|
Since evil clerics can not use spontaneous healing are they weaker than the good clerics? I would think so. Good clerics can heal the whole party by channeling where an evil cleric can only heal the undead. The spontaneous inflict spells have a saving throw to negate half the damage where good clerics can heal anyone with out a saving throw.
If you put two clerics of equal level and equipment against each other I would bet on the good cleric every time.
Why can't evil clerics cast spontaneous heal spells? I would assume Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon would want to heal their followers so the can continue to serve them. I would assume that for all the evil deities with the exception of Rovagug and maybe Lamashtu.
Anyone else bothered by this or is it just me?
Since evil clerics can not use spontaneous healing are they weaker than the good clerics? I would think so. Good clerics can heal the whole party by channeling where an evil cleric can only heal the undead. The spontaneous inflict spells have a saving throw to negate half the damage where good clerics can heal anyone with out a saving throw.
If you put two clerics of equal level and equipment against each other I would bet on the good cleric every time.
Why can't evil clerics cast spontaneous heal spells? I would assume Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon would want to heal their followers so the can continue to serve them. I would assume that for all the evil deities with the exception of Rovagug and maybe Lamashtu.
Anyone else bothered by this or is it just me?
It's been an issue since Dragon Magazine previewed the spontaneous casting of cure spells for the release of 3.0 (stole that for my 1st edition game).
On the flip side, low level evil clerics are actually much more dangerous than a low level good cleric. Not against each other, but vs. the public in general. And *always* having a touch damage spell available is useful, just not really *as* useful. Inflict Serious or Critical is a nice finishing move though. [Fight vs. high ACs, slowly whittle each other down, then WHAM, average 25 damage at 7th level]
|
I don't know, I put an evil fighter/cleric against my party once, and with selective channeling she was a powerhouse of damage - and would have been better with full levels in cleric, I think. Those negative channels were NASTY for the party to face, and there was no way to block them, though they could be resisted for half damage.
Sure, the evil cleric is going to be worse at keeping a party of live allies standing - but is that really what an evil cleric is about? Or is an evil cleric about taking down his enemies as quickly as possible? He's still got healing available for himself and useful companions, that's just not his default tactic.
I actually have more concerns about an evil cleric's ability to do serious damage over quite a significant distance than I do over the relative power of good clerics. Unless I'm DMing. Then making evil clerics is very fun. Heh.
|
If you put two clerics of equal level and equipment against each other I would bet on the good cleric every time.
This is a bet you'd probably lose if the evil cleric had some controlled undead with him. Incorporeal undead are particularly nasty. Being able to tell a Shadow (for instance) to float through the floor/wall/ceiling and attack for Strength damage vs. touch AC is plain devastating to most.
The answer to the original question depends on just what you are comparing.
Put an evil cleric with a small army of undead minions against your group of good PCs, and he is definitely a formiddable force. Maybe even deadlier than if you put a good cleric with an army of orcs minions against the same group.
But...
Put an evil cleric (with or without minions) into your group of PCs and he becomes weak. Sure, he can damage the enemies, maybe even with Selective Channeling to keep his friends alive, and that can make the encounters go faster. But his healing will be lacking compared to a good cleric. Very lacking, since he cannot spontaneously heal with spells either, so his only heals are what he prepares in the morning. He'll essentially be an evoker of sorts - and we all know that evocation is the weak school of magic.
Worse, as the OP pointed out, everything that evil cleric does with negative energy (spontaneous inflicts and channeling) can be partially resisted with saves, while the good cleric always gets full effect.
Sure, that evil cleric can bolster his healing with wands and such, but those are always weak compared to doing it yourself.
So, as you can see, the answer is situational.
|
I am currently DM'ing Curse of the Crimson Throne for 5 players, 2 of which chose to make Clerics.
They are Flip-Side sibling Clerics of Nethys, with Shiro (the Good Cleric as I call him in game) channeling positive energy and using the Magic and Rune Domains; Kura (or Darth, or Vader, or just the Evil Cleric) is a negative channeling, Magic and Destruction Cleric.
Shiro focuses on the party healing, with Cure spells, Channeling, and the requisite Remove Blindness, Restoration, etc. type spells. Kura focuses on offense (usually saves spells to back-up heal) with her Hand of the Acolyte wielded +1 Vicious, Merciful Earthbreaker and Turning Smite.
