Not me.
I don't allow evil characters in any of my games unless I'm running a campaign for evil characters.
There is enough evil in the world - I wont allow "evil" characters at my gaming table. That do not means that selfish, hedonistic, brutal or corrupt character are out, but "evil" ones as per the D&D rules (an evil aura, can control undead) are.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Since in my campaigns, every third person who walks by will roughly be of evil alignment (give or take a few % depending on community), i will usually allow evil characters.
However, i do have a rather mature group that knows that evil != "baby eating" for me. If you lie, cheat and generally care for yourself way above your fellow men, you may be evil - but you still can function in a group, and have something against that goblin army bound on carving up your home town.
None here either.
I ran an evil campaign once. Everybody played evil well. Long story short... backstabbing led to real backstabbing and PC killing PC and a lot of hard feeling followed.
We lost a player for a long time after that.
I am extremely unlikely to do that again.
It would depend a great deal on the player.
If they wanted to be evil to get fast and loose with the campaign, no.
If they wanted to be evil, but with long-term goals that involved working with the group, then fine.
There is a wide gap between crazy and evil. That's why the truly evil don't get to use insanity defenses.
If played properly I'd at least allow LE but if I did run a game I'd at least once allow any alignment simply so I can get to grips with what I want to see in a campaign.
Unfortunately as another person pointed out much of these adventures involves the looting of bodies and that doesn't seem to ring tru if your group is actually Lawful.
However until I actually see someone run evil properly instead of just plain dumb I'll reserve judgement.
My problem with having evil characters in any game is that most people tend to go overboard with their evilness. It tends to go to their head and disrupt the group. Usually it takes a mature person to play and evil character and still work with the group. But even then you are asking for troubles.
It would depend a lot on the players and the backstory of the characters. If the players are mature and can handle roleplaying evil without being anti-social, kill-happy psychotics, then I'd allow it. There's nothing inherently wrong in playing a group of greedy, ruthless anti-heroes as long as they can work together toward a common goal. Unfortunately, too many players want to act like being evil allows them to play D&D like Grand Theft Auto, where actions have no long-term consequences, or backstab/betray the other PCs.
|
Evil campaigns are one thing, letting someone play an evil character with a group that's mostly good is just anti-productive. Sure there's some good roleplaying there, but the outcomes are finite. It's going to eventually be party vs evil character.
The evil character is going to get caught. He can apologize and play dumb or whatever to get forgiven. But how long can a GOOD party continue to "play" naive to the evil in their group. Realistically, they can't. Either the party levels the evil character behind behind or kills the evil character. Sure evil character can kill or let other party members die, BUT it's the DM's job to provide the adversaries, not a PC. The evil PC can only "win" when the party is wiped out, is the only survivor, or becomes the ultimate evil... in which case evil character really should be controlled by the DM, not a player, so the adventure can continue.
If the evil character goes from level 1-20 or any great length of leveling and never gets caught and punished by a GOOD party for doing evil, then there's something serious wrong with your table. And if the evil character isn't doing anything evil, then evil character isn't evil.
Hence why we don't allow evil PCs in our campaigns anymore unless it's an evil party.
A GOOD aligned party is always going to say, "Why are we with this guy?" Evil characters don't have redeeming qualities unlike Chaotic good Rogues.
agreeing with SirUrza there - devotedly "evil" guys in a normal adventurer group are counterproductive and rather much of an ego-trip. Usually an excuse for either pulling a fast one one the GM/campaign or an attempt to hog the "attention" spot-light for the most notorious character.
I GMed three 'evil' campaigns over the last four years, with varying degrees and two different groups. First went down in flames from too much enthusiatstic backstabbing and incompatible backgrounds + "evil morals" = tore that group assunder, violently. Didn't last long, like half- a dozen sessions.
The second, a pirate/streetgang campaign worked out better, but players tired of being unable to trust - both each other and everybody around them, so we retired it. Lots of "Schadenfreude" and "wicked" posing though, which had it's moments...
Trying the SCAP (rewritten) as a competing troupe of evil guys trying to take over Cauldron (working for a ruthless merchant coster ) worked.... ou, at least for a time, until the players let got of all moral restraints and started a less-than-subtle power trip.... the degree of evil and wickedness embraced (and the BoVD was off-limitsthe whole time )
Don't read if you don't care for details !
- parts of the group started seriously nasty stuff (the FCs weren't out yet, but we had some rough guidelines for demonic possession and -bargains etc. for NPC use......) to boost their power for short-term advantages and cheap item creation - highly revolting to some of the other characters/players who embraced a different (less sordid ?) sort of evil - The True Necromancer actually proved to be the "nice" guy, go figure...
tore that campaign (and group ) asunder. The group dissolved and some people are not on speaking terms anymore because of happenings there.
