Why Good?

[goto124]

Why do people prefer to play Good characters? Good tends to be treated as if it were the default alignment for PCs, but I can't really see why.

Is it because it encourages roleplay, in the sense of making people think twice over the morality of their actions? Evil gives you more freedom of choice... in a bad way? Or something?

Would you let a new player play an Evil character, or campaign? Would you recommand it?

[mephnick]

Because good is the default assumption for heroes in traditional fantasy, which is the inspiration for the entire hobby. Many people who get into TTRPGs seek to re-live those fantasies.

I let people play evil characters, but most people (ime) play them really badly. It's generally an outlet to be a loner or a jerk. I find that good characters almost always have more depth to them.

[Yora]

Why alignment?

Just play people who make descisions at the spur of the moment based on what seems right for the character without considering the implications for an arbitrary made up system of morality?

[goto124]

Alright, I'll extend 'Good' to normal, non-alignment-dependant 'good' with a small letter g.

Still, having to do stuff like worrying about the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of an action, is it all part of TTRPGs?

[redwizard007]

Adventure design. It is FAR easier to convince Good PCs to save the princess, rescue the kids, hunt down the monsters, etc. without a huge financial incentive or giving the PCs a reason to hate/oppose the antagonists.

No... Ok, less, inter-party conflict. An Evil party is more likely to turn on itself than a good group. While PC vs PC conflict can be fun when tempered, evil rarely shows that restraint.

Because most players are good. It can be fun to play the bad guy sometimes but often an evil campaign turns into the BoVD and most of us aren't into sadistic torture.

[goto124]

How about a Neutral party? Or pragmatic Evil party? People who don't go around torturing people for fun, but do not consider it beneath them to betray dragons, or use poison, or murder guards?

How do campaigns with Evil parties usually turn out? How experienced were the players involved?

[redwizard007]

I have run fun evil campaigns, BUT there is almost always at least one guy, we will call him Jason, who wants to take things to the next level.

Now while the rest of the party is figuring out how to ransom the prince, Jason is cutting off appendages under the pretense of interrogation.

When the party is roughing up merchants in a protection racket, Jason is lighting people on fire.

Now, if you don't have a Jason at your table things may go more smoothly, but it may surprise you how sadistic some of your friends may be.

All I'm saying is, if you run evil... Be prepared for nightmares.

[Vitruviansquid]

If I'm playing DnD, the reason I don't let players play Evil or run an Evil campaign is the same reason I don't want to tell my players we're playing a "humorous" campaign.

It opens the floodgates to all kinds of dysfunction when players take "evil" to mean "you should kick every puppy and be mean to each other and everyone and do horrifyingly unsocially acceptable things" when all you wanted was for people to be pragmatic-evil, or something.

[Svata]

Because people are afraid of evil, and the GM is afraid they'll have to be stuck playing the good guy if the PCs are evil. But most importantly, because once you open the floodgates, you may not be able to close them again, or worse, you may not want to.

More realistically, because good is simpler to do, and its less likely that someone will be a massive jerk IC in a good-aligned game. And even if there is one, it is far less likely to spiral out of control.

[ufo]

The uselessness of the whole alignment system aside, I think that, for many players, capital-E Evil becomes the defining characteristic of a given character instead of a consequence of their character's values being incompatible with general society. A character can be seen as evil by society at large, but realistically they will still have heartfelt respect for their friends, family or certain strata of the population. In the campaign I'm DMing right now, the players are all playing absolute scum, who are also criminals that are not shy to torture, manipulate and generally brute-force towards their goals - they are still tightly-knit, respect those who share common goals and have sympathy for the poor working-class people of the city they are in.

[kaoskonfety]

I have run fun evil campaigns, BUT there is almost always at least one guy, we will call him Jason, who wants to take things to the next level.

Now while the rest of the party is figuring out how to ransom the prince, Jason is cutting off appendages under the pretense of interrogation.

When the party is roughing up merchants in a protection racket, Jason is lighting people on fire.

Now, if you don't have a Jason at your table things may go more smoothly, but it may surprise you how sadistic some of your friends may be.

All I'm saying is, if you run evil... Be prepared for nightmares.

"but I'm evil! it says so on my character sheet" - if I hear this from a Player I have then remove the alignment entry and ask them to think again about their choices

I've run D&D games where the party was all bad, bad people. I've also run alot of Shadowrun where the assumption is you are some flavour of criminal and you break laws at the behest of faceless, often evil, men for money. Its the core premise. If you as a DM are prepared, it works. Sometimes it downright sings.

