Inspired by Why Are People Reluctant To Play Clerics thread. (That and players.)
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?
In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
Inspired by Why Are People Reluctant To Play Clerics thread. (That and players.)
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
I recently decided to play a neutral character for once . I rolled up a rogue/archivist and wrote a big "N" on my character sheet in the alignment space. Three sessions in, we find a little girl in a town full of ghouls, and, of course, I risked my life several times to save the kid. I even gave some money to a temple in the next town (where I left her) so they'd take care of her, and I fully plan to go back and check on her as soon as the current crisis is over.
The rest of the group is neutral also, coincidentally, yet, they pretty much all followed my lead on this.
I can play good okay, and probably evil, too - neutral is what I have a problem with.
|
I believe it is because people cant escape wanting to do wrong, and evil.
First trying to explain to a new player that they cant kill the dwarf and take his magic weapon because it is against their alignment. "so a good character cant just kill him and take it hmmm... -sounds of an eraser- ok now i can"
the badass concept is a good point, everyone likes to be the main point of attention. Most players that i have experianced would rather intimidate the poor peasent into supplying them food and lodgings rather then helping them overcome some evil foe to the land. *or kill him and eat the food and sleep in his bed with his wife*
Bad characters get to do fun things. PERIOD! i would assume this is that status quo for most players, its easier to kill and pillage with a great sword. being the anti-hero allows for you to have less care and understanding of the game. In the movies the good guy always gets screwed because he risked his life trying to save some innocent person while the bad guy got away or took a cheep shot.
Villians have less guide lines. Good guys have to obey law and morals.
LESS WORK + MORE FUN = Evil
remember Evil backward is LIVE
|
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Understanding of what?
In the real world, most of us are pretty darn neutral. *Some* of us dedicate time to charities and do all sorts of good works, as they say, but most of us begrudge giving money to our deadbeat relatives, let alone to Habitat for Humanity or whatever. (And many of us who *do* the volunteer thing and donate to the soup kitchen or whatever don't do a tenth as much as we *could* do!) *Some* of us are terribly selfish and think that poor, sick, handicapped and elderly people deserve what they got and should just be less lazy or whatever and that we don't owe them a damned thing but scorn and a muttered, 'get a job, you bum' on the way past that vet with one leg sitting on the grate in the sidewalk.
I don't see playing 'bad-guys' as requiring any more or less 'understanding' of anything than playing make-believe good-guys. Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians (ooh, that one's not PC anymore is it?), jedi and stormtroopers. We play both sides. It's make-believe. It doesn't mean that I'm actually *evil* when I play a Necromancer. It doesn't mean that I'm *good* because I played a Cleric who ran around healing people free of charge and passing out Continual Light and Warmth items to poor people to light and heat their homes, spending much of her earned wealth in researching new spells like Continual Warmth and then making the items to give away.
I maintain a pretty clear line between me and the characters I play, which, given my penchant for playing hideous troll females in online games like EverQuest and WarCraft, is a relief to anyone who knows me. :)
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Rarely, if ever, in my experience. We did have one guy back in college who always wanted to play Wolverine or whatever, but I haven't gamed with anyone with that mentality in 20 years.
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?
Easier, definitely wins for my vote. I've never had a party attack each other over what the Necromancer and the Assassin thought of each others tactics, but every single time, in the last two decades, that we've had a Paladin in a party for more than one session, he's ended up attacking other party members because 'You attacked my prisoner!' or 'I should have gotten that magic ring!' or 'That's dishonorable, so I'm going to walk up and get us all killed by attacking the entire Hobgoblin fort face to face!'
Evil characters never get punished for their alignment by the DM. Good characters, and, more importantly, not just the players of those good characters, but the players of every other character at the table, *do* get punished because of that 'G' on the character sheet.
Bob is Lawful Good? Good for Bob, that's a lifestyle choice, but that doesn't mean that the other five people in the room have to limit the actions of their characters based on his characters choice. Once one player *demands* that every other player submit to his role-playing choices, it stops being a fun game for everyone, and starts being 'All About Bob.'
Meanwhile, if Bob played a Chaotic Evil Death Master in service to Orcus, the rest of the party could play Rogues or Bards or Rangers or Druids or Fighters or Monks or Barbarians and use whatever tactics they wanted, and the worst they'd hear from evil Bob would be, 'that wasn't efficient, you should have just killed them all and let me turn them into zombies.'
In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
I'm sure they could, but everyone would have to, since good characters don't play well with others, and, in my experience, the people who most consistently choose the 'good' characters, the knights and the paladins, like to dictate to every other player what their character is allowed to do.
