When we got to level 5 and the Cleric needed "Material Components" to complete his Raise Dead spell, we decided that we should enjoy our new found World View. We broke into a farm house on the outskirts of town and tied up the parents and 2 children. We then cast Ghoul Touch (paralysis) on the parents.
Then, using a new spell that our cleric can cast as a Domain, we decided to have a little fun. The spell is called Ghoul Hunger, and it works exactly like Hold Person. However, it states that the Target eats a dead or helpless creature until the spell ends.

Yeah, that's right:
We paralyzed the parents, and cast Ghoul Hunger on the children. The children ate their parents while the parents could not fight back. We then coup de graced the two kids and used Raise Dead. The Wizard nearly left the house in real life when the Cleric was explaining what he (we) were doing.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-03, 03:10 AM
The Wizard nearly left the house in real life when the Cleric was explaining what he (we) were doing.

Well yeah, this is pretty sick, and there's no surprise it squicked someone out.

Kizara
2008-12-03, 03:11 AM
Well, we are currently running an evil campaign and we are sure as hell going full out on it. We've all taken the Feat from LMBotD that makes you heal off of negative energy. Our Cleric is a disciple of the God of Undeath and Disease. He is currently building an army of undead.

"Well, wait a minute! I've played Evil campaigns before and that's pretty much standard. Not very exciting..."

When we got to level 5 and the Cleric needed "Material Components" to complete his Raise Dead spell, we decided that we should enjoy our new found World View. We broke into a farm house on the outskirts of town and tied up the parents and 2 children. We then cast Ghoul Touch (paralysis) on the parents.
Then, using a new spell that our cleric can cast as a Domain, we decided to have a little fun. The spell is called Ghoul Hunger, and it works exactly like Hold Person. However, it states that the Target eats a dead or helpless creature until the spell ends.

Yeah, that's right:
We paralyzed the parents, and cast Ghoul Hunger on the children. The children ate their parents while the parents could not fight back. We then coup de graced the two kids and used Raise Dead. The Wizard nearly left the house in real life when the Cleric was explaining what he (we) were doing.

That's pretty legitimately evil and inventive. Kudos.