That's 5d6+8 (i think) weapon damage with another 5d6 negative energy damage (just hit level 11, but is a bugbear due to reincarnation) on every swing that hits. Granted, she misses the higher-AC enemies fairly regularly, but still has the offensive capability she's looking for.
Add to this her recent Rajput Ambari acquisition (yes, they stole all 4 from the Vivified Labyrinth. I have killed 2 of them already.) and she's capable of putting out a whole bunch of hurt on the mid-to-low AC baddies.
With regards to an evil cleric on his own, that all depends on how he is being played, what his domains are, and if he is going to focus on Save-or-Die, Channel Energy, Melee, or whatnot. Being unable to spontaneously cure only means you need to prepare them, not that you're unable to do so. With a little forethought (or divination spells the day before) you can be capable of healing ALMOST as well as a Positive Energy Channeler, and can still pull out the burst hurt when it's needed.
-t
Kura focuses on offense (usually saves spells to back-up heal) with her Hand of the Acolyte wielded +1 Vicious, Merciful Earthbreaker and Turning Smite.
-tsorry, a little off topic, but....
** spoiler omitted **
Hehe, I wondered the same thing myself but I let it slide. Figured they were having fun so I wouldn't pop the baloon.
My armored teeth are still a little sore from chewing on a regenerating zombie all day...
Kura focuses on offense (usually saves spells to back-up heal) with her Hand of the Acolyte wielded +1 Vicious, Merciful Earthbreaker and Turning Smite.
-tsorry, a little off topic, but....
** spoiler omitted **
Creative Director
|
My theory:
Evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. They're intended to be bad guys. And as bad guys, who can blast foes with negative energy or bolster undead while at the same time being a pretty tough fighter AND spellcaster/buff support for allies, they do quite well. Especially since a bad guy cleric is only going to be around in combat for, on average, about 5 rounds, so you can fill up his spells prepared slots with, say, 75% cure spells and presto, the bad guy NPC has a fair amount of healing to draw upon even if he can't swap out for the spells.
|
|
pretty much, i allowed the Hand of the Acolyte to wield any weapon you could normally wield for your size.
and yeah, Morningstar would drop the die to 1d8 rather than 2d6...difference in average damage of 2.5 points.
also: we tend to allow for more cinematic play than strict RAW...if it's cool and doesn't derail the game, I am up for pretty much anything.
-t
|
|
My theory:
Evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. They're intended to be bad guys. And as bad guys, who can blast foes with negative energy or bolster undead while at the same time being a pretty tough fighter AND spellcaster/buff support for allies, they do quite well. Especially since a bad guy cleric is only going to be around in combat for, on average, about 5 rounds, so you can fill up his spells prepared slots with, say, 75% cure spells and presto, the bad guy NPC has a fair amount of healing to draw upon even if he can't swap out for the spells.
I was looking at playing a Nuetral cleric of Zon-Kuthon in Chelix faction in the Pathfinder Society. An elf from Nidal that just like to spread pain and darkness everywhere regardless of alignment. But without the healing boost I don't think that is a good idea.
My theory:
Evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. They're intended to be bad guys. And as bad guys, who can blast foes with negative energy or bolster undead while at the same time being a pretty tough fighter AND spellcaster/buff support for allies, they do quite well. Especially since a bad guy cleric is only going to be around in combat for, on average, about 5 rounds, so you can fill up his spells prepared slots with, say, 75% cure spells and presto, the bad guy NPC has a fair amount of healing to draw upon even if he can't swap out for the spells.
I agree with this theory.
And yet, there are sooooo many D&D groups where some players are irresistably drawn to the dark side.
It's probably just as well, otherwise they might be out tagging and keying cars... ;)
Still, with all the player appeal of drow, blackguards, assassins, necromancers, sith lords (I know, wrong game, but they sure are beloved in their game), and other forms of evil characters, those evil clerics creep into players minds probably way more than the game creators intended.
And that's not even to mention the neutral clerics who opt for negative energy and handwave this obviously evil decision as acceptible on the grounds that the game allows them to be neutral and still do all this despicable stuff - I think this is for the "evil-curious" player who is not ready to come all the way out of the closet yet.
Edit: Oooh, look at the post that appeared while I was typing this one:
I was looking at playing a Nuetral cleric of Zon-Kuthon in Chelix faction in the Pathfinder Society. An elf from Nidal that just like to spread pain and darkness everywhere regardless of alignment. But without the healing boost I don't think that is a good idea.