Was a bit of a shocking revelation about just to what excesses some people are willing to sink, even if only in roleplaying.
Participating in that campaign wasn't all that enjoyable, especially in view of the aftermath....
If you allow evil characters, I would recommend confronting the character(s) with the results of their "in alignment" deeds, not for moralistic reasons, but don't skip the details or have NPCs not the character judge for them..... ...just take any possible glory out of it. YMMV
|
|
Ah but what about a generally neutral aligned party? Such as a mercenary group or something?
A neutral party? If you ask me, there's no such thing.
A true neutral character in the party will seek a balance then, which means opposing the evil character.
As for a "mercenary party," there's no such thing IMHO. You're working for a side, working to achieve someone's goals. If you betray whoever you're working for (good), seems like an evil act since you're not being honorable. Oh, betraying evil.. sounds like you're taking the greater good path.. which shouldn't sit well with the Chaotic Evil character in the group. Not to mention that after the first or second betrayal one of the two sides isn't going to trust you anymore and will seek to kill you or imprison you. You party might not have a set value of right and wrong, but the rest of the world still does.
Anyone that thinks the sore thumb in the group can exist long term when the party favors one side over another doesn't understand what alignment is for. I'm all for dynamic alignments, don't get me wrong, but if you establish a character and set his/her values and act differently "because everyone else is" then you're a terrible roleplayer.
there is one problem with the alignment-system as is, anyway. It does not really compensate or even scale intensity of belief.
A glowing fanatic who measures up every action against the tenets of his belief gets lumped in wholesale with an interested layman, who visits the temple on a rather on and off basis, but never really slips
Someone who cowardly mudered another twenty years ago, but has since never really done anything intesnelsy evil (but never much repented either) is as chaotic evil as a "Snetzzz, the bloody Despoiler, master of Carnage"
and then there are the "neutralists" who don't do anything much, neither good nor evil, in oder not to disturb the balance, and the ones who commit grave evil and next week perform some almost-saintly good deed or benevolent act.... as long as things balance out !
And therefore to link back to the OP - therein lies the big crux of the problem. just to what degree and how publicly is the character (required to be ) evil ? An assassin, with a clear and honour-bound code of operation, who will not act against his pack-mates (aka the group) out of loyalty and even affection, might not b much of a problem. Might even become a matter of philosophy to judge him as evil - after all, the typical adventurer is slaying sentient beings simply for the cash-incentive often enough, right ?
But usually, especially with those players who actively seek to play an "evil" character, things will quickly go for the "despicable" or "rather insane" sort of characterm which usually both endangers or ruins the primary plot ( through the characters actions or requirements, as well as reputation ) and possibly the enjoyment of everyone else at the table
if there is one thing that might be a redeeming feature of 4E it might possbily by the restructuring of that venerable "axis of alignment" system. Big IF, though ! Probably not flashy enough to redesign...
It will not help the problem of egocentric roleplaying though
|
|
and then there are the "neutralists" who don't do anything much, neither good nor evil, in oder not to disturb the balance, and the ones who commit grave evil and next week perform some almost-saintly good deed or benevolent act.... as long as things balance out !
See, I don't but into the whole "active neutrality" thing--the way I see it, the majority of the people who are neutral and simply not saintly or vile enough to to be good or evil (respectively)--they're merely morally apathetic. They might help someone in need (especially if there was no danger in it), but if they saw someone they hated dying they might not give a second thought.
The layman in your example could merely be neutral even though he never does actively bad things. Likewise, the guy that murdered someone 20 years ago may have committed an evil act then, but is not necessarily evil himself.
Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
|
|
See, I don't but into the whole "active neutrality" thing--the way I see it, the majority of the people who are neutral and simply not saintly or vile enough to to be good or evil (respectively)--they're merely morally apathetic. They might help someone in need (especially if there was no danger in it), but if they saw someone they hated dying they might not give a second thought.
You don't have to be actively neutral to save your dying enemy, you could be lawful good and let him die and there's nothing wrong with that. :P
|
|
No, I am not a fan of evil PCs. First of all, most people don't know how or cannot really play a truly evil being. Typically, they are just unusually selfish and mean - which is not very constructive in a party situation.
That being said, one of my players (the whisper gnome ninja) was facing unquestionable extinction and may have traded his soul for a second chance...we're playing through the Red Hand of Doom and Tiamat may be winning...which is something Bel may wish to indirectly oppose...
