Good vs. Evil

[Fatespinner]

Ericthecleric started a discussion on another thread about why good-aligned PCs tend to be more powerful than evil-aligned PCs. I'm not sure if I agree with this sentiment (if that is what Eric was trying to suggest...) but I would be willing to have the discussion here.

Eric, I invite you to propose your arguement as a follow-up to this post. I shall enjoy the discussion.

[KnightErrantJR]

Fatespinner, I agree with what you were saying in the other thread. Good and evil are in opposition, but they don't work just like each other, "but opposite."

Not only are evil creatures not worried about harming other evil creatures, but they would enjoy the idea that they are being summoned by someone good, in hopes that eventually they might be corrupted themselves (or at least evil outsiders are likely to think this way).

A good aligned outsider isn't going to show up to fight a troublesome gaurdinal, because it would first off injure the overall cause of good. Also, being summoned in this way isn't likely to "convert" an evil caster the way that summoning an evil creature might subvert an good caster.

[Celestial Healer]

While I don't have any statistical data one way or the other to support or contradict the claim that good PrC's are more powerful, I don't doubt that, at the very least, there are more of them.

There's a good reason for that. The main users of PrC's are the players. They are controlling a single, highly customized character that advances by class levels.

DM's creating NPC's (which include, in most cases, all of the evil beings in the campaign) are often looking for more simplicity, and less customization. Lots of PrC's just make a lot more to keep track of.

That doesn't mean DM's have fewer options. Crack open any of the gazillions of Monster Manuals to see that, if anything, DM's have more options to work with.

[Padan Slade]

Evil always has one major advantage on its side- its followers are willing to play dirty. Paladins can crank out massive damage against evil and make its save versus any magical effect you throw at them, but they don't have great defenses against having their encampment set on fire, their family taken as hostages, and their colleagues being stabbed in their sleep. That's the balance, as far as I'm concerned.

[ericthecleric]

Hi FS. Sorry if this is a bit rambling, but I wanted to get a reply back to you sooner than later, rather than taking hours to write some beautifully composed epic. :-) For some reason I couldn’t post last night, but now I’m here!

I guess the main reason that good-aligned PCs are more powerful than evil-aligned ones is that the game of D&D is about heroism & good deeds. I’ve got no problem with that. Personally, I’m sick of “shady rogues” or other clichéd types who just want to be selfish-pain-in-butt alignment. I’ve only ever allowed one evil PC, and that was a LE monk, because the player was an excellent role-player who didn’t abuse the situation.

But what I was really getting at on the other thread was that prestige classes for good-guys (whether PC or NPC) are generally more effective than prestige classes for bad guys (whether PC or NPC). I suppose that having good NPCs with overpowered PrCs isn’t a problem if your players are running a bunch of evil PCs, because the game then is about the acts the PCs take (and how they roleplay that) and the fact that they’re hunted by some powerful foes... But even then, PCs will still have more than three times as much equipment as the NPCs.

I just don’t agree that, say, a single human 18th-level whatever is an appropriate CR 18 challenge to a group of 4 18th-level PCs. The first has 130,000 gp worth of equipment and one set of actions per round, while the PCs have 1,760,000 gp worth of equipment (440,000 gp each) and four set of actions per round between them. That is not a challenge.

There are certain feats, spells, and PrCs etc that work for evil-only and good-only characters. Generally speaking- because there are obviously exceptions- pretty much everything in the Book of Exalted Deeds is much more effective than the material stuff thats in the Book of Vile Darkness, for example. The masochism and sadism spells are pretty cool evil spells, especially when run together, and the corrupted creature template is also pretty cool.

Generally speaking, more evil-only PrCs seem lame to me than good-only ones. If a group of players would never take a particular PrC because it’s suboptimal, why should an NPC, especially if that NPC is meant to be a challenging opponent.

In regards to actual combat, I believe that D&D is meant to be challenging*- to the players as well as to their PCs. If the PCs are blasting through every encounter too quickly and there is no challenge, then the players will eventally become bored with the game. On the other hand, combat encounters shouldn’t be so consistently deadly that 4 PCs are killed every session. Combat should have a real element of risk, to keep the challenge and fun going.
* Of course, there should be opportunities for roleplaying, puzzle solving, and other aspects as well, because D&D’s not all about combat.

Having said the above, I certainly wouldn’t object to a fighter taking levels in knight of the chalice PrC for a STAP game, but allowing too much powergaming can result in non-challenging combats.

From the DM’s point of view, to provide a challenge, DMs HAVE TO design powergamed NPCs, by granting templates like corrupted creature, lycanthrope, multi-headed creature, etc, but those can only be used so many times before things get stale. And how many lycanthropes can exist anyway? Or they can use monsters with or without class levels, and/or have decent potions and scrolls rather than +1 items. Generally, when I design evil opponents that have PrC levels, they are probably more likely to have PrCs that are not evil-only than ones that are evil-only, because the less alignment restrictive ones are more likely to be more effective. You need effective NPCs to challenge your PCs.

