I come to the playground with a roleplay problem.

[denthor]

I am off track somewhere.

Want to run a NE 1/2 elf Sorcerer.

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

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

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

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

3rd
Deeper slumber

Any ideas?

[icefractal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

[Saint-Just]

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

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

[OldTrees1]

Intelligent evil can appear indistinguishable from good.

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

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

[False God]

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

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

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

[Matuka]

I play an evil character in an evil campaign and we have a saying, "we're friends, everyone else can die in a ditch."

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was...disappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chronic]

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

[Isocahedron]

Sorry, I'm probably blind here, but what system, so I can see the spell descriptions?

[Shpadoinkle]

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

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

[D&D_Fan]

Is your character truly evil, or only intending to be evil?

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

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

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

also:

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

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

[Segev]

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

[Friv]

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

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

My usual rule of thumb:

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

My usual rule of thumb:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[paddyfool]

In addition to "what are your character's goals", think "what are your ideals"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Athos]

-snip-

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

[D&D_Fan]

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

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

[icefractal]

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

It's fuzzy, but I'd say there's definitely a point where sufficiently callous self-interest becomes evil, even if you never instigate the harm.

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

[Xervous]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

[denthor]

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

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

But since you brought him up.

Red fel
Red fel
Red fel

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

[Saint-Just]

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

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

[Red Fel]

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

But since you brought him up.

Red fel
Red fel
Red fel

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

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

In any event, let's dive right in!

I am off track somewhere.

Want to run a NE 1/2 elf Sorcerer.

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

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

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

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

3rd
Deeper slumber

Any ideas?

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

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

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

See? That's Evil.

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

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

[Segev]

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

You'd think the Nine would have better screening before allowing re-entry. Whose heads are rolling for that slip-up?

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

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

This just cannot be emphasized enough. It is my primary worry over the questions asked by the OP, to make sure he understands this. You do not need to prove your evil bona fides by being a jerk to the party. Even CE can (and often does) have more sense than that. (Not always, sadly, but then, I've seen LE, NE, and even LG that were stupid that way.)

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

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

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

[denthor]

My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

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

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?

[Friv]

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

My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

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

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

[Segev]

My thoughts with use rope and deeper slumber.

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

That was the mechanic I am going for.

About right?

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

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



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

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

This seems highly likely if they even realize there's no need to finish the monsters off now that they're down.

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

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

The turn of phrase was glib and witty, and sounded poetic. Sadly, yeah, it altered the meaning. It's sometimes hard to be both precise and poetic.

[denthor]

For years in this game I was the only good. The rest of the party wanted evil. The killed my mage several times only to say oh **** can we hit the reset button and we will not do that again.

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

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

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

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