It will not help the problem of egocentric roleplaying though
I believe this may be more to the core question/problem than is whether or not to allow a certain alignment.
Alignment is absurd. Humans, thankfully, are not so easily labeled and classified. I dare say if we add fantastic creatures and races, they too would not be so easily labeled or classified.
So for me to provide insight into this question I would pose a question myself. What is 'evil'?
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
...so, based on this the paladin who kills goblins because they are goblins and therefore evil, is evil. Alignment discussion, inevitable can of worms.
Is mother who insults and debases her son-in-law for not being "no-good lazy bum who is not good enough for my daughter" evil? What if she was involved in variety of charity functions? What if the reason she is in those charity functions is to look good in public opinion? What's her alignment?
What is the alignment of the shopkeeper who sells shoddy goods, knowing it, but "hey, let the buyer beware". Other than that, he lives peaceful and respectable life. Is he evil?
Would such characters be acceptable as player characters in non-evil campaign?
|
|
Morality, perspective, alignment, it's all very complicated in the real word. In the game it is a bit more defined.
For a pretty good treatise on alignment, I would suggest The Book of Alignment and this. Good stuff if you really want to beat a dead horse (which sounds more sick than evil to me).
|
Morality, perspective, alignment, it's all very complicated in the real word. In the game it is a bit more defined.
For a pretty good treatise on alignment, I would suggest The Book of Alignment and this. Good stuff if you really want to beat a dead horse (which sounds more sick than evil to me).
Yes, books such as these are really the only way to put everyone on the same page when it comes to alignment. Thanks DitheringFool for putting in the links.
Thoth-Amon
I find that inter-party conflict drags the game down into a 'min-max who can stab whom in the back first' first person shooter rather than a role playing game. If being 'immature' and 'taking the game too seriously' means leaving a game where the DM and a single player think their 'fun' of screwing everyone else over is more important than anyone else's in game goals and ambitions, then I shall wear the tag proudly.
I do not find being a jerk creative thinking.
I apologize if I am coming off rather hostile, NotJeff. Obviously my opinions are strongly influenced by personal experience. My comments are not directed at you, but more at gamers I have known. Yeah, I am talking about you, Matt.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I apologize if I am coming off rather hostile, NotJeff. Obviously my opinions are strongly influenced by personal experience. My comments are not directed at you, but more at gamers I have known. Yeah, I am talking about you, Matt.
For a sec I thought you were talking about me...
An evil party can be a nightmare. A correctly run evil character doesn't have to be.
We had a party consisting of a cleric of St Cuthbert, a psychic warrior, a wizard, a rogue and a baby silver dragon. The psychic warrior had set in motion plans for those who betrayed him, considered the cleric one of his best friends, opened up an orphanage, paid for a shrine to Zuoken, hired a cleric to heal the rogues from Mad God's Key, and in general tried to appear to be an outstanding citizen. He pushed the party to risk their lives when a pair of NPCs he'd befriended got in trouble
The rogue and wizard stole from the party, tried to blackmail everyone else, and were constantly plotting against the psychic warrior because of the alignment on his character sheet.
Yes the psychic warrior was lawful evil, the rogue and wizard were chaotic neutral. I stopped playing him as a concession to group cohesiveness, not because of his actions, but rather the paranoia of the other players at seeing LE on the character sheet.
Later the wizard player (us having lost the rogue player to a heart attack) found out all the plans my character had set in motion because they stole from him.
If they'd not, they've have found him as stong an ally as the NG cleric had.
I have an evil character adventuring with a paladin in my current campaign. I realize that technically that isn't allowed, but it's a pretty dark campaign. It works because the character in question doesn't really go in for the raving maniac evil; he's selfish and underhanded, but he also recognizes how often his buns have been pulled out of the fire by his companions and at least plays nice with them. Evil characters with an "ends justify the means" mentality can work in a party, so long as everyone is willing to consider it an "in character" conflict, rather than a personal player to player thing. So, yeah, if/when I run a Pathfinder game I would.
Evil characaters require collaborative players to work well; I rarely restrict alignments in my campaigns, but I usually present my players with the type of campaign I expect to run, heroic save-the-world, seedy thieves's guild wars, mercenary explore new routes, etc. If the players buy in to the idea and are good players, the campaign will work and be fun.
I once played in an all- evil campaign, where the predominant alignment was LE (with the odd NE there as well). The players all served one of three evil deities (and role-played to convert others and each other). The DM had arranged things such that these three deities were seeking related ends, so the fact that competing faiths were working together was fine. In fact, one of the unintended points that came out of this campaing was that the PCs strived to be more heroic (anti-heroic?) than the others to win prestige for their diety. The players also handled the inbred distrust and paranoia well too, realizing that the hordes of chaos faced were far more deadly than the immediate threat of betrayal by lawful allies.