One might want to give an evil NPC an evil-only PrC for “flavour”, but if it’s a lame PrC, then it just means the NPC lasts 0.1 seconds as opposed to possibly several rounds. As an example of flavor NPCs, compare the five “Disciple of” PrCs in BoVD. Dispater’s is cool, Mephistopheles’s is OK, but the other three aren’t worth bothering with. Another example- the Jade Phoenix Mage PrC (Bo9S) is cool, and effective, but oh ho- it’s “nonevil”, so unless you change that, it’s yet another example of a superior PrC. I just find it frustrating that the PrCs for bad guys just aren’t generally as effective as the ones for good guys. At least now there are some classes that encourage sticking to high levels, like the Bo9S classes, incarnate, etc.

[Valegrim]

The only reason the good aligned are more powerful than evil aligned is that good aligned have friends they can trust and count on whereas evil aligned are much more likely to be betrayed and whatnot. Whereas a good aligned person would most likely follow "a friend in need is a friend indeed" an evil person would most like follow " a friend in need is a pest".

[Haun]

I play in both a Evil group and Good group everyone of the players is dif in both groups im the only one thats in both and i have to say my evil group kicks more A then the Good because we can and because we dont have to think abouts whats right we go for what we want and we get it by any means. I dont know about the friends thing because my group of evil players are all loyal because we have the same goal and all fear one another equally so i think a back stab is slim to none.....Also from a roleplaying point its more fun to rule an army with fear rather then brains

[theacemu]

ericthecleric wrote:

But what I was really getting at on the other thread was that prestige classes for good-guys (whether PC or NPC) are generally more effective than prestige classes for bad guys (whether PC or NPC).

What does this statement even mean? Can someone explain what it means to "be more effective" than other classes?

As ever,
ACE

[ericthecleric]

I’ll try to answer the “more effective” question, thacemu. This is all my opinion. Others are free to disagree if they wish.
D&D is a game of heroic PCs overcoming the forces of evil. If the forces of evil are incompetent, Keystone Cop-type people, then evil would never get anywhere because they would all be arrested or killed before reaching mid-level, and there would be no need for heroes. Indeed, it’s possible even that the forces of good- both mortal and celestials- would have wiped out evil from the Material and Lower planes.
In most Material planes, I imagine that the majority alignment of human-dominated game worlds is neutral, although in some places it will be good. But, there’s supposed to be a balance between good and evil. Therefore, the forces of evil should be as effective as the forces of good. When evil becomes too strong, the forces of good fight back, and vice versa.
Throughout the existence of 3.x, hundreds of prestige classes, feats, and spells have appeared. Sometimes, the PrCs, feats, and spells are overpowered compared to others; power creep also steps in over the existence of an edition. In general, and of course there are exceptions, it’s my feeling that the ones designed specifically for good guys (or at least non-evil creatures) are generally more powerful than the ones designed for evil creatures (or at least, non-good ones).
Now, I don’t mind a little powergaming, but it seems to me that you get more power creep with good-only material than you do with evil-only material. For example, compare the exalted feats (BoED) to the vile feats (BoVD); the former are far more powerful than the latter.
If someone running a tank in STAP aims to become a 9th-level Knight of the Chalice and gain a +5 axiomatic holy evil outsider-bane weapon by 20th-level, at that point just from the PrC and weapon, the character will inflict weapon damage +Str +7, plus 10d6 points of damage per strike against the major foes (this is an average of 42 hp, excluding Str bonus and weapon damage, plus any other factors that arise). A ranger10/cleric1/knight of the chalice9 with Improved Favored Enemy (CWar) could push that extra damage up by +9. That’s effective. Given that most parties of PCs will have a mix of alignments and races, no major villain of a PC-type race would be as effective against the PCs, unless you add templates, inherent bonuses, and generally design powergamed NPCs. At best, there’s the “Mortal Hunter” PrC, which with the Improved Favored Enemy feat, provides a whole +7 points of damage against PCs.
I’m using STAP only as an example. It’s been brilliant so far, and I know that Greg’s adventure is going to be fantastic, but I expect that the challenges the PCs face will be well-designed advanced demons with or without class levels in decent classes, and will be challenging. But I don’t expect that they’ll be any mortal enemies.

There are certain PrCs that I think “Why bother?”, because taking levels in them just doesn’t seem worth the effort; ie. I think that no player would take a level in them (unless it’s a player who takes suboptimal choices for “flavour” reasons), and also that no villain would take, because the opportunity cost makes them less effective in combat than taking levels in a core class or a more interesting/relevant PrC, but a non-combat based NPC might gain levels in it. When a DM designs an evil opponent for combat use, the opponent should challenge the PCs, they should not be a walk over. It just seems to me that more of the evil-only PrCs are “Why bother?” types than the good-only ones.
Please note that I am not glorifying evil. If the game isn’t a challenge, and there is no risk, then fun will be reduced. Opponents should be a challenge. Does that help explain the argument?