Thanks for adding the proof to my pudding.
Ugh.
I've been working for two years to break my group of that "evil isn't intended for PCs" nonsense.
Superman is a boring hero not just because he's too powerful, but because he'll rot your teeth. Flawed, tragic heroes are much more interesting; and much more likely to be Evil or Neutral with bad tendencies.
Ugh.
I've been working for two years to break my group of that "evil isn't intended for PCs" nonsense.
Superman is a boring hero not just because he's too powerful, but because he'll rot your teeth. Flawed, tragic heroes are much more interesting; and much more likely to be Evil or Neutral with bad tendencies.
Maybe.
But when every hero is flawed and tragic, raised by evil bloodsucking nightmarish baby-eaters and throwing off the chains of evil to find their own way to the path of righteousness and virtue...
Blah blah.
Everyone wants to be the Punisher, or Hellboy, or the Dark Knight, or god-forbid, Drizzt.
That's all the same.
Likewise, in a game like D&D, say, in the Forgotten Realms, if you're evil you get away with it only until you become famous. Then you die. Good heroes will see to it. And if you beat the good heroes, more will come. If you beat them all, then Elminster and Drizzt and all their buddies will come - nobody beats them. And if you do, then you plunge the world into a milennium of darkness and horror from which it may never recover. Uh, wait a minute...
An all-evil group is boring. What's worse, they always, inevitably, turn to backstabbing each other and PC turnover robs the game of any fun it might otherwise have.
An all-good group is also boring, but at least they generally work together to fight the common evil and save the world, and they don't quit until its done. And they certainly don't kill each other off for a payday.
An all neutral group is probably the most fun of the all-something groups, but keeping them togethre is a nightmare. I've never enjoyed being in or DMing the revolving door PC party.
Then there's the greoup with a little of everything. Now that's when it gets fun.
Sadly, you can't have Darth Vader join the gruop with Luke Skywalker. Sauron cannot adventure with Legolas. And since the good guys can be open and up front about who they are, it's the evil guys who have to be sneaky and furtive, hiding their true colors even from their closest allies - until they stab them in the back. Boring again. And way too predictable.
So everyone turns to the fallen tragic hero, the angsty smartass villain-turned-hero, and that becomes the schtick that is more common in a D&D world than orcs are. Also boring.
So where does that leave us? Everything is boring?
Maybe - but at least if we all drop our infatuations with the dark side and play the game the way it was written, we can get lots of fun adventures right off the store shelves. We can play in world-wide gaming societies. And we can take our favorite characters to the next gaming group and not have to be disappointed when they are playing the game the way it was written and there is no room for our blackguard who wants to suck the marrow out of the bones of the rest of the PC group.
Maybe it's just because you're still young and impressionable, and everything in Hollywood and in popular fiction is going young, angsty, and tragic. Maybe it's because I'm a grumpy old fart who is tired of seeing the same old angsty wannabe-evil crap from a hundred different players, every one of which thought they were beeing cool and tragic and original, but every one of which is playing the same character with a new face and maybe a new set of evil skills.
Interesting segue.
I reckon it could all be interesting depending on how it's handled, but I must agree that I too hate backstabbing revolving door parties. In ~3 decades of gaming I've never seen an evil party work out even in games that are supposed to support that concept.
However, I think we are fairly far afield from the original topic.
|
|
Situationally, the channel energy options work very differently.
A good Cleric can take Selective Channeling with a Cha of 13 and burn it at will during a 'boss mob' fight against a Troll or the BBEG or whatever, since he only has to prevent a single target from being healed. He might even skip Selective Channeling entirely, and dump Charisma down to 10, and just save the Channel Energy uses for after combat, or for when there is only a single foe, and the Xd6 healing of the foe becomes a tactical sacrifice for Xd6 healing all of his allies (and, hopefully, his entire party of allies will be able to outpace his channeling, if it is required, say in the case of a combat that is occuring in an area that is damaging his allies, such as trapped between Walls of Fire or something).
In a fight with many lesser foes, Selective Channeling won't help unless he's got Charisma in the 30s or 40s.
An evil Cleric, who travels alone, or only with undead, has incredible power in his Channel Energy. But a PC Cleric, who is assumed to travel with three other adventuring companions, *needs* Selective Channeling and a minimum 16 Charisma to be able to Channel Energy in combat (and, since his Channel Energy does damage, instead of healing, he's not going to have much reason to use it outside of combat...).