I don't really care for gaming with players who think that their 'code of conduct' applies to what my character is doing. I don't mind limiting my own actions and restricting my own choices, but having someone elses character sheet dictate what I can and cannot do? No thanks. If I'm going to be forced to live by a Paladin's code just because there is one in the party, I should get holy super-powers out of it, too...
Is evil 'cooler?' Not in my opinion (kinda the opposite, actually, since they usually aren't as 'cool' looking or shiny, but have grittier un-romantic backgrounds), but it's easier to play a neutral or evil character, and be able to save the village and do good deeds all day long, and not be punished with alignment change or atonement spells or whatever.
Alignments are a silly straightjacket, and evil is the freedom to do as many good deeds as you want, without having your powers taken away if you happen to mess up or have to make a questionable moral choice (do we kill the baby goblins / lycanthrope infected nuns and orphans / ghoul fever infected villagers? Yup. Kill 'em with fire. Last thing we need is more Goblins / Wererats / Ghouls running around. May their gods welcome them home.).
In my case its because:
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Its usually a change of phase to do the stuff you don't usually are allowed to in real life and go "unmolested" for itIs this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
The -less-boudaries- policy of evil allow widens the range of "fun".Is this because it's easier?
As many Trolls in the boards know, its easy to be an @SSH... So jeps, its easier to sit back and do as you please.
Personally I enjoy being a _G PC. If I go Neutral I have to develop a reeeeally good personality to be Neutral, not just grey. I've never played an even PC, so no experience there.
I really dilike evil PC just for the fun of it. Since this usually turns into trouble for the other non-evil PCs. But I honestly dislike more a Neutral-grey PC who plays without purpose and Its just thee complaining "why are we doing this, I don't care for this, etc etc.
My two cents.
I've never really seen this problem. All of the groups I have been a part of have been composed of primarily good characters, and even the _N ones had/have decidedly good leanings. Being the good guys is fun.
Well I have gamed with all types of players in my way too many years of gaming and have to say that yes players do tend to like chaos an evil characters, and a huge part of it is based on players. I have one gaming buddy who always plays the paladin/knight type of character and he is the biggest in-game stick in the mud ever, going so far as to completely derail a mission just for the sake of alignment, even when it doesnt apply
Example:
Beggining of Savage Tide Adventure Path, the group is hired by a noble lady who recently inherited her estate after her parents death ina boat fire. She aledges that a dock worker who has her other boat has taken her fee payment and denied she ever paid. She asks the players to find out why he is lying and to at least get the family signet ring back off the boat. The paladin reasonably asks to gather information to collabarate her story, ok I can see a LG Pally doing so. But when everything checks out except no one knows about whether the guy at the docks stole her money her refuses her job citing that since it couldn't be proven he'd have none of it. He then proceeded to try and join the town militia to help a greater amount of people. Now I understand the character motives but personally feel he was just being difficult at this point.
On the flip side you have the players who over the years they get angry because the villians screw them over using hostages, or the innkeeper betrays them, and then the always fun example of one "Chaotic Nuetral" guy who decides he is "crazy" (since alot of people describve it that way especially back in 2nd ed.) and takes what he wants from the party treasure or whatever the case may be. These players want to play evil and "Chaotic Stupid" because they don't want to be tied down to a regulated set of choices and want to be able to kill/maim whoever whenever and take whatever loot they want. I personally dislike these sort of behaviors and kind of have a verbal agreement with my players that I want to run games about heroes not villians, and if they truly want to be bad guys and anti heroes from the iron age, then every now and them we'll do that as a break from the norm but If I 'm the guy to run then we play in my sandbox. They generally are ok with it.
A side note about "CHaotic Stupid": The alignment Chaotic Nuetral is one of the two alignments I hate, that and True Nuetral. Here's reasonings and experiences, they mayvary greatly from everyone elses. I see alot of tendancy to play CN as the "I am chaos incarnate so it's ok to do whatever I want including be evil." I try to explain that isn't what it means but some people just don't read things the same way as others. True Nuetral bothers me, because no person is truly true nuetral in my opinion. People if anything have a natural inclination towards chaotic good if anything, in that humans are rebelious but decent lots in and of themselves. However it is important to not that in the case of large groups, people quickly become stupid and switch to lawful evil (the mob) and are easily influenced. Most people though are not TN but some shade of CG or CE, with Lawyers being the exception always being LE. :P
Just like lynora, I had to scratch my head at this question because that's never been the case for my campaigns. We have been overwhelmingly good. Out of the 17 (or more) people I've regularly gamed with in 23 years of gaming, we've almost always played good PCs. Just like above, even the _N ones acted more good than not.
As for evil and mean PCs (and not just looking at alignment specifically, but PC actions), I've only seen:
-- In high school, we ran one session of all evil PCs, but it became a comedic "destroy everything" fest as we wiped out an entire town for kicks. Got it out of our system and was never interested again.
