Frustration with 'Evil' Campaigns.

[Paragon Badger]

...

......

.........



There is more to being evil than two different flavors of douchebag!

It's either 'I'm so full of myself cause I'm 'witty' and have a charisma and/or intelligence score of 18 or 'Is there an orphanage nearby? I'm hungry!!!1!11one

[Myshlaevsky]

...

......

.........



There is more to being evil than two different flavors of douchebag!

It's either 'I'm so full of myself cause I'm 'witty' and have a charisma and/or intelligence score of 18 or 'Is there an orphanage nearby? I'm hungry!!!1!11one

Heh. Care to tell us the specifics that have brought this out?

[Sinfire Titan]

Name them.

[Paragon Badger]

Heh. Care to tell us the specifics that have brought this out?

Browsing this very forum for games that are recruiting, actually.

To be fair, these are just my judgement calls from both the players' demeanor and their character concepts... I shoulden't be so quick to condemn, but I certaintly don't want to be caught in a game where I'll just be so bored to tears that I'll lose interest and drop out.

[Myshlaevsky]

Browsing this very forum for games that are recruiting, actually.

To be fair, these are just my judgement calls from both the players' demeanor and their character concepts... I shoulden't be so quick to condemn, but I certaintly don't want to be caught in a game where I'll just be so bored to tears that I'll lose interest and drop out.

Well, this goblin is pretty comically evil, but he's supposed to be. When (if!) I'm playing him I'll shoot for being funny, slyly manipulative and a religious maniac. He's very much a small-time villain - the kind of bawdy tyrant who's the bad cop in a movie, but nothing like Kurtz or The Master. He might develop beyond this, but I don't know, and I often find playing a villain who is plausibly 'real world' in his actions disconcerting. I'm also recruiting for an Evil campaign, and, while some of the characters have quite similar 'generic' - take no offense, please - backgrounds, there are a couple who stand out.

To be honest, what is there is all you have to go on. You've got the choice to play or not to play, and it's yours to make.

If I were to really take a shot at playing a serious, dangerous evil character I'd look to fictional and literary examples. Kurtz, IMO, is a fantastic archetype to play off.

[Tengu_temp]

A perfect illustration of one of the main reasons why Tengu doesn't play or GM games with evil PCs.

[Tempest Fennac]

I have 1 evil character, http://mydndgame.com/?action=charact...&character=128 , who I based off Albert Wesker from the Residant Evil games. I mainly made him as the opposite of my first character, http://mydndgame.com/?action=charact...&character=104 . So far, Argent is the only character I've really used, but I don't think he's that evil. (He's main aim is to get enough money from treasure hunting to buy a lot of buisnesses in a reasonably large town so that he can gain political influence due to having a monopoly). I'm not that good at pretending to be evil, though.

[Grey Paladin]

Evil people are just that- people.

They love, they hate, they laugh, they cry, they bleed, and they're a significant part of society, most likely at least a couple of your friends, siblings, or associates are Evil.

The slacker who has no interest in contributing to society, the cold-hearted Objectivist,The conquering leader who only cares for his own people,The soldier who volunteered to join the army merely to satisfy his thirst for honor, the pleasure chaser who's only care is his pursuit, the thief who steals to feed his family, The doctor who's fear of death serves as the main motivation, The greedy capitalist, the wealthy donor who performs good out of guilt, the child who refuses to share his candy, Me, all are evil.

Those who dub them monsters unworthy of compassion and companionship misunderstand a large part of what it means to be human.

[Myshlaevsky]

Evil people are just that- people.

They love, they hate, they laugh, they cry, they bleed, and they're a significant part of society, most likely at least a couple of your friends, siblings, or associates are Evil.

The slacker who has no interest in contributing to society, the cold-hearted Objectivist,The conquering leader who only cares for his own people,The soldier who volunteered to join the army merely to satisfy his thirst for honor, the pleasure chaser who's only care is his pursuit, the thief who steals to feed his family, The doctor who's fear of death serves as the main motivation, The greedy capitalist, the wealthy donor who performs good out of guilt, the child who refuses to share his candy, Me, all are evil.

Those who dub them monsters unworthy of compassion and companionship misunderstand a large part of what it means to be human.

That's an exceptionally broad definition of evil. Several of these definitions could apply to both the neutral and the good. That said, your point is that Evil people are present in all walks of life and in all motivations, so I see where you're coming from.