That of course is the success story; I have seen other evil campaigns dissolve into in-fighting and character-v-character contests. Success really relies on the players.
As for the odd evil character in a party of good guys, I agree that that rarely works, but when it does... Ina group of excellent role-players, the internal struggle against evil coupled with the group dynamics can lead to some tremendous role-playing and definition of characters far beyond the archetypes. Recently, I played an undead fighter seeking vengeance against the BBEG who had layed waste to my character's familial holdings, essentially wiping them from the earth. What began as an inherently evil being evolved into a Don Quixote-like champion, fighting for lost nobility and honor while struggling against his evil urges. With a very dramatic DM running the show, redemption began to come, ever so slowly, despite the prejudices faced by NPCs and other party members (who will ever trust the undead guy who can never be killed?)
To add additional layers to that story, another party member was descended from a demon we were battling, and after some misfortune, began to take on the fiendish template and be faced with ever more temptation to give in to evil for greater power. Mostly he resisted, but occasionally, the evil festered inside. The two characters were very powerful, and highly distrustful of each other, and headed for conflict, especially after my character succeeded in his personal quest but found himself still afflicted by his curse of undeath. Law began to give way to occasional outbursts of randomness, when the fiend saw an opportunity to remove this threat from the party.
So three PCs watched in discomfort as two PCs battled, one seeking to kill the other, one seeking to disable his attacker. After several rounds (including my character sundering the one item that could remove his curse, resulting in some lovely magical backlash), at the point where my character began to seriously consider killing the fiend-blooded, a spell penetrated all the defenses and the undead fighter was permanently slain.
It was tense, but good RP prevailed. I even joked that it took a PC to kill me in Dave's game, as everyone else had experienced at least one or two deaths (if not seven!). Upon witnessing the battle between two "friends", one PC left the group, but the player rolled up a new PC and stayed (he had wanted to switch anyway). The other PCs took serious stock of the fiendish PC and doubled their efforts to steer him toward redemption (and ultimately did).
Had we had less mature players, this outcome would not have been possible. It took a mature approach to exploring the darker side of one's own humanity to pull off such a heavy game. For most groups I have played in, this would not have worked, but we were fortunate to have a very strong group of players and a very detailed DM who went to great lengths to tailor his campaigns to the characters' backgrounds.
So to conclude, all evil isn't necessarily bad, but most of the time, it is. :)
related question: do you let aggressively Lawful Good paladins into your game?
And if tieflings are core why aren't aasimar?
Both good questions.
To the first, yes if only just to teach them the error of their ways and by that I believe there is no better explanation than the one exhibited in the Order of the Stick.
You'll just have to read it to see what I mean and I do recommend that by the way.
As for the second well I personally wonder why they couldn't have just left these for the splat books they always bring out afterwards but until someone explains why they thought this was a good idea I doubt we'll ever figure out what they had planned well maybe until those previews being released in december or the shadowfell adventure otherwise it'll hve to wait until the core books are released.
Exactly what is an evil character though?
I've seen four different types of paladins played, one by myself which was of the actions speak louder than words mould although the dm didn't bother to notice.
The dm of that game ran the perfect fanatic and in my view was thoroughly evil, then another player ran a bureaucrat who seemed more mercenary than valiant champion.
And then there was the last ran by a friend who ran the best paladin I have ever seen but that isn'tt what this thread is about.
So what does qualify as evil?
And by that I don't mean stupid evil or pointless evil, I mean the kind of evil you can run in a game and still come off better than the Paladin, after all it is a question of whose point of view you follow.
Evil characters don't have redeeming qualities unlike Chaotic good Rogues.
How do you figure that, why can't an evil charater have redeeming qualities?
If I am a elven warlord seeking to dominate the surrounding countryside and wipe out the races of man and dwarf from the lands.
But I care about my fellow elves, particularly the citiens of my realm, is that not a redeeming quality?
It seems rather restrictive to say all eveil characters have no redeeming qualities. When your villain has some redeeming qualities, something that makes the players able to empathize with them, that brings about new levels to the campaign.
Just my $0.02
I absolutely loath the alignment system in D&D, and have for years. I don't restrict alignment in my games, but rarely have anyone choose to be evil. I'm more more interested in having the players play the character concept, not to an alignment.
The only time good and evil comes up, typically, is when the party encounters outsiders or undead or something that is "always evil" out of one of the monster supplements I own (and even then, it's rare).