-- We had one player who had the attitude of wanting to screw over other PCs and just cause trouble. But the player was kinda annoying in real life (surprise, surprise) and didn't last in the group.
-- My wife once played an evil PC, but was more selfish than evil. "Hey, you all go up there and fight, while I stay back out of harm's way and just cast spells. Oh, you don't like that idea? *casts charm person and smiles sweetly* Now, please, go up there and fight." But the PC actually went through quite a bit of personality growth over a couple campaigns and wound up very good.
-- One current player likes to have his PCs always looking for how things benefit himself. Best popular analogy I can think of is the early Han Solo. Sure, he'll do the right thing, but he better be paid well doing it. He's also quite tempted to lift small valuables from rich people's homes because he's sure they won't miss them. But beyond that little pettiness, he's pretty clearly a good character when it comes down to it.
So out of dozens of PCs that have been 8-10 campaigns, those are the only examples I have ever come across of PCs that weren't good people. Yeah, sometimes they can have anger issues directed towards the bad guys, but in a D&D world, that's still quite good in our reckoning.
In my experience, it has absolutely nothing to do with a preference for evil. There's no sinister psychology here, just a disconnect from the game world. As others have said, it's all about the easy road.
Essentially, relatively few players are actually looking for any kind of immersive roleplaying experience from D&D. Your whole group may be that way, I don't know, and if it is, great for you. But you are the exception to the norm. Those who have a higher capacity for and interest in immersion in a fantasy world usually become DMs. Otherwise, they will typically stay a player. I'm not saying you don't have players who's characters are Good-aligned, but rather that the majority probably aren't looking for the aforementioned immersive roleplay experience.
Since they're not that interested and/or capable of achieving an immersive roleplaying experience, there is a very real sense of "This is a game" running through their heads, a very real barrier between themselves and their character. In this situation, they are very akin to the player of a video game who just wants entertainment and to see things blow up. There is an element of desire there, desiring to play the badass. But it's subdued and goes hand in hand with the desire to escape from rules and regulations.
It certainly doesn't help that D&D is a combat focused game. Need proof? Count all the rules that deal with noncombat situations, and then count all the ones that deal with hacking or blowing up your enemies. So the players often come in with an expectation that they're going to get to kill things. And it also certainly doesn't help that you can't watching five minutes of prime time TV without seeing or hearing about a murder. I'm not judging; just noting the contributing factors.
So, that all combines to explain why a lot of people behave the way they do in the game. But here's the thing: it doesn't have a horse's rear end to do with alignment. They would act that way regardless of what their character sheet said, because they don't care what's written there. There are other reasons they write Evil down in that slot on the paper:
1) They have enough awareness and consciousness about them to know that Good characters wouldn't do what they want to do;
2) They have enough awareness to know that Good people are going to be expected to actually speak with NPCs, conform to certain standards, and perhaps think about their actions, which they find ;
3) They know this game offers freedom, and Evil offers the ultimate freedom (from morals, conscience, judgement, responsibility, etc.);
4) Or, perhaps most commonly of all, they've learned that the DM will b@!#$ at them if they write Good on their sheet and don't act that way, so they stop writing Good there, and the DM stops b%!%@ing at them.
|
|
My experience has been opposite to what you're describing. My players and I tend toward goodness with perhaps a bit of neutrality. Of course we haven't seen a truly f-ing good party yet but we most often play the heroes. I've never had a problem with a villains party except that the characters die a whole lot more frequently. There has been one notable exception to this and that was a short lived campaign to begin with.
My guess is that the people one plays with often dictates what kinds of characters will be around. The one time I played at a hobby shop was decidedly more chaotic and evil than my home games have ever been. My character at the time switched with the hoard (there were a lot of players) but in the end I decided it would be awesome if he was "homesick" and in the end he went good once again (nearly getting killed in the process).
In my eyes, the good hero almost always trumps the badass villain in level of enjoyment.
P.S. An evil alignment also doesn't necessarily remove the shackles of morals, conscience or the like. Evil characters can be just as complex (if not moreso) as good or neutral characters.
I'm curious...what are your settings like? What moral dilemmas are presented? What kind of situations do the pcs have to work their way through? This has a lot to do as well with what players tend to play.
|
|
Because good is dumb?
Ha seriously though the closest to good we can come to being good is neutral. That's in the current Curse of the Crimson Throne game. Even then I shot some guy mouthing off to me in the head, don't worry though he was a lawyer so it's ok. }; )
I love the fact that most adventures assume you're good. We've cut to the end of so many plots by being evil bastards. Order of the Stick #595 kinda demonstrates my point.