[SoD]

Evil people are just that- people.

They love, they hate, they laugh, they cry, they bleed, and they're a significant part of society, most likely at least a couple of your friends, siblings, or associates are Evil.

The slacker who has no interest in contributing to society, the cold-hearted Objectivist,The conquering leader who only cares for his own people,The soldier who volunteered to join the army merely to satisfy his thirst for honor, the pleasure chaser who's only care is his pursuit, the thief who steals to feed his family, The doctor who's fear of death serves as the main motivation, The greedy capitalist, the wealthy donor who performs good out of guilt, the child who refuses to share his candy, Me, all are evil.

Those who dub them monsters unworthy of compassion and companionship misunderstand a large part of what it means to be human.

My view on that list:

The slacker who has no interest in contributing to society: N. Possibly CN.
The conquering leader who only cares for his own people: LE.
The soldier who volunteered to join the army merely to satisfy his thirst for honor: LN, potentially LG or LE.
The pleasure chaser who's only care is his pursuit: Probably CN, possibly CE, depending on how far he's willing to go.
The thief who steals to feed his family: CG, possibly CN.
The doctor who's fear of death serves as the main motivation: LN, N, CN.
The wealthy donor who performs good out of guilt: Again, probably CN.
The child who refuses to share his candy: CN.
Me: I cannot pass judgement.

True, most of these could be justified as good or evil, and for each, we cannot pin an alignment on them from just that much, for, as you said, evil people love, good people hate. The evil person can still do kind acts, and may do them out of his own goodwill. Example: the donor. He does good acts, because he feels guilty. Does he feel guilty because he's so wealthy, or for a more shady reason? How did he amase his wealth? You can't judge from that small print.

[Grey Paladin]

The way I see it, Good is putting the needs of others above yours, while evil is the opposite.

Sometimes, your selfish need is to care and love another, not for their sake, but for your own.

[Tengu_temp]

Good is helping others for selfless reasons.
Neutral is putting your interest above that of the others.
Evil is putting your interest about that of the others to such an extent that you're willing to harm them to fulfill your goals.

I think you're mistaking neutral for evil.

[Grey Paladin]

Neutral is trying to strike a balance between the needs of others and your own, avoiding sacrificing your own happiness for the sake of others while attempting to help them.

[Tengu_temp]

That's good, or borderline good/neutral at least. You don't need to be a saint to be good, you just need to help other people for reasons other than personal gain.

[Sinfire Titan]

That's good, or borderline good/neutral at least. You don't need to be a saint to be good, you just need to help other people for reasons other than personal gain.

The PHB disagrees with you. If you strive to find the balancing point between two things, you are neutral. If you actively go out of your way to help others get what they want, that's good.

[bibliophile]

the cold-hearted Objectivist,..... evil.

I would say an Objectivist is the epitome of Neutral. The don't help anyone, but the don't help anyone either. They seem LN to me.

Evil people are just that- people.

They love, they hate, they laugh, they cry, they bleed, and they're a significant part of society, most likely at least a couple of your friends, siblings, or associates are Evil.

Those who dub them monsters unworthy of compassion and companionship misunderstand a large part of what it means to be human.

Indeed.

[Destro_Yersul]

Yay! An alignment debate! To state my refutal, I shall pull quotes from Wikipedia, because it's convenient. Here's what they have to say on being neutral:

Neutral alignment, also referred to as True Neutral or Neutral Neutral, is called the "Undecided" or "Nature's" alignment. This alignment represents neutral on both axes, and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment. A farmer whose only concern is to feed his family is of this alignment. Most animals, lacking the capacity for moral judgement, are of this alignment.

Some neutral characters, rather than feeling undecided, are committed to a balance between the alignments. They may see Good, Evil, Law and Chaos as simply prejudices and dangerous extremes. Mordenkainen is one such character who takes this concept to the extreme, dedicating himself to a detached philosophy of neutrality to ensure that no one alignment or power takes control of the Flanaess.

Druids frequently follow this True Neutral dedication to balance, and under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules were required to be this alignment. In an example given in a D&D rulebook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnoll's clan from being exterminated.

Lara Croft, Lucy Westenra from Dracula and Han Solo in his early Star Wars appearance are Neutral.

So you're half right. Some neutral characters are like that. But that's a single definition of a broader alignment. It's entirely possible to have nuetral characters who, rather than striving for balance, simply don't care much either way.