The trick is stepping back from standard fantasy tropes and looking more at the story/game aspect
- make sure the game is entertaining for everyone, if Jason cutting off limbs is messing up the parties plans but everyone is dark humouring it up out of character - well its a bit twisted but if your table can handle it good. If anyone is uncomfortable it does need to stop tho... cause... ya...
- make sure the bad bad PC's have and over arching foe - in Shadowrun you are always under the thumb of the mega-corps, some good-ish, some end of the world planning scenery chewing villains but characters in almost all cases are unified by the "down with "The Man"" -

Taking a page from that book, an Order of Paladins takes a personal interest in in your groups wrong doings (The Man), as does a cabal of warlocks (scenery chewing villains) and the kings secret police (Also The Man, but bad men, and government sanctioned bad men, who hire you for things they cannot be caught doing) toss is more groups to taste/level of complexity you are comfortable with - have the group work for the highest bidder (one of whom seeks to summons say... Orcus to transform the material world into a demonic disneyland *Edit* the end result needs to be deeply undesirable for the group, no matter how awful they are - even the most off the wall nasty murderer *playable* character will baulk at the end of all that lives in service to immortal evil as a weekend getaway *end edit*), episodic missions styled, they have to keep out from under the eyes of paladins, the town guards and reputable people who have seen the wanted posters and in the end the piece enough together they even get to save the world - or at least offer to save it, for the right price.

[Necroticplague]

Because some people can't play evil well to save there life, and some settings make all the bad-guy examples so stupidly evil as to make even thinking about playing something related to them feel idiotic. Unfortunately, the bad examples are easier to remember than the good ones, so it tends to cloud people's perception more. There are good ways to play evil characters, even in systems without such formalized alignment (take Promethean, and you could equally say "centimani" instead of 'evil', and have the exact same argument).

[Comet]

A more open campaign setting benefits from the main characters being a bit on the shadier side, actually. Saintly characters are often on the reactive side, only springing into action when the GM presents them with an evil plot that needs to be stopped. Greedy, power hungry or otherwise self-centered characters only need to be given a world to play in and they'll come up with more than enough trouble to fill multiple evenings of gaming. This is why some people feel that Conan makes for better tabletop gaming than Dragonlance.

[Red Fel]

Everyone else has pretty much said it, but for me it boils down to three things:

1. Tradition. TTRPGs, at their outset, were based on great heroic epics. The PCs were the heroes. This was the assumption. In early editions of D&D, for example, it was pretty much understood that going Evil meant going NPC.
2. Simplicity. It is easier for the GM to write a campaign about the PCs' heroism than about their villainy. Heroes, in many ways, are reactive; there are dragons that need slaying, damsels that need rescuing, trade negotiations to be resolved, people to be smuggled off of desert planets, idols that belong in museums, etc. Villains, by contrast, are proactive; before the baddies plan their bank heists, their hijackings, or their assassinations, there is nothing in particular going on. This places a burden on a DM to come up with a world that motivates the PCs to take the lead, as opposed to one where he can dangle plot threads in front of them and let them take the bait.
3. Conflict. Heroes don't have to be all buddy-buddy. But it is more or less understood that The Good Guys, though they may differ in opinion, may nonetheless come together for The Common Good. There is, ostensibly, a Common Good. There is no Common Bad. There is no "Guys, we need to stop these heroes on behalf of villains everywhere!" There is no "If we allow this justice to continue, villainy as we know it will cease to exist!" There is no single unifying thing that works for The Bad Guys in nearly the same way as it works for The Good Guys (with the exception of having a nemesis in common). As a result, Evil characters - unless played by smart players who specifically want to avoid it - are more readily able to fall into conflict. That's not to say that they must, or that Good characters can't; simply that it's easier for Evil characters to fall into that trap.

That said, I agree with the thread title completely: Why Good?

[Bulldog Psion]

To some extent, I think, it's because some players really take the evil ball and run with it. And in doing so, they start having their characters do really over the top things, which in turn makes everyone else uncomfortable, which in turn makes the game less enjoyable for most of the other players. If there's a certain kind of personality in the group, things can get ugly really fast. Then other players may leave and the group may split up.