There may be crazy situational corner cases where Channel Negative Energy can save the day (say, if it is ruled to not be able to burst / emanate through solid barriers, and a Cleric can close a door behind himself and face down the horde of oncoming monsters Channeling Energy like mad, with his allies holding actions to open the door after the burst, use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or whatever on him, and then close the door again before he unleashes Xd6 of hell on earth, that could be a surreal tactic), but for the most part, it's kinda crap.
If it *doesn't* stop when it hits a solid barrier, and the negative energy just washes through walls and doors, this tactic becomes undo-able, but the evil Cleric then becomes able to walk up the alleyway next to a crowded tavern and murder everyone inside of it with impunity, as they won't be able to see or target the foe that is killing them with invisible waves of soul-chilling naughtiness.
Still, pretty much useless in a fight, unless your Cleric is solo, which is not really the recommended playstyle...
About the only woe the two channeling types share is that Selective Channeling is almost mandatory, and represents not only a Feat tax, but also a tax on your Ability scores, as you need a minimum of 13, and, if evil, at least a 16 (yes, children, evil Clerics *are* sexier!), to be able to use your Class Ability without doing more harm than good to your parties chances of success.
Huzzah.
Since evil clerics can not use spontaneous healing are they weaker than the good clerics? I would think so. Good clerics can heal the whole party by channeling where an evil cleric can only heal the undead. The spontaneous inflict spells have a saving throw to negate half the damage where good clerics can heal anyone with out a saving throw.
If you put two clerics of equal level and equipment against each other I would bet on the good cleric every time.
Why can't evil clerics cast spontaneous heal spells? I would assume Asmodeus and Zon-Kuthon would want to heal their followers so the can continue to serve them. I would assume that for all the evil deities with the exception of Rovagug and maybe Lamashtu.
Anyone else bothered by this or is it just me?
The real question is "Why can any cleric be able to spontaneously casting either a cure or inflict wounds spell?" Why would a cleric of travel be able to spontaneously heal and not spontaneously be able to cast a travel spell? Same for a cleric of Trade, they should be able to do something trade related, not healing/harm related. You can do this for almost any domain. Imo this is because clerics are still being viewed as combat/battle clerics with generic powers for good or evil.
The answer is: They shouldn't. Clerics should be able to spontaneously cast any spells from Domains they know.
I see that Paizo is going away from making clerics generic (turning undead is now a feat), so hopefully they did something with spontaneous castings as well.
As for evil being weaker than good, in the Pathfinder society there was a thread where people claimed evil was more powerful than good! (Especially when against undead). This tells me they are about right.
Everyone wants to be the Punisher, or Hellboy, or the Dark Knight, or god-forbid, Drizzt.
Actually, all of the above are a bit too whiny for me.
then you plunge the world into a milennium of darkness and horror from which it may never recover.
Ew! Do you really think all Evil characters want to run some kind of globe-spanning evil empire? If things go bad because you happened to kill the guardians of order, I guess maybe they shouldn't have bothered you.
An all-evil group is boring. What's worse, they always, inevitably, turn to backstabbing each other and PC turnover
This is false. An all anything group can be boring, I'll grant. But the inevitable infighting thing is such a terrible myth. Why can't evil people have friends who mean something special? There's lots of villains who have a lover that they will (or have) done anything for. The idea that every evil character is some loser who can't value anyone but themselves is quite the bugaboo.
Sadly, you can't have Darth Vader join the gruop with Luke Skywalker. Sauron cannot adventure with Legolas.
Pshaw! Sure you can, either because they have no choice in order to take care of something more pressing, or simply because the evil party members ARE sneaky and furtive about their evil. Once again, that "stab in the back" thing is not a foregone conclusion. Why can't an evil PC care about a good PC enough to stay with them, despite fundamental disagreements about morality? That's like saying a pacifist can't be friends with a soldier, or a felon has to stop loving his dad just because his dad is a cop. There's no rule that governs that sort of thing, it's completely up to the PCs. And if an evil character has to hide their evilness, it's a problem with the good PCs; not them. No evil PC is running around telling Jojo the hug-wizard how to live his life.
This is the same crap that I've had to disabuse people of time and time again. Your alignment is your outlook on life, not a set of actions you have to perform. You don't have to eat babies. You can, in fact, like babies. You can be charming and polite and never harm a friend or loved one and STILL be evil. The only reason you'd have a problem is if you run across some busybody who wants to tell you all about what a monster you are when they don't know the first thing about you.
