Anyone else had to deal with "evil is cool, good is dumb" players?

[Dr. Killjoy]

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]

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]

...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]

I have only neutrals in my group, always.

No hope for good, no. No way.

[Yukitsu]

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]

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]

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]

given that there are novels out there in 2nd ed where paladin has to cooperate with demons and yugoloths, there is precedent.

[Darkshade]

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]

Yeah, but there should at least be a good in-character rationale involved. Not just DM fiat.

[Neithan]

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]

And a succubus who became a paladin after falling in love with one.

[Emperor Tippy]

Good in D&D is consistently dumb (at least lawful good). Most of the peopel I game with are generally neutral.

[hamishspence]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Pragmatism = More intelligent? that is an interesting opinion.

[Aquillion]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i'd have said one book with a mix of good and bad ideas, but thats me.

[Samurai Jill]

"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]

main problem I have is when someone says: the pragmatic approach is never evil, and player character is still morally perfect.

[Ascension]

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]

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]

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]

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.