All too often, you'll run across someone who views an evil alignment as the green light to play a psychopathic serial killer. Then you start getting descriptions of exactly how they torture the innkeeper to find his money stash. And exactly how they rape his wife. And exactly how they kill the other guests in their sleep to rob them ... and on and on.

Stuff like that tends to make other people uncomfortable. I know I'd be uncomfortable as the DM setting up any encounter with "civilian" NPCs knowing that one of the players would be having their character use them as prey. Or that I'm going to have to listen to descriptions of how the character tortures a captured orc for information. Etc. etc.

That individual player may have fun for a while. But you're risking the group breaking up over it.

Having a good aligned party is a form of player control. And personally, I think there's a bigger satisfaction from a triumphal world-saving/city-saving/prince-or-princess-saving/MacGuffin-saving storyline than one that is just like Belkar killing Solt Lorkyurg over and over in different circumstances.

Theoretically, you could have an evil party achieve the same inspiring goals. But in practice, there are very few people who can pull off "villainous characters doing heroic deeds." Most of the time, it just devolves into nihilistic thuggery and petty bloodthirstiness, IMO at least.

Having a good-aligned party starts stuff off on the right foot by telling the players "you're supposed to be doing heroic deeds." It would take a group composed solely of astonishing roleplayers to create a moving and inspiring storyline with a cast of knaves, and gathering such a group is a near impossibility. If it isn't actually impossible.

[Drakefall]

I wish that were the default character morality where I live. A good deal of the far too small gaming community round these parts seem to like to play some combination of "dark", "independent" and "wacky" characters, which more often than not translates into stupid, selfish jerk characters who are totally "deep" because they'll murder the party paladin for telling them it's bad to commit violent crimes and betray the rest of party to the demon overlord because lulz. The behavior is toxic and an unfortunate amount of those introduced to TTRPGs are shown the above as the default behavior.

I may be somewhat bitter...

At any rate, the point I make is that it is sometimes related to the culture of the gaming community in question. In one area the default gaming style revolves around heroic good guy fantasy which necessarily involves a lot of heroic good guy characters, while another area may have its default gaming style revolve around modern supernatural horror and intrigue, creating a trend of morally grey characters as prominent.

Me, I like being a good guy because I was raised on Gummi Bears, Samwise Gamgee, Spiderman and countless fictional examples of heroic sacrifice, so I guess being a good guy just seems cool to me, where needless evil stuff seems lame.

Differing perspective on what is "good", "grey" and "evil" can also be a big factor. The only actual evil character I ever played for any significant amount of time was believed by everyone at the table to be neutral because while I murdered the occasional individual all of those could be described as combatants or corrupt officials, the murder of which apparently isn't evil to some people.

Also, everything that Bulldog Psion said.

[YossarianLives]

Many players (mine included) find it much easier to just have their characters be a bunch of psychopaths running across the countryside murdering and stealing for the fun of it.

Personally I just find it very hard to role-play a massive jerk.

[LibraryOgre]

In my case, because I simply don't like playing evil.

I don't play to get away from moral decisions; I play to be able to make moral decisions that matter. I don't play because it means that I get to be an unlimited dickwad to NPCs. The consequences of my actions may be imaginary, but I still prefer to be good than evil, and even in relatively amoral games (Shadowrun, Vampire), my dislike of playing evil means I tend towards more altruistic characters.

[Honest Tiefling]

I find it easier to sympathize and care about a PC that if not good, at least has some good intentions somewhere in there even if they are evil. If I care about the PC, then I tend to care more about the story. Yeah, I'm one of those types who wants to see something good (even if overall, the character is evil) in the protagonist. It is hard for me to get invested in a character (even more neutral ones) if I don't feel that their intentions are something I'd care about.

[Jay R]

I have no interest in trying to entertain myself pretending to be somebody I dislike and don't respect, or pretending to do things I find contemptible.

That would not be fulfilling or rewarding.

[LibraryOgre]

There's occasional attractions to watching total bastards at work... I laughed out loud yesterday, reading Bernard Cornwell's The Empty Throne as Uthred put the screws to a Bishop with a trio of prostitutes and the Bishop's own words. But, as HT and Jay said, there's something good in the characters. While some might argue that evil characters might have that seed of good or noble in them, I'd far rather be a hero than an anti-hero, and an anti-hero than a villain.

[sktarq]

I would dispute the good as default is the TTRPG baseline actually.