[Tengu_temp]

Just because it has "balance" in the description doesn't mean it makes me neutral. Am I neutral if I strive to eat a balanced diet?

Helping an old woman carry her heavy bags of groceries doesn't cost me anything, but is a very minor good act. If I perform acts like that, and no evil acts to balance them, I'm good.

If you have extremely high standards for good that only saints and martyrs qualify for, then you also should have extremely high standards for evil that only the most vile individuals meet. I don't think if being lazy makes me vile.

[Morty]

Of course there is, it's just that most people seem to see only those two. Though in their defense, the descriptions of alignment in the PHB don't help overmuch. But it's perfectly possible to play an evil character who cooperates with good and neutral peoples, though rarely for the same reasons they do. To use a cliched example, maybe an evil adventurer travels with good and/or neutral group because he sees fighting monsters and other typical adventurer stuff as an easy way to gain money and fame without reprecussions.

[Grey Paladin]

But isn't the act of not caring for the struggles and suffering of others evil all by itself? isn't murder by inaction still murder?

bibliophile: Not helping anyone but yourself seems like Evil leaning to Neutral to me.

[Tengu_temp]

But it's perfectly possible to play an evil character who cooperates with good and neutral peoples, though rarely for the same reasons they do.

That is correct. A good example would be Jayne from Firefly (if you discount the Ariel episode). It's just that few people manage to pull off such characters well, and most act like Belkar. Bonus points if they whine "I'm just roleplaying my character!" if they get killed by the rest of their group for stupidly killing innocent people.

But isn't the act of not caring for the struggles and suffering of others evil all by itself? isn't murder by inaction still murder?

Depends on the reason. Not stopping a murder because you aren't able to help in any way, or because you're too afraid, is neutral. Not stopping a murder because you can't be arsed is evil.

[Sinfire Titan]

Just because it has "balance" in the description doesn't mean it makes me neutral. Am I neutral if I strive to eat a balanced diet?

Helping an old woman carry her heavy bags of groceries doesn't cost me anything, but is a very minor good act. If I perform acts like that, and no evil acts to balance them, I'm good.

If you have extremely high standards for good that only saints and martyrs qualify for, then you also should have extremely high standards for evil that only the most vile individuals meet. I don't think if being lazy makes me vile.

A single act of minor good does not make you good. It takes many such acts to shift alignment. Otherwise Sauron could have redeemed himself by caring for a stray puppy.

[Morty]

That is correct. A good example would be Jayne from Firefly (if you discount the Ariel episode). It's just that few people manage to pull off such characters well, and most act like Belkar. Bonus points if they whine "I'm just roleplaying my character!" if they get killed by the rest of their group for stupidly killing innocent people.

If the designers of PHB could be bothered to describe Evil alignment in less "give me some babies, I'm hungry" way this could have been avoided. If I recall correctly, it's described that way in Eberron handbook, where it's specifically stated that evil people can be normal members of the society.

[Sinfire Titan]

That is correct. A good example would be Jayne from Firefly (if you discount the Ariel episode). It's just that few people manage to pull off such characters well, and most act like Belkar. Bonus points if they whine "I'm just roleplaying my character!" if they get killed by the rest of their group for stupidly killing innocent people.

And those people are the reason we have the Chaotic Stupid trope.

[kamikasei]

Helping an old woman carry her heavy bags of groceries doesn't cost me anything, but is a very minor good act. If I perform acts like that, and no evil acts to balance them, I'm good.

I think neutral should have more flexibility than that. If you think of alignment as a 100-point scale, neutral isn't just the exact middle but a range of 30-40 (depending on how you think alignments are distributed). So someone like you describe here is neutral, though good-leaning, in the same way that, say, an IQ of 105 is "average", though obviously above the actual mathematical average.

My way of thinking of it is that good people will tend to sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of others, while evil people will tend to sacrifice the well-being of others for their own sake. Neutral people will in general not go out of their way to either help or harm others, though this covers a range (simple self-preservation shouldn't push you from neutral to evil, which makes adjudicating the distinction tricky; at the same time, neutral people will have people for whom they will sacrifice, it's just not a general force in their behaviour). Nor need a good person be entirely self-effacing; if you do a lot to help people while also making sure you're not doing yourself damage in the process you're still good. It's a complex issue that doesn't admit of clean-edged, absolute pronouncements.