I've got a variety of characters appearing in my games since alignment has become a minor background noise. Some of have been good, others have been evil, but all have been interesting and roleplayed well by the various players. None have been truly disruptive to the game. The players usually have goals and fairly well defined backgrounds for their characters, and that's what they roleplay to, not to alignment. That isn't to say the players haven't clashed, I think that's a potential for every game and every game master. But overall the players get along, their characters get along, and we're all having fun.
meh. No evil characters allowed in my game. I don't need the extra headaches.
If the campaign is set up to handle it, fine. But I don't think this one is.
My plan is to run the adventure "as is" right out of the box. I didn't get a subscription so I could do a bunch of re-writes to accomadate a bunch of weird fiendish characters with overwrought tainted backgrounds. If you want redemption, don't come to me, please go see a real life spirtual advisor.
I don't think restrictions on character concepts is such a bad thing if it helps the game run more smoothly. One of the rules of my game will be that at least 2 or 3 characters need to have Sandpoint residency in their backgrounds. That way, Nualia is the "big reveal", and all the other little hooks are easier to use.
Let's face it, the adventure as written expects the characters to be the "White Hats". Yes, it is possible for the occasional selfish murdering oppresor to step up and save the town, but why bother? Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and there will be a mess to clean up.
In something like RotRL, I don't think it's too much ask that everyone play a good guy (or a neutral guy, I suppose). It's pretty easy to be an evil jerk when most potential consequences are imaginary (because it's a game). It probably takes a bit more effort to maintain an altruistic attitude and even moral compass.
I don't really have a problem with the Alignment system in D&D. It's all wrapped up with the overall theme and ties into the magic system. You gotta pick a side, and the entire reality around you can tell what side you're on. Detection spells, DR, aligned items, etc. A$$holes need not apply to carry the holy sword. Is it so tough to play an imaginary nice guy? Dude, control your base instincts and play nice with the other kids at the table.
My friend came up with a great way of keeping folks honest as far as alignment goes (for those folks that have a hard time playing what they wrote on the sheet). After each session, everyone votes for each PC's alignment. You only get one vote out of many to determine your own alignment. So if you want to roll LG, you better roleplay well enough that at least a few of you friends believe you. Granted, some folks wouldn't like this system because you have to put all your cards on the table. But unless you plan to backstab your friends, it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
and then there are the "neutralists" who don't do anything much, neither good nor evil, in oder not to disturb the balance, and the ones who commit grave evil and next week perform some almost-saintly good deed or benevolent act.... as long as things balance out !The layman in your example could merely be neutral even though he never does actively bad things. Likewise, the guy that murdered someone 20 years ago may have committed an evil act then, but is not necessarily evil himself.
That's why I stated that he hasn't repented or anything - he is passively evil, but not actively.
But actually, the entire alignment system tries to impose an artificial structure of a far too complex of ethical, philosophical and moral questions questions.
Which, for once, does not actually help to make the game more fun, easier to play or more unique
...so, based on this the paladin who kills goblins because they are goblins and therefore evil, is evil.
A well played Paladin won't kill a goblin just because it's a goblin. A well played Paladin would probably grant a sniveling, cowering goblin the chance to surrender.
"Mercy, guv'ner, Mercy! Ya don'ts need to kills me, I'm not that bad. Why, it's been at least three days since I ate a baby!"
But a well played goblin will almost always be working towards evil ends, giving the Paladin many opportunities or justifications to kill it. They're not going to be standing around looking innocent and demanding due process from a feared enemy. It'll be fight or flight.
As soon as a Paladin takes a goblin prisoner, the goblin will be trying to harm the Paladin and his friends or escape back to goblin country (it's kind of like flavor country, but with more baby).
Even if he does a great job of keeping his nose clean while the Paladin is watching, as soon as he get's back to his goblin tribe, it's back to the evil. He'll by like "Dude, give me some baby meat or I'll kick your a$$. I got captured by a Paladin and had to go cold turkey for a week. No, seriously, they eat turkey. It's really dry."
Anyway, there's almost no chance that the goblin would have some kind of epiphany and convert to goodness just because of some casual contact with a Paladin. Why would he go against centuries of goblin nature and tradition. If things look hopeless, he'd just try to do as much damage as possible before he got kilt.
Goblins aren't just "misunderstood rustics". They're evil. They're like vermin with higher INT and opposable thumbs.
I absolutely loath the alignment system in D&D, and have for years. I don't restrict alignment in my games, but rarely have anyone choose to be evil. I'm more more interested in having the players play the character concept, not to an alignment.
I usually also tend to give only minor role to alignments, unless we are talking about extreme cases like outsiders. Alignment system is highly questionable way of modeling ethics and morality...so characters should go for concepts.