Evil parties seem to be much more effective in taking out evil menaces than good parties.
I used to end up with the Han Solo type--one guy was really fond of saying "half now, and half when we get the job done." I don't know why.
I can answer half of that now, and half when you get the job done. :P
This aint like dusting crops, boy.
|
|
Inspired by Why Are People Reluctant To Play Clerics thread. (That and players.)
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
I don't give my players a choice. They have to play good PCs. That said, I've never even really had any complaints about it.
Personally, I find it very hard to play any alignment but Lawful Good as a PC, and I likewise tend to favor paladin and/or cleric characters (though I often toss in some levels of ranger, rogue, or swordsage to get some stealth in there). Playing evil or neutral characters makes me feel like I need a shower afterward. Playing chaotic characters is so far outside my own modes of thinking that I usually can't pull it off convincingly, or the character is mildly chaotic and overwhelmingly good.
Strangely, I have an easier time with neutral and evil characters as a GM. More detachment, maybe?
And as far as the badass thing goes: Hogwash. I played a paladin in a Ravenloft game that was, I daresay, one of the most badass characters either I or any of the other players or GM have ever seen. Black armor, grim attitude, ferocious combat style, but also utterly selfless and almost suicidally brave. When there were innocents in danger or evil afoot, his own safety didn't matter to him at all. There were at least five or six times during the game where I thought "he can't possibly survive this" and he did.* He was so intimidating to evil people that the GM actually houseruled his paladin's aura of courage into an archon's aura of menace. The guy was an absolute roadmap of scars by the end of the game, though. Hell, he started the game with some wicked facial scars from a wolfwere attack. (five parallel scars that ran from his left temple diagonally down and to the right across his face, finally terminating at this jaw on the right.)
*He fought off a small army of goblyns alone while defending an innocent peasant woman and child. He smashed an evil artifact he knew would explode (it did). He charged a squad of professional assassins. He challenged the Jongleur to a duel (and won). He picked a fight with a vampire in its lair. He fought through a mob of mind-controlled slaves with his bare hands when they had no such restriction (he didn't want to hurt them, but he killed the hell out of the being controlling them) he climbed a wall of razor-sharp crystals with a passenger he didn't know whether he could trust or not on his back.
|
|
And as far as the badass thing goes: Hogwash. I played a paladin in a Ravenloft game that was, I daresay, one of the most badass characters either I or any of the other players or GM have ever seen. Black armor, grim attitude, ferocious combat style, but also utterly selfless and almost suicidally brave. When there were innocents in danger or evil afoot, his own safety didn't matter to him at all. There were at least five or six times during the game where I thought "he can't possibly survive this" and he did. The guy was an absolute roadmap of scars by the end of the game, though.
That sounds like an incredibly awesome character! I would love to have a game with him around.
|
Can't speak for anyone else but I've almost always slipped into playing good alignments(most often NG), even when I would have been much better off not doing so. Even my few neutral characters wind up being conscientious; they just sometimes work off of it in a flawed manner.
Man, now that I think about it, the one evil character I ever played had as many "Pet The Dog" moments as he did "Shoot the Dog"s. And it wasn't just about getting good PR!
I think in my case it's because I try to immerse myself in the game. I'm big on playing my characters, and they're unable to see other PCs and NPCs as just plot points or statblocks to interact with. That and I've never played a sociopath.
|
|
And as far as the badass thing goes: Hogwash. I played a paladin in a Ravenloft game that was, I daresay, one of the most badass characters either I or any of the other players or GM have ever seen. Black armor, grim attitude, ferocious combat style, but also utterly selfless and almost suicidally brave. When there were innocents in danger or evil afoot, his own safety didn't matter to him at all. There were at least five or six times during the game where I thought "he can't possibly survive this" and he did. The guy was an absolute roadmap of scars by the end of the game, though.That sounds like an incredibly awesome character! I would love to have a game with him around.
Yeah. He was an absolute blast. Probably my favorite PC ever. Oh, and the character in your avatar, Roy Greenhilt, is further evidence that Lawful Good can be absolutely badass, now that I think of it.
|
Here's my take:
In order to play a truly good character your PC must be capable of self-sacrifice. I'm talking pinnacle of good here; the ultimate standard. The sort of person that when the Archfiend says "If you don't kill this village I will kill this little girl," they say "That is on your head, not mine. Any you kill will be set free and our souls will be pure while yours remains tainted."
In the end, not the sort of stuff of a typical D&D campaign. The typical hero is at best a little bit selfish - they want to survive, they want to have the situation have the best outcome, and most of all they think in terms of the Material Plane. Going beyond that isn't really the concern of a player in most campaigns. It makes no difference if you are just blaze good or self-sacrificing good, so why make the extra effort?