[HELLFINGER]

Good quote from Dragonlance: something as "evil turns on itself"

[ericthecleric]

Thacemu, I thought I'd posted a reply to your question, but the post's disappeared. :-( Oh well.

[theacemu]

ericthecleric wrote:

Thacemu, I thought I'd posted a reply to your question, but the post's disappeared. :-( Oh well.

It's there...maybe just lagged a bit. Anyway, I suppose that my question was intended to be a bit rhetorical, but it's a device that can be a bit difficult to convey sometimes in writing.

Anyone here who's familiar with my posts from the past year or so here will recognize that i'm very much interested in the philosophy of gaming. I'd submit that there is an approach to gaming that completly voids, disregards, nullifies, and otherwise renders discussions about anything stat-block related as quite useless.

It's a very simple philosophy: One of the jobs of a GM is to challenge the group of gamers that he/she are GMing for.

If a group of players appropriates this simple idea, then it doesn't matter one lick about any stat block related issues. If one gamer likes to nerf up their 15th level PC's stats and another enjoys role playing a 0th level farmer, the challenges that they face together need to meet both *player's* needs and the gaming group as a whole. (PS, obviously this is an extreme example...it's to clearly suggest the scope of my argument)

Eric has a point that perhaps if one lines up all the "Good" PrCs against the "Evil" ones, that may be inconsistancies in plusses and minuses...I don't know, i'm not a game designer but that may be the case. My point is, it doesn't have to matter...

As ever,
ACE

[Fatespinner]

Eric, I disagree that good-aligned PrCs and abilities are inherently more powerful than evil ones.

Let's take a look at the Ur-Priest from BoVD. This is a divine caster class which can gain access to 9th level spells by level 15 in addition to gaining some serious bonuses against other divine casters. At the lower levels, this PrC lacks a little bit of strength, but once it gets going, its pretty downright nasty. Put your party of 15th level characters against someone who is casting gate to call forth mariliths and smiting people with implosion and we'll see who thinks a single enemy with class levels isn't challenging.

Another really nasty PrC in the BoVD is the Lifedrinker. Vampires, as we all know, can make very nasty opponents. Up the ante with this PrC and you've got something downright LETHAL.

Picture this encounter: The PCs find the vampire lord in his haven and discover several townsfolk chained to the walls of the room. The vampire lord and his minions attack the party. The party starts to gain the upper hand and it looks like the vampire lord is going down... until he races over to one of the chained victims, sucks them dry, and heals himself up instantly! Now the party realizes that they need to free the people WHILE fighting off the minions AND dealing with the BBEG himself! Quite the scenario, hm?

I will grant that the Exalted feats tend to overshadow the Vile ones with one exception: Dark Speech is way more useful than Words of Creation. The various Vow feats (esp. Vow of Poverty) are pretty powerful, but I think they're good roleplaying tools as well so I don't really frown on them.

All-in-all I find good and evil to be fairly balanced when it comes to power levels. Sure, Knight of the Chalice can crank out huge damage... but what if your enemy is a lawful evil humanoid instead of an outsider? Suddenly your 'axiomatic' and 'outsider-bane' properties no longer matter. And, this lawful evil foe has himself an Angelwing Razor. Oooohhhh... now things get interesting. :)

It's all in how you use the abilties you're given. Good is not inherently more powerful than evil, but clever players can certainly make it seem that way.

[magdalena thiriet]

HELLFINGER wrote:

Good quote from Dragonlance: something as "evil turns on itself"

"Good will trimph."

"Not when it ain't true. Not when it ain't right."
(thank you, Flannery O'Connor)

In many ways, at least in Real World(tm), good is just as likely to turn on itself. At least overt evil has benefit of knowing its immorality and non-applicability on everything, while overt good can easily believe it is The True Way and all the other ways are Wrong...as many theologicians have said, pride is the most dangerous of mortal sins because it cannot be fought...

[dwarflord]

here's my take on the good vs. evil topic.
if you divide up all the good guys and all the evil guys into two groups this is what you find.

the evil guys are a larger group that is willing to do anything to get their way.

the good guys are a smaller group that will only play fair.

but the evil guys don't work together and will kill each other well the good guys work together and will help any good creature.

so they are in balance.

as adventures the players are usually on the good side and go around killing lots of less powerful evil guys in small groups.

because there are so many evil guys a world full of adventures is still in balance.

the end

[Saern]

One may feel that a base race with levels in core classes going into an evil-only (or "any nongood") PrC is underpowered compared to the "good" ones.

However, I stipulate that this is because the PCs take the "good" PrCs, and NPCs take the "evil" ones. The problem then shifts from the PrC itself to the inherent imbalance and problem that is NPCs being far too weak for their supposed CR, when compared to many monsters of equal CR.