Frankly, it's got nothing to do with anyone's age or pop-sensibilities. I just happen to look at people as multi-faceted, while others prefer to pigeonhole characters into one or two archetypes. It's quite clear that you have only a couple definitions of evil PC: Total monster rampaging around until put down. OR Mopey jack*** who spends all his time crying.
If that's all you've been exposed to, I'm sorry. But I'd expect more imagination from you.
Situationally, the channel energy options work very differently.
A good Cleric can take Selective Channeling with a Cha of 13 and burn it at will during a 'boss mob' fight against a Troll or the BBEG or whatever, since he only has to prevent a single target from being healed. He might even skip Selective Channeling entirely, and dump Charisma down to 10, and just save the Channel Energy uses for after combat, or for when there is only a single foe, and the Xd6 healing of the foe becomes a tactical sacrifice for Xd6 healing all of his allies (and, hopefully, his entire party of allies will be able to outpace his channeling, if it is required, say in the case of a combat that is occuring in an area that is damaging his allies, such as trapped between Walls of Fire or something).
In a fight with many lesser foes, Selective Channeling won't help unless he's got Charisma in the 30s or 40s.
Not if your party is playing with half a brain.
If you're fighting 10 ogres. Lets say they have 30 HP each. On round one the 5 PCs do an average of 12 damage each to 5 different ogres, and those 10 ogres make 10 attacks against you. On round two the PCs do 12 damage to the other 5 ogres and suffer 10 more attacks. Round three, 12 damage to any 5 different ogres, and suffer 10 more attacks. Round four, 12 damage to the other 5 ogres, and suffer 10 more attacks. Round five they finally kill 5 ogres, and suffer 5 attacks. Finally the ogres are all dead on round six. The party suffers a total of 45 attacks.
Or the party focuses all their damage on one ogre until it's dead, then starts on another one until it's dead, and so on. Focused fire. On round one the party deals 12+12+12 to one ogre, killing it, and 12+12 to another. They suffer 9 attacks. Round two they do 12 to the wounded one and kill him, 36 to another and kill him, then 12 to another, and they suffer 7 attacks. Round three they kill the wounded ogre and one more, suffering 5 attacks. Round four works like round one and they suffer 4 attacks. Round five they kill two ogres and suffer 2 attacks. Round six they kill the last two ogres. The party takes a total of 27 attacks.
45 vs. 27. The smarter party chooses to only suffer 27 attacks rather than 45.
Yes, I know, that's all made up. Nobody does exactly 12 damage round after round. All those averages, no crits, no misses, no randomness. It's just to illustrate a point. The real numbers would vary much more wildly, but the point that focusing fire is way better than scattering your damage with no purpose is still the same.
My point is, they should be focusing fire. In my first example, there are as many as 10 wounded ogres every round, and channeling positive energy would heal them all. In the second example, there is never more than one injured ogre (two at most) during the cleric's turn, so he can easily exclude every wounded enemy. No harm at all in healing the uninjured ogres.
Hence, a smart party never has to worry about their good cleric with Selective Channeling ever healing the enemy.
OK, yeah, a couple corner cases here too, like when the mage drops a fireball on a bunch of them doing 10 if they save, 20 if they fail, so several partially-cooked ogres begin the fight wounded.
An evil Cleric, who travels alone, or only with undead, has incredible power in his Channel Energy. But a PC Cleric, who is assumed to travel with three other adventuring companions, *needs* Selective Channeling and a minimum 16 Charisma to be able to Channel Energy in combat (and, since his Channel Energy does damage, instead of healing, he's not going to have much reason to use it outside of combat...).
There may be crazy situational corner cases where Channel Negative Energy can save the day (say, if it is ruled to not be able to burst / emanate through solid barriers, and a Cleric can close a door behind himself and face down the horde of oncoming monsters Channeling Energy like mad, with his allies holding actions to open the door after the burst, use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or whatever on him, and then close the door again before he unleashes Xd6 of hell on earth, that could be a surreal tactic), but for the most part, it's kinda crap.
If it *doesn't* stop when it hits a solid barrier, and the negative energy just washes through walls and doors, this tactic becomes undo-able, but the evil Cleric then becomes able to walk up the alleyway next to a crowded tavern and murder everyone inside of it with impunity, as they won't be able to see or target the foe that is killing them with invisible waves of soul-chilling naughtiness.