In the end, there is no incentive to play a good character because it just feels boring. If you go all out you get no reward, so there are easier alignments to play.
|
|
Here's my take:
In order to play a truly good character your PC must be capable of self-sacrifice. I'm talking pinnacle of good here; the ultimate standard. The sort of person that when the Archfiend says "If you don't kill this village I will kill this little girl," they say "That is on your head, not mine. Any you kill will be set free and our souls will be pure while yours remains tainted."
In the end, not the sort of stuff of a typical D&D campaign. The typical hero is at best a little bit selfish - they want to survive, they want to have the situation have the best outcome, and most of all they think in terms of the Material Plane. Going beyond that isn't really the concern of a player in most campaigns. It makes no difference if you are just blaze good or self-sacrificing good, so why make the extra effort?
In the end, there is no incentive to play a good character because it just feels boring. If you go all out you get no reward, so there are easier alignments to play.
Really? Because IMHO that kind of drama is what great gaming is made of, if handled right.
|
|
Really? Because IMHO that kind of drama is what great gaming is made of, if handled right.Here's my take:
In order to play a truly good character your PC must be capable of self-sacrifice. I'm talking pinnacle of good here; the ultimate standard. The sort of person that when the Archfiend says "If you don't kill this village I will kill this little girl," they say "That is on your head, not mine. Any you kill will be set free and our souls will be pure while yours remains tainted."
In the end, not the sort of stuff of a typical D&D campaign. The typical hero is at best a little bit selfish - they want to survive, they want to have the situation have the best outcome, and most of all they think in terms of the Material Plane. Going beyond that isn't really the concern of a player in most campaigns. It makes no difference if you are just blaze good or self-sacrificing good, so why make the extra effort?
In the end, there is no incentive to play a good character because it just feels boring. If you go all out you get no reward, so there are easier alignments to play.
Gah. My fault for not being clear. I wish MORE games were so altruistic, but I think most players don't see the game that way and the system does not support it.
|
|
Gah. My fault for not being clear. I wish MORE games were so altruistic, but I think most players don't see the game that way and the system does not support it.
It might be a bit heartening for you to hear that when someone recently went off on some insane blog rant decrying players for playing compassionate, altruistic heroes in a game that technically may not actively support that style of play, he got quite the verbal thrashing from a decently-sized mob over on RPG.net.
|
|
You know, some of the best interactions I've seen between characters in a group that actually role-plays is when you have a mixed party.
CG Rogue: At least they didn't-
NE Wizard: Finish that sentence and I'll slit your throat.
LG Paladin: You do and I'll have take you before the Sherrif.
NE Wizard: You can certainly try.
LN Druid: Calm down, we're all here for a single purpose, we should at least try and accomplish our goal before trying to shed each other's blood.
LG Paladin: I take it you're recommending a truce?
NE Wizard: Fine, once we are done, we two can finish our business.
LG Paladin: Agreed. Should you break your word, however, I shall strike you down.
|
|
Gah. My fault for not being clear. I wish MORE games were so altruistic, but I think most players don't see the game that way and the system does not support it.It might be a bit heartening for you to hear that when someone recently went off on some insane blog rant decrying players for playing compassionate, altruistic heroes in a game that technically may not actively support that style of play, he got quite the verbal thrashing from a decently-sized mob over on RPG.net.
Link to blog and/or thread?
I guess I've never had a problem with it since I always saw the average human as neutral, and most variety being Neutral with ___ Tendencies. Actually being Neutral Good or Neutral Evil is really hard. The good side requires giving where most choose to keep, extending a hand where most choose to pull back, so on and so forth. The evil requires an actual disconnection from your fellow man; an ability to view not just some, but most if not all, of your fellow human beings as less than human, less than yourself.
My wife is more good than me, and shes also more lawful by a long shot. Im definitely chaotic by nature, and I've done my share of cruel and hurtful things to others, some I regret, some I don't. But in the end, I think a detect alignment isn't going to register much, maybe a twinge of good on her side, a twinge of chaos on mine. I highly doubt we have LG and CN on our respective sheets in the sky. I think they both say NN, with a sub-note about tendencies.
And think about this. If one step from neutral is hard to get to (NG, CN, LN, NE) can you imagine two steps? The alignment extremes are just that, extreme. People who are actually that alignment would seem insane relative to the rest of us. Jeffery Dahmer for CE, Mengle for LE, and I can't even think of LG or CG equivalents at the moment.
When I play actual Good PCs, I try to be hands down heroic. Self sacrificing, generous, freindly, and so on. My neutral PCs are more "real" in a sense, with more back and forth and facets.