Rifts-I wouldn't real say there are "good guys" and heroes is most of the setting. Lots of villians and if you call those who oppose them heroes you have some but I wouldn't call it the default

World of Darkness-How do you deal with some monstrous aspect of your new condition is kind of the heart of World of Darkness-it is about bad and less bad in a world good doesn't survive well

Shadowrun- Default generally has you being mercenary criminals - not exactly what you would call good really.

Starwars- Sith seem rather popular but I see the idea that a heroic baseline could be seen as default.

DnD-sure do gooder heroes who randomly met at a tavern one day or who are agents of the King (and thus Law) where part of the foundational stories of the game and still influence it today. Also most of the game is culled from stories of heroic legend and they tended to be good. This probably also draws more people wanting to play heroes to this game over others.

So yeah it may be the stereotype baseline in DnD but not really TTRPG's as a whole but primarily in its most famous member

[Red Fel]

So yeah it may be the stereotype baseline in DnD but not really TTRPG's as a whole but primarily in its most famous member

That's a fair assessment. Certainly, some games have the PCs embrace a more mercenary or morally ambiguous perspective. But let's not forget two things.

First, as you point out, D&D is the prototypical TTRPG, and probably the most widely recognized symbol of the genre. Many of the conventions of TTRPGs generally were established by D&D; many new TTRPGs describe themselves as "D&D with X" or "D&D but Y". D&D is very much the baseline against which many TTRPGs measure themselves, or are measured. And that means measuring up to D&D's baggage, which includes being steeped in a tradition of Big Shiny Heroes.

Second, I think the willingness to embrace moral ambiguity is a more modern development, relatively speaking. Yes, Shadowrun and World of Darkness are both longstanding titans in the field of TTRPGs, and they have inherent to them a sense of moral ambiguity, but they are young bucks compared with D&D. And even in a game like Shadowrun, where the PCs are hardly saints, they can at least be assured that the people from whom they're stealing are much, much worse. Even in a game like Vampire or Werewolf, where you play the stuff of nightmares, there is a thread of trying to hold onto what makes you human.

I think that many games, particularly in the age of D&D 3.0, started transitioning toward a more morally ambiguous or Evil-tolerant direction, in part because of the market. I could make observations about antiheroes and antivillains in movies and books, or general societal cynicism, but it strikes me as a more modern, recent event, prior to which the emphasis was still on the (relative) decency and humanity of the PCs.

I'm not saying that Good is the default now. I am saying, however, that it was once, and that this tradition has left its imprints even into the newest systems. Heck, find me a system where the PCs are explicitly villains (other than Kobolds Ate My Babies!) and I'll point you to the plug on the back of the book that says "Why play the hero, when you can play the villain instead?" Half of the selling point is the subversiveness of having a system that doesn't involve PCs-as-heroes. Even the systems designed for villains are inspired in part by the historic TTRPG presumption of Good.

[kaoskonfety]

Heck, find me a system where the PCs are explicitly villains (other than Kobolds Ate My Babies!)

Kobolds are not the villains in Kobolds ate my Baby!

They are hard working folk trying to feed their people (King Torg) on pain of being fed to their people (King Torg).

If anything fills the role of villain in there its King Torg. All Hail! Or the humans who are so greedy with their offspring... or the god or Anger and Kobolds who is mostly angry about being the god of kobolds... or really the whole murderous dangerous world... or all your buddies who also want to eat you... etc. etc. etc.

[TheThan]

Why alignment?

Just play people who make descisions at the spur of the moment based on what seems right for the character without considering the implications for an arbitrary made up system of morality?

Unfortunately alignment is an objective thing in dnd. At least it used to be. So it’s really hard to just throw it out.

So I tend to think of alignments as general guidelines for characters, in addition to any mechanical situations that crop up. A Lawful good character is prone to following the rules and doing good; he may not always follow rules if he feels they are unjust or evil, but generally he doesn’t go out of his way to break the rules.

This way paladins don’t immediately fall when they make a slightly chaotic act. If a paladin violates his alignment/code it must be knowingly, and certainly he must have a good reason besides “meh”.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Unfortunately alignment is an objective thing in dnd. At least it used to be. So it’s really hard to just throw it out.

Good thing this isn't a D&D subsection then.

[TheThan]

Good thing this isn't a D&D subsection then.

yeah, what I'm saying is that the "throw it out" argument is sometimes nullified by the game having specific rules and objective ideas of good/evil and law/chaos.