Still, pretty much useless in a fight, unless your Cleric is solo, which is not really the recommended playstyle...
Not as much of a corner case as you think.
When you channel negative energy, you unleash a wave of negative energy in a 30-foot burst.
A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.
So as you can see, it's a burst that needs a straight line of effect against all within 30'. Anything that gives total cover, such as being around a corner, behind a door, ducking behind a table tipped on its side, hiding behind a thick tree or a tall rock, or whatever. While it's not clear, I don't think non-solid total cover counts, such as being invisible.
So if you're in the area and the burst can reach you in a straight line from the point of origin without bending and without passing through any solid obstacle, you're hit. Otherwise, you're not.
About the only woe the two channeling types share is that Selective Channeling is almost mandatory, and represents not only a Feat tax, but also a tax on your Ability scores, as you need a minimum of 13, and, if evil, at least a 16 (yes, children, evil Clerics *are* sexier!), to be able to use your Class Ability without doing more harm than good to your parties chances of success.
Now here I agree, though, as I've shown above, a 13 CHA, 14 at most, is all a good cleric will ever need.
Also worthy of noting, the cleric who likes to get into the enemie's face, up close and personal so he can drop his big negative energy bomb on the maximum number of targets can easily exclude one or two of his living allies, say, the mage, rogue, ranger, etc., if they just stand 35' behind him and use ranged attacks.
Also a clever good cleric can often drop back, positioning himself 30' back where his burst will just barely hit his fighter friends in the front line, but won't hit the bad guys in front of the fighters, or using Selective Channeling to exclude just one or two enemies that he cannot positionally exclude.
So the 16 CHA isn't mandatory, though it would make things easier. Still, in a point buy system, it's hard to justify "make things easier" on that scale...
Actually, all of the above are a bit too whiny for me.
Me too! But it sure is what almost every wannabe evil-doer brings to the game table.
Ew! Do you really think all Evil characters want to run some kind of globe-spanning evil empire?
Nope, no more than I think all good characters want to save the world. Again, far too many players see it more Pinky-and-The-Brain than you and I do.
And, truth be told, many evil people really do want to run such an empire, either on a small local scale or on a global one, depending on their vision, their power, and their egomania.
But the inevitable infighting thing is such a terrible myth.
Nope, no myth at all. I've seen it over and over. Even in parties that are predominantly neutral, it always breaks down to "I want this" "But I want that" "Well fine, we go our separate ways then" - or - "over my dead body!".
Almost everyone sees neutral alignments as "All about me" and often "I'm a loner who doesn't like people". They form no bonds with their PC allies because they are selfish, greedy, or "lone wolf". Then when there are differences in viewpoints or beliefs, they have no reason to overcome the differences. Heck, to these players, escaping a band of idiots who can't see simple truths, in order to strike off on their own where they should be in the first place, is just good roleplaying.
And the way almost everyone sees evil alignments is like the neutrals, except that their allies are tools to serve their own ends and be disposed of when no longer needed. No running off to be a lone wolf for Darth Vader, he just eliminates old tools and finds new ones. To these players, that is just good roleplaying.
Why can't evil people have friends who mean something special?
I don't know, why can't they?
I've never seen anyone play evil this way. Even if someone did, the all-evil party would contain this one creative player and 4 Darth Vaders looking to whack each other at the first chance.
Once again, that "stab in the back" thing is not a foregone conclusion.
Yes it is. It has happened in every evil group I've ever seen, as a DM or as a player. Even groups that were working for an evil overlord that expressly forbade them from backstabbing, gave them orders to work together, and promised horrible suffering and torture to anyone who disobeyed, there still was backstabbing.
Why can't an evil PC care about a good PC enough to stay with them, despite fundamental disagreements about morality?
I suppose they could. But why would the good PC stick around? Caramon and Raistlin? Barely good and barely evil, both behaved more neutral, and even they spent plenty of their adventuring career apart.
Even if two players, one good and one evil, agreed to somehow stick around in the same party, the first couple moralistic debates would be interesting and fun roleplaying. The 100th moral debate would be infinitely grueling and tiresome. We're not talking about a 2 hour movie, or a novel you finish in a weekend. We're talking about potentially hundreds of hours together. And the ethical bickering might just double that number...