I have played characters which could be labeled as evil, rarely coming to blows. Self-centered, unsympathetic pragmatist crooks looking for edge who do know that having allies is useful and doing good deeds get you prestige, which is useful. Keyword is "useful", looking for personal gain in long term. If your eeevil cleric has plenty of spells to cast, why bother with silly stuff like Contagion...cast some heals on lower creatures and they will be eating from your hand. After all, it's easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar. Voila, an evil character who plays a white hat, at least most of the time.
There is a difference playing lawful evil and lawful stupid. Just like lawful good and lawful a*****e are different things. I guess the most disruptive character I have played was someone rather like Miko from Order of the Stick, technically of good alignment while being rigid, paranoid, violent nuisance. Also, only characters of mine I can think of who has been killed by another player character...
It seems rather restrictive to say all evil characters have no redeeming qualities. When your villain has some redeeming qualities, something that makes the players able to empathize with them, that brings about new levels to the campaign.
It's possible for evil villains to have some redeeming qualities, but it should be very rare. If they've got some redeeming qualities, it's more likely that they are neutral. It can be tough for the PCs, because althought the villain thwarts them at every turn, he's not actually evil, so summary execution may not go well with the authorities.
Also, even if the PCs are good, there's no reason that the "villain" can't have a good alignment. Even good people have rivalries and disagreements. But a rival with a good alignment isn't going send an assasin after you. But they might send the city watch after you if they find out you're stealing medicine for you sick aunt or something.
But a truly evil villain has no remorse for the bad things that they do. They can't do evil 100% of the time (like when asleep). But they will take advantage of every opportunity to do evil that they can reasonably get away with (if they're smart). Their motivation may be fun, profit, whatever. And no one is completely consistent, and a villain may choose to do "good" in order to avoid consequences in the short term. But over the long term, very bad things will be done.
In the case of your elven warlord, I think he is evil, unless the humans and dwarves provoked him first by killing a lot of elves. But I think wiping out other races that are presumably non-evil because of pure xenophobia is always an evil act. If it's an evil race, you can assume there is provocation and a "kill or be killed" situation.
There are two important things to remember about alignment in D&D:
1. Alignment is not a "straitjacket" for restricting a character's actions. Each of the nine alignments represent a broad spectrum of philosophies and personalities. No one is completely consistent, so they may go against they're "instincts" on occasion.
2. Alignment is an Objective State, not just an opinion about morality. If you stick a holy sword in someone who is evil, they always take the extra 2d6 (assuming no weird protections). If you're good, Unholy Blight messes you up, and even if you're neutral, it still stings. A character may not follow their alignment with every single action they ever take, but the overall pattern (or lack of one) tells the tale.
It is the job of the DM to determine where PC actions fall on the alignment scale in their game. It is also the job of the DM to have NPCs act in accordance with their alignment most of the time, at least internally.
Everyone has to pick a side, it's just the way it works. The angels and monsters are real, so are you going to roll with the good guys or the bad guys? There are possible benefits and penalties from your choice, but you do have to choose.
But don't get your panties in a bunch if you stray from the path a bit. I know that even you good folks out there like to kick a puppy now and then, you sick f*ckers. (Kidding!)
I think that some people's frustation with alignment comes from disagreeing with the DM or other Players about where an action falls, or how many "slip ups" or "Miko Momments" are required before the Paladin becomes a fighter with no bonus feats.
I don't think I would have allowed it in Rise of the Runelords, but I could definetely see myself considering it for Curse of the Crimson Throne. I will start that campaign with all the PCs in jail, on death row or whatever, and they have to state in their background what crime they are convicted of, and whether or not they are guilty.
I can really see great role-playing opportunities with a mismatched party of innocent and guilty murders having to cooperate, and I feel that my group is ready to handle it.
I don't think I would have allowed it in Rise of the Runelords, but I could definetely see myself considering it for Curse of the Crimson Throne. I will start that campaign with all the PCs in jail, on death row or whatever, and they have to state in their background what crime they are convicted of, and whether or not they are guilty.
We did something similar with everybody starting out chained to the oars on a galley, as criminal punishment. Some were there because of miscarriage of justice, some for political reasons and some really deserved to be there.