I guess its hard for people to be capital Good because we don't really know how to be that good. I mean, your so Good you share the same alignment level as ANGELS? Or actual soul-devouring demons? Or the unyeilding law of Mechanus? Or the sheer random unpredictable chaos of Limbo? Right. Neutral with Tendencies it is. I just ask my Monks to display orderly behavior, and my paladins to show virtue and discipline. Makes for a lot less alignment issues, and gives a good benchmark for where to shoot for "exalted" status.
The system is indeed not the most supportive one for this...
Personally I tend to gravitate towards neutrality, shying away from extremes and playing mostly vaguely good people who try to do the right thing but are pragmatic about matters, or sometimes evil characters in petty, calculating selfish ways (massacres because "I felt like it" won't happen, nor does backstabbing unless the outcome is really worth it). NG and N are the most common alignment choices, though I think I have tried almost anything (cannot remember LE though).
I like neither twirling-moustache-while-tying-heroine-on-railroad-tracks nor good-justice-and-moms-apple-pie folks, and do not use them, except occasionally as an appearance (that will be a ruse though).
I guess I am reluctant to play truly good people because I don't really believe in that, preferring shades of grey. I don't believe in Chaotic Stupid either though.
Because all it takes is one selfish yutz playing a CN rogue or an anti-hero necromancer/demon summoner for you to be forced into inter-party conflict that everyone blames YOU for?
I find those anti-hero character archetypes incredibly passive aggressive, as that player essentially forces the other players to look the other way and ignore the fact that their friend is either a good person in need of help or a walking time bomb getting more destructive by the level. And they're supposed to ignore the fact that they're enabling this nonsense. And that by enabling it, they are putting their immortal souls at risk in an afterlife that they have daily proof exists.
But everyone is supposed to meta-game and ignore that fact because if they actually stayed in character, they'd be harshing emo's vibe or nerfing his fun. And, as always with passive aggressive players, they set it up so that someone else takes the fall, a.k.a. whoever's playing a good character.
Note: the one exception to this rule is when everyone agrees at the outset of the game to play in the shades of dark gray.
Note: My longest running character was one who started off with evil tendencies, but slowly moved towards the light, with DM approval. My problem is with the EMO character concept : "Everyone ignore My Obvious issues."
Because good is dumb?
Ha seriously though the closest to good we can come to being good is neutral. That's in the current Curse of the Crimson Throne game. Even then I shot some guy mouthing off to me in the head, don't worry though he was a lawyer so it's ok. }; )
I love the fact that most adventures assume you're good. We've cut to the end of so many plots by being evil bastards. Order of the Stick #595 kinda demonstrates my point.
Evil parties seem to be much more effective in taking out evil menaces than good parties.
If your DM was doing foreshadowing rather than running it as written, your PC is going to regret that decision.
|
|
My current group of players enjoy the "ends justify the means" style of play.
They generally try to help those in trouble, but rarely try to do anything involving self-sacrifice.
They also like to kill the bad-guys in the most brutal fashion (coup-de-grace decapitations, maximized mind thrusts, etc).
We generally get a lot of N and CN and an ocassional NE or NG.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Since they're not that interested and/or capable of achieving an immersive roleplaying experience, there is a very real sense of "This is a game" running through their heads, a very real barrier between themselves and their character. In this situation, they are very akin to the player of a video game who just wants entertainment and to see things blow up. There is an element of desire there, desiring to play the badass. But it's subdued and goes hand in hand with the desire to escape from rules and regulations.
I think this is an excellent point, especially as it applies to newbies.
My buddy just started running a D&D game with some high school kids at his FLGS, and their attitude is exactly as Saern puts it here. They don't see the point of alignment at all, and tend to play the game WoW style - see something living? Kill it. See an item? Take it before anyone else does. In addition, they ignore their character concept entirely if an opportunity to add a power or ability appears.
For example, the party encounters a pool that radiates magic and evil. The Rogue drinks from it and gets donkey ears. The party laughs and is cautious about the pool - until they find out the donkey ears give the PC a +1 on Listen checks. Next thing you know, they all drink from the pool - even the CG Cleric - just to get the powers. Turns out, the pool is a shrine to a CE Deity and the powers granted are completely random. The Fighter gets scaly skin and the cleric gets a lion head. Also, since the cleric drank from the pool, she lost her spells and connection to her deity until she atones for her action. Does the cleric care? No. She states that she will just play as a Fighter going forward.
My friend says he's got quite a task on his hands to try to help these new players grasp the concept of alignment and how it can affect their characters.