[jedipotter]

Why do people prefer to play Good characters? Good tends to be treated as if it were the default alignment for PCs, but I can't really see why.
Is it because it encourages roleplay, in the sense of making people think twice over the morality of their actions?

Heroes are good. If your going to play a hero, the hero needs to be good.

Evil gives you more freedom of choice... in a bad way? Or something?

Too much choice is bad. It's almost impossible to have a group game with people that have too much choice.

Would you let a new player play an Evil character, or campaign? Would you recommand it?

All the time. Yes.

[gom jabbarwocky]

Second, I think the willingness to embrace moral ambiguity is a more modern development, relatively speaking. Yes, Shadowrun and World of Darkness are both longstanding titans in the field of TTRPGs, and they have inherent to them a sense of moral ambiguity, but they are young bucks compared with D&D. And even in a game like Shadowrun, where the PCs are hardly saints, they can at least be assured that the people from whom they're stealing are much, much worse. Even in a game like Vampire or Werewolf, where you play the stuff of nightmares, there is a thread of trying to hold onto what makes you human.

I think that many games, particularly in the age of D&D 3.0, started transitioning toward a more morally ambiguous or Evil-tolerant direction, in part because of the market. I could make observations about antiheroes and antivillains in movies and books, or general societal cynicism, but it strikes me as a more modern, recent event, prior to which the emphasis was still on the (relative) decency and humanity of the PCs.

I'll agree with this. I also think that in the vast majority of melodrama (such as the fantasy and science fiction stories from which most RPGs take inspiration) there is an emphasis on the protagonists representing the positive traits of humanity and doing battle against evil. There's basically just gussied up morality plays. So having intentionally morally ambiguous (or evil) protagonists in, say, an epic sword-and-sorcery story was essentially unheard of until the '60s and '70s (thanks, Michael Moorcock!) with the science fiction New Wave, when writers started messing around with some of the core assumptions of the format. When they were created, characters like Gandalf, Conan, and going way back, Percival and Roland, were supposed to be morally uncomplex characters in worlds where good and evil were rigidly defined. D&D wants to simulate these kinds of stories, but most players aren't interested in participating in a morality play, so these are kind of just artifacts.

Nevertheless, most players don't want to play villains for the simple reason that it's not fun to them and doesn't cultivate the same mood they want from their games. It's much more satisfying for most players to say, "Wow! What a cool, heroic character my PC is, with great friends and the respect of those who know them!" than to say, "My PC is a human piece of garbage, hated and feared by all who know them." This was the reason explained to me why, despite my persistent pitches, none of my fellow players are interested in playing in an evil game.

[Red Fel]

"My PC is a human piece of garbage, hated and feared by all who know them."

Funny. My Evil PCs aren't human garbage, hated and feared. People love them. Love them, and despair.

Seriously, though, for me, playing Evil is the same as playing Good - it's about having a nuanced, compelling character, with depth and complexity, who interacts well with the party and contributes to the evolution of the story. I can do that as a shining champion of light or as a sinister, manipulative force of darkness.

That said, my Evil characters are rarely garish. I generally prefer my Evil to be classy, understated, nuanced. The sort of Evil you like to keep around. The definition of "the Devil you know." I like my Evil PCs to be almost trustworthy in their Evil; the other PCs, even Good ones, can rely on my Evil PCs to look out for the party's best interests, and to not jeopardize the mission. My Evil PCs don't go around randomly killing, or causing undead apocalypse scenarios, or cheesing off the wrong NPCs at the wrong time just for kicks; and if they do betray the party, it's in such a way that does not actually inconvenience the other PCs or hinder the plot. I go for emotional impact, not mechanical.

I like playing Evil, most of all, because I like showing the other side of an alignment. I don't like black and white definitions of Good and Evil, even in systems where alignment is arbitrarily defined. So I push the envelope. My Paladins have foul mouths, my Necromancers have a fondness for kittens, my Clerics of Light have an eye for the ladies, my Dark Cultists would never harm children. I like the idea that alignment is not a single, monolithic adjective, but an overall impression, and that a person - a person with layers, with virtues and vices and complexity - lives under those two letters. Evil lets me present a villain you can respect, a monster you can appreciate, a beast you might even love to hate. I like the challenge of pulling that off.

Also? That look on another player's face when you remind them that, despite the kittens and the orphans and the trust and kind words, the character is still very much on the other side of the moral event horizon. That's just delicious.