One player never told the others what his character had done (he actually was a NE spy, framed for a crime in order to cause a political fuss ) and just claimed he was innocent.... When the others found out about his actual character's alignment (from glancing at his sheet, not from his actions) everything turned sour, because they started treating him as untrustworthy, expecting him to turn on them at every opportunity. Bad roleplaying, yes, but even if roleplayed over, the knowledge of a character being actually evil (despite his ulterior actions) leads to internal tension and expectations... and looking at RL, even if youknow your neighbour as a nice, mild-mannered and educated man, who is really helpful when you ask him for some assistance..."knowing"/hearing the rumour that he has once commited aggravated assault or something other despicable deed, will most _certainly_ affect your view of him....
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
...so, based on this the paladin who kills goblins because they are goblins and therefore evil, is evil.A well played Paladin won't kill a goblin just because it's a goblin. A well played Paladin would probably grant a sniveling, cowering goblin the chance to surrender.
"Mercy, guv'ner, Mercy! Ya don'ts need to kills me, I'm not that bad. Why, it's been at least three days since I ate a baby!"
But a well played goblin will almost always be working towards evil ends, giving the Paladin many opportunities or justifications to kill it. They're not going to be standing around looking innocent and demanding due process from a feared enemy. It'll be fight or flight.
Goblins aren't just "misunderstood rustics". They're evil. They're like vermin with higher INT and opposable thumbs.
Ever Read Death Masks in the Dresden Files? The Knights of the Cross let the host to a demon go, because he turned his coin over and said he was going to repent. I think too many 'you are evil you are dead' moments don't make them that different from 'We be goblins, ye be food.'
Now mowing them down in combat is different. But a surrender must be honoured.
I don't think I would have allowed it in Rise of the Runelords, but I could definetely see myself considering it for Curse of the Crimson Throne. I will start that campaign with all the PCs in jail, on death row or whatever, and they have to state in their background what crime they are convicted of, and whether or not they are guilty.
We did something similar with everybody starting out chained to the oars on a galley, as criminal punishment. Some were there because of miscarriage of justice, some for political reasons and some really deserved to be there.
One player never told the others what his character had done (he actually was a NE spy, framed for a crime in order not to cause a political fuss ) and just claimed he was innocent.... When the others found out about his actual character's alignment (from glancing at his sheet, not from his actions) everything turned sour, because they started treating him as untrustworthy, expecting him to turn on them at every opportunity. Bad roleplaying, yes, but even if roleplayed over, the knowledge of a character being actually evil (despite his ulterior actions) leads to internal tension and expectations... and looking at RL, even if youknow your neighbour as a nice, mild-mannered and educated man, who is really helpful when you ask him for some assistance..."knowing"/hearing the rumour that he has once commited aggravated assault or something other despicable deed, will most _certainly_ affect your view of him....
I've had bad experiences as well, certainly. We switched from the Realms to Kalamar for a campaign, and one player didn't like it at all, so he created a Chaotic Evil character. In a party with a paladin. The CE-player was a very dominant personality, while the paladin's player was most certainly not. It was very awkward for a while, but then he decided to change characters.
I'm in a different group now, and even if the party ends up turning on each other, I'm pretty confident it won't spill over into real life. We'll see how things goes, I'm not really keen on having the entire party be innocent, but I guess CN or even N PCs can have done something which earns the death sentence.
My wife has been pestering me to do an evil campaign or adventure arc because she apparently wants to be a "bad girl". I don't like evil campaigns or playing evil characters.
Why? Because of what it bring out in me personally. Specifically, it brings out a very deceptive and manipulative part of my personality that should probably stay buried.
My last evil character was very chummy with the whole group and supportive of the party leader (a cleric of Bane). He was also very, very dangerous if he was even slightly annoyed by other characters. He was dangerous because he was subtle.
I didn't like the way other players started looking at me when they started to catch on to some of the things I was up to.
Gurubabalamaswami:posting as his wife.
|
As previously stated, it really all comes down to the maturity of the player. Truly evil characters know that they need friends and pawns to ever get anywhere in the world. When I play evil, I play characters that have strong party ties. Some of those ties could be related to backstory (think Caramon and Raistlin), or perhaps a character saves my life and, while I don't feel attachment in a standard sense, I do enjoy the thought of keeping them around so that they can save my life again.
When most people ask to play evil characters, their motives are generally bad. It's not the alignment itself that's really the problem (except for maybe CE), but more often it's the player that's really the problem.
Sorry, truly evil has nothing inherently to do with cooperation and being liked or accepted. On the contrary - Loners can be as evil, rotten and vile as easily as being chummy charming and entertaining , yet reprehensible personalities ( I am not going to start giving examples from RL history... too easy, and too redundant ) . And being socially acceptable is not even the same thing as cooperative or even beneficial for a group.
but one real problem is - what one player considers "acceptable" evil is far beyond the tolearble line for another player, and will revolt him or her. Which basically tends to take the main reason for roleplaying out of the session, that of having fun. I know quite a lot of very mature people who do not consider being "grossed out" entertaining or fun. And what "crosses the line" invariably differs for each of us, so beware... not every grin around the table need to be one of amusment, it might just as well be a grimace...