I have one evil character at the moment in a PbP whose chief evil tendency so far is that he's a sarcastic jerk. Of course as a PbP pace is slow, but I don't expect any backstabbing from him.

[Tengu_temp]

A single act of minor good does not make you good. It takes many such acts to shift alignment. Otherwise Sauron could have redeemed himself by caring for a stray puppy.

Please point out where have I mentioned a single act, because my post states that you have to perform such acts constantly to be good.

By the way and not on topic, I also think that performing major good acts to balance your major evil ones (we're not talking kicking puppies here, but rather murdering villages), but without repenting for the evil ones and still continuing to do them afterwards, is evil. An AD&D druid who kills goblin raiders first, and helps them kill the innocent villagers later is evil, just deluding himself into thinking he's neutral.

I think neutral should have more flexibility than that. If you think of alignment as a 100-point scale, neutral isn't just the exact middle but a range of 30-40 (depending on how you think alignments are distributed). So someone like you describe here is neutral, though good-leaning, in the same way that, say, an IQ of 105 is "average", though obviously above the actual mathematical average.

Constant acts of kindness, without anything evil to balance them, make you good. Occassional acts of kindness keep you neutral.

[Destro_Yersul]

But isn't the act of not caring for the struggles and suffering of others evil all by itself? isn't murder by inaction still murder?

Hardly. Murder is willingly causing the death of another. Failing to get in the way of one committing murder qualifies as assistance, at worst.


On a different note, I had an evil character once who wanted to become powerful enough to take over, but the current BBEG was in his way. So he tagged along with a group of decidedly good adventurers, lending a hand wherever needed, because he recognized that he wouldn't be able to take her on by himself. Once she was dead, his plan was to go back to quietly accumulating influence.

[Viruzzo]

Hardly. Murder is willingly causing the death of another. Failing to get in the way of one committing murder qualifies as assistance, at worst.

Trying to save someone, even when failing, is a good action is you don't do it for your gains only. If you wouldn't do it but for some advantage, it's actually on the neutral/evil border, depending on the circumstances.
But when you don't even try, there are two possible scenarios:

A) you (more or less) want to help, but there is something restraining you (you fear something, someone could be damaged in the end, etc.). This is a neutral behaviour IMO, as you do not place good-doing before other considerations.

B) you actively avoid giving help, even if it would not cost you. That is clearly evil, because you don't do good even if you have nothing to lose.

[sonofzeal]

I have three evil characters...

1) Tankli, a LE Dwarven Defender. Was exiled from Dwarven society for his impure ancestry and sadistic tendancies, and his entire goal in life is to prove himself "more Dwarven" than those who kicked him out, not so he can go back, but so he could throw it in their faces. In the mean time, he has a tendancy towards unnecessary brutality, torture, and generally antisocial behavior. Still, he's a Team Player(tm), at least when it comes to combat, and does his chosen job well. Has been known to intentionally disarm Prismatic Walls with his face.

2) Henry, a LE/LN Poison Dusk Lizardfolk Rogue. Less "evil" per se, than just adhering to a different moral system that includes summary execution for any serious breach of etiquette, and cannibalism. Absolutely pitiless and merciless, but not actively out to cause pain or suffering. Will attempt to keep cannibalism out of the public eye to avoid causing offence. Works well in groups, as long as everyone is suitably respectful.

3) Aunirak, a CE variant-Drow Barbarian/Warblade. Bitter, alchoholic, apathetic except when he gets to kill things or when someone compares him to surface elves (which usually leads to the former). Quite intelligent, but unlikely to accomplish anything much on his own outside of the context of an adventuring team. Again, he works suprisingly well in groups, as he'll generally go along with whatever the team decides, and retreat to the bottle rather than lashing out over most aggrevations.



So yeah, IMO none of those are Smug Snake, Jerkass, or Chaotic Stupid. Anyone looking for evil PbP characters? =D

[valadil]

I've played an evil character but never in an evil campaign. It can work, if players are mature about it. As far as I can tell though, most evil campaigns are nothing more than a contest in verbal depravity.

I actually ran a game with some borderline evil characters a while back. The difference with them and the orphan feasting types, is that my PCs knew that evil characters still want to appear as upright citizens. Unless you're uberpowerful or simply monstrous, it is in an evil character's best interest to appear lawful good. Once you have players who understand that, you can do the evil game.