You should not forget that D&D presents a situation where you do not have to listen to your parents/teacher/boss or other authority from your daily life and can decide your own fate. So it is not strange some players want to play evil characters. In my experience these are usually younger players, and usually they are not so evil as they think they are. In my experience most of these groups end up neutral. And incidentally, I am a DM who changes alignment of evil characters who are not evil enough.
Most of the groups I have now, play good characters. After more than 10 years of playing good characters, my regular group wanted to play evil (in the savage tide campaign). They ended up with 3 neutral and 3 evil characters, and the evil characters are not as evil as they think, though they are trying very hard. But old habits (10+ years of playing good characters) die hard. One of these characters even wanted to pay for a raise dead for an NPC "because that would increase their standing and reputation". That sounded like an excuse to do good, and luckily the rest of the group protested (the neutrals, mostly).
In my experience some players always play interesting characters whom you can sympathize with, independent of alignment (so even if they play CE), and others always play irritating and uninteresting characters (even when playing LG). The personality of the player is always shining through.
Call me crazy, I really quite enjoy playing good clerics.
It really varies from group to group. I almost always play good characters, unless I'm playing a CN barbarian to blow off steam, and even those are usually more "grouchy but basically decent" than anything else. As for my players, some are always NG, the rest bounce around in various levels of N or G.
-The Gneech
Call me crazy, I really quite enjoy playing good clerics.You're crazy.
Crazy righteous!
|
|
I've normally played Good characters, however, I'm currently playing a LN Monk to do something different. Never played a morally ambiguous character before, never played a character that doesn't rely on weapons before.
I think my next character will either be a CN Bard who is basically decent(although he does do some minor evil things, such as theft); or a self-serving NE Wizard(Diviner, giving up Evocation, just to mess with my DM) who views others as assets and expendable.
I've been playing characters up to now who are all along the Good side of the spectrum, but rarely dipping to the opposite end. I feel I can play an Evil character well...
BBEG: For trespassing in my domain, what will you offer to keep me from killing you.
Wizard: *casts Deep Slumber on Paladin* Him.
BBEG: *devours Paladin*
Party: *stares in disbelief at Wizard*
Wizard: Hurry up, you fools, we should leave.
Inspired by Why Are People Reluctant To Play Clerics thread. (That and players.)
I have noticed a trend in my years of GMing and playing.
PCs usually range from unsavory to down right evil.
Is this because of a lack of understanding?
Is this because of desire to be "badass"?
Is this so they can play the popular anti-hero?
Is this because of villains are thought to have more fun?
Is this because it's easier?In ending, why can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
For many people, playing good characters is either difficult or boring. Truly altruistic people are quite rare in real life; most of us are pretty selfish, when you get down to it. Also, many have a misperception of what constitutes good in game terms; they see good as either ineffectual bumblers or overzealous authoritarians. Many players want to use D&D to "do what they want" and resent having restrictions on their actions (even implied ones based on a moral code).
Then, there is the extremely material nature of the game itself. D&D is based around killing things and taking their stuff. To a large extent, "success" is measured by "earning" new abilities and finding/buying better equipment. For some, this is the main focus, instead of acting as rewards for saving a person, community, nation, or world.
Playing good characters can be a very fun and rewarding experience, but there are pitfalls. Usually, it requires certain amount of cooperation from the DM and the entire party. A DM who overuses moral dillemas and "plot twists" where villians target the good characters, their associates, etc. in soap opera/melodrama style will cause many players to avoid playing good characters. Likewise, players have to avoid exacerbating (or even deliberately seeking) interparty conflict; this applies to everyone, BTW: the "good" character who continually tells everyone else what to do is just as disruptive as the "anti-hero" who tries to push the good character's buttons or works at cross-purposes.
I played in a d20 Modern campaign where we all played Roman Catholic priests that were part of a secret organization within the Vatican that basically did what Buffy did. It was interesting, because the usual carrots (money, babes, stuff, etc.) didn't apply to a bunch of dudes who had vows of chastity and charity and poverty.
We still managed to get into trouble, (my Jesuit surgeon actually had to do a ton of community service at one point!), but it was a really fun challenge to act good AND play in a game that was inherently violent. We couldn't kill innocents, obviously, but we also couldn't kill disarmed but really evil mortals either. We had a trio of nemeses that we HATED, but the one time we got the drop on them, we couldn't shoot them because they were unarmed. It was very frustrating, but in a good way. When the demons came out to play, we were able to pull out uzis out of our medical bags and go to town, but when it was possessed folks, or just common criminals, it was a bigger challenge because we had to be careful not to kill them.
|
|
I think I'm going to cast Greater Stir Pot here...
As an arguement to players saying they choose Evil to play a character who does what he wants consider this: Some people who are Good are so because they want to be. Their desire to try and do right is certainly part of being Good, even if they fail to slay the dread beast running amok.