I don't think that alignment is so black and white. A lawful evil character can just mean someone who looks out for themself first. Someone who always makes sure they get their cut of loot, even if someone else gets shorted. It doesn't mean that they have to be counter productive to the group considering that the groups goals are usually in sync with theirs...survival. The only difference is their motivation for adventuring... money and power. Which is just as if not way better motivation than simply doing the right thing. Chaotic Evil can be just about the same thing, just more unpredictable. It doesn't mean you have to knife a teamate just to be contrary, but it can mean that you nod along with the battle plan, and then do your own thing if you think it's a bad idea. (And if the so called 'good' PCs let you die because you did something stupid, you might want to question their alignment.
I've seen to many things in D&D that are written in black and white, good and evil, that are so skewed that when you look at it, the actions of the lawful good PCs end up being more evil than what they're trying to stop. I've even added a new alignment to our list because of it: Ridged Lawful Good. WHat that means is a character that is willing to do anything, no matter how evil and twisted to make sure that Their ideal of good prevails.
|
well, i certainly seem to be in the minority.
my group so very seldomly has a problem with alignment, and quite frequently has evil or almost evil characters in the party.
which is kind of surprising, seeing as how we have a ethicist in the group who is pursuing a Doctoral degree on the subject.
some examples of party-friendly, useful, redeeming-quality characters, and why they're evil did not matter too much:
Kenshin: LG (in his eyes) Fighter/Samurai (3.0 ed) Led the Crane Clan against his Crab enemies and slaughtered them to the man after they captured one of him peasant villages and launched their bodies in a giant ball through the roof of his house, destroying a lot of property, and killing more of his people.
They also poisoned all the rice in his hold, killing still more and personally attacking him.
So, he led an assault on their stronghold, bombarding it with his superior magic forces (airships + tricked out archers + fire-mage + necromancer with exploding and undead-spreading undead.). following the bombardment, he stormed the citadel with great force, met the leader, and slew him before he could draw his sword.
He then offered the peasants the opportunity to join his clan or leap from the island (flying miles high of an ocean of acid and poison). The Crab nobility got no choice...they took their own lives or were thrown from the island.
In another encounter, the party was collectively challenged by the "Holy Roman Empire" analogue for the world...they thought we posed a threat to their continued dominance of the world. Sure, fine, challenged to a duel, all well and good.
Only thing, they barged into his house, refused to remove their boots/armor-foot-parts (forget the name), and basically wrecked the floor of my house (just recently repaired). So, on the way to the challenge (while their champions are preparing to meet us at a neutral setting) we bombarded their capital with similar treatment as above...undead bombs, lots of fire, angry elementals, and crack teams of samurai to cause havoc.
We then went and slew their champions in the big fight.
Wholly Lawful Evil, but polite, friendly, and more than willing to help his fellow man, so long as he did not cause him some slight to his honor or declare himself an enemy.
Then, there was Dip, the CN, soon to be CE Gnomish Beguiler.
things he did:
-led the party on several "first strike" encounters against people who were likely good-aligned, simply because we were both going for the same goal.
-charmed a white-mage-healer into believing we rescued her from the assaulting enemies who slew the rest of her party (which was us), then later betrayed her and tried to seal her away in a vault deep below Korranberg
-sold a NG cleric into slavery with the goblins of Sharn, because he annoyed me
-started a "inquisitive" organization in Sharn, with the intention of taking over the criminal businesses from the existing guilds
-routinely lied to everyone about his plans/motives, convincing NPC's and PC's of his relative "innocence" with regards to overtly evil actions
-gave over dissidents to the "Trust" (gnomish secret police) without a second's thought, knowing they would never be seen again.
yet, healed the party and supported them without question.
used his magic to haste, freedom of movement, etheralness everyone and anyone who was in danger
attracted a healer-cohort solely to keep everyone healthy and whole
gave lots of money to charities and churches
overpaid all peasants by a factor of 10...(oh, that costs 5 silver, here, take 5 gold)
finally was driven away by the party psion who tried to disintegrate him after seeing him (well, seeing the dead peasant, as i was under the effects of imp invisibility) kill a peasant in Rierda.
all that being said, alignment really doesn't seem to make too much difference with our characters. rarely do we have a party of all Good PC's. much more common are the LN, CN, and N people, who generally act Good, but have no problem throwing evil acts around if necessary.
-the hamster