[W]hy can't people play a whole group of f-ing good characters for once?
In my experience:
Railroading. That an rebelliousness.
When I first started playing, Chaotic Good was my alignment of choice. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty close to how I was. And I feel it is best to start with what you know. While my character wasn't me, it was easy enough to figure out what my character would do based on my opinions.
After a couple of times of flat out GM Fiat "You can't do that because your good." or the more subtle "That wouldn't be right for your alignment," I grew mighty tired of Good.
Then there were the table arguments over what a Good character can or can't do (some of them started by me, I'm afraid)...
I lump Paladins, Clerics, and Good alignments into the same basic pot. They are all tools that the GM can railroad you with.
Now, quality GMs won't do that. But there aren't an over abundance of quality GMs.
Then there is the rebellious factor. We, well many of us at least, are raised under the constant mantra of "you better be good," or "you better behave." And roleplaying allows us to spit in the face of what society wants from us. So, yeah. We will stretch our moral "muscles" when given the opportunity.
But then I have grown into Chaotic Neutral with the fast track towards Chaotic Evil, so my view points are certainly tainted.
|
|
All this has given me an idea, probably been done before in similar ways, but lets see how it works out.
In video games where you have moral options such as(but not limited to) Fable, Fallout, and KotOR; your options add and subtract the equivilent of morality points to your naughty/nice meter. Good deeds push your total towards the Good side. Evil deeds do the opposite.
What if we were to implement a simplified version of this for pen and paper games which worked for both the Moral and Ethical axes?
Lets say that its set up like this:
......................Law
........................5
........................4
........................3
........................2
........................1
Good 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Evil
........................1
........................2
........................3
........................4
........................5
....................Chaos
Then you rate actions by the following(using Good as an example):
Lesser Good act: 1 point
(Speaking truthfully when nothing will benefit you; Giving the beggar in the street 5 coppers)
Minor Good act: 2 points
(Speaking truthfully when a lie would benefit you and you won't get caught; helping a stranger fix a wheel on a cart)
Major Good act: 3 points
(Speaking truthfully when you know you'll be harmed in some way for doing so; interupting in an assault on a stranger)
Ultimate Good act: 6 points
(anything that puts yourself at great risk for the sake of another)
Once you put that framework in the game, the DM is the only one who gets to see these totals(so the players don't metagame it :P), and rates actions they perform throughout the course of the adventure. Make it so that only Ultimate Acts and push a character all the way across the Neutral ground. The idea is while in this example, a Good person could do evil things, no one act(other than an Ultimate Evil act) would immediately make them evil, it would, however, make them question themselves and weaken their resolve against thoughts of evil acts.
Paladins and the like would still have things a little rough, however, because even while a lesser evil act won't shift them much, they still break their oaths and lose their Paladinhood.
Of course, this is all just an idea. Do with it as you please. As long as it doesn't involve hurting me.
Edit: Just noticed some odd wording about the acts. When I mean only an Ultimate Act would push the character all the way across, I mean that even if a character has only 1 Good point and their perform a Major Evil act, they merely slide to Neutral(0), not go to 2 Evil points. An Ultimate act ignores this waypoint and immediately progress to the Evil side of the spectrum. These standards also apply to the Ethical axis.
I keep that sort of mental grid in my head whenever I see an alignment. Most human alignments rarely ever hit past a 3, extreme cases hit 4. But most outsiders start at 4. You can even use the "often/usually/always" spectrum numerically as like a 1-3-5 or such.
So my CG bard is actually a C3G1 Bard. But the pit fiend is a L5E5. I might consider a red dragon to not be quite as extreme as say, a demon, so I might say big red is C4E4. So on and so forth.
A nice alignment chart.
This is a good idea, and has been bouncing around for some time (I think Valegrim uses a method like this). The practical problem of it is that it is one more thing to track at the table, which DMs are usually resistant too, and that the DM gets to decide what constitutes an act of a certain alignment. In truth, this latter point is really no different than in the normal play situation, but when he is secretly keeping a tally, it may breed suspicion in the minds of the players. In other circumstances, they could debate and argue their point and at least feel that they can try to have a say in their character's alignment. If the DM is doing it behind the screen without their knowledge, they don't get that. If the players and the DM all view alignment exactly the same, or if the players explicitly trust their DM, this isn't a problem. But most groups aren't so lucky.
It seems like a number of people on this thread agree with this statement from Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote: "You are what you pretend to be."
...and these charts have raised before a comment on metagaming and scaling of acts ("how many beggars I have to give money to so I can murder an innocent and not lose alignment?"). And if players don't have access to the chart it boils down to the same judgment call as DM just saying that someone has been too naughty and is now neutral.