Unless we're just going to sweep it under the rug. Heck, I'm sure even Mr. Felonious Child will get tired of Mr. Policeman Dad and all of his preaching long before those hundreds of hours are over. Love or no love, the kid will be gone, or he'll pull an Eric Menendez on pops and be done with it. Unless we sweep that under the rug too.
You don't have to eat babies. You can, in fact, like babies.
With catsup? Maybe an au jux dip and a dill pickle garnish? Oh, oh, with some farver beans and a nice chianti?
;)
You can be charming and polite and never harm a friend or loved one and STILL be evil. The only reason you'd have a problem is if you run across some busybody who wants to tell you all about what a monster you are when they don't know the first thing about you.
Sure, but if you don't ever do anything evil, if all you do is think "Boy, I'm an evil SOB. I sure do like baby stew and baby sandwiches and baby tar-tar" but you never actually do anything evil, then you're not evil.
OK, I know some priests who would disagree with that.
But come on, in a D&D game, sitting at the table, what is the player of the subtle evil guy going to do?
Player: "Hey, guys, I know this is the 4th time we're saving the village peasants from hungry monsters and marauding villains, and I've always been right there with you, saving the day and being the hero, but I want you to know, deep down inside, I'm vile and evil and dreaming of baby tacos and other evil stuff. Now, let's go save that village!"
No.
He's going to act evil. He's going to play evil. This is roleplaying right? Once he starts down that road, the good guys in the group won't have any of it, if they are also roleplaying their alignments.
Then the bickering starts, and the ethical debates ("No, Darth, baby omelettes are NOT acceptible!" - "What about baby quiche?" - "NO!" - "Buttery baby spread on rye crackers?" - "Forget it! I can't travel with this evil villain!"), and the infighting, and the backstabbing ("Well, if you won't travel with me and help me, then it's time to try some paladin-a-la-orange...").
Can it go otherwise?
Sure it can. Everything you said is true.
But in 35 years of gaming in 3 different states with literally hundreds of different players, I have never seen it yet, not even when it started out well-intentioned by reasonable-seeming evil-doers.
It's quite clear that you have only a couple definitions of evil PC.
Not my version. I am actually with you on this one. I see it the way you do. Maybe we should team up? You be Pinky, I'll be the Brain.
It's the hundreds (well, OK, that was maybe only 5 or 6 groups that actually tried the eivl thing, so maybe 20-25) of players who've convinced me that they can't play evil.
If that's all you've been exposed to, I'm sorry. But I'd expect more imagination from you.
Again, not my imagination that's lacking. I surely can imagine evil taking qualities so subtle that even the evil villain doesn't realize he's evil. (not joking, it's easy enough to write).
But find a group of 5 players, each of whom have their own idea of evil, and each of whom wants to play evil and not just think about it, and it always devolves into a bunch of evil little goblins cutting each others' throats for a haunch of baby brisket.
(side note: speaking of imagination, whoa am I both amused and inwardly dismayed at all my baby foods...)
rebut
Okay, well it looked like you were stating a personal opinion. If you were just griping about what's more common, I suppose I have to give it to you. The bit about being young and impressionable stung me on the nose (my most sensitive bear-part) because I was the baby of my family for years and I had to fight tooth and nail to end the condescension. For the record, I'm 29. So I'm no grandpa, but I'm not exactly a Hannah Montana fan.
When I say that I've had to break a lot of people of this kind of "evil thought" I'm not just talking about the people who hate it; but those that embrace it as well.
There's something to be said for subtlety.
I think one of my favorite evil moments was actually a fellow player in a game of 3.0 who usually played paladins. He got tired of me ribbing him about it and rolled up an evil cleric (back on topic!) who became something of an MVP among the party. The best bit was actually when he fell victim to some evil cleric BBEG's spell that made his hand come off and turn into a wight. He turned his own hand, and rolled high enough on the check to rebuke it. With the application of some regenerative magic he had a new hand, but decided to keep his old one around like a familiar. It was creepy and fantastic and gave him a lot of "ick" vibe without him having to do much that was overtly evil.
He earned his alignment though. He just spent a lot of time making diplomacy rolls to convince the powers that be in a couple of cities to institute more draconian laws. Eventually he helped the party break up a slave-trading ring, but secretly arranged for his own church to pick up the pieces and start it back up. The party couldn't object to his evilness because he didn't let them see it, and there was no question that he had their backs when the chips were down. Good times.
For the record, I have my own alignment descriptions:
LE - Wants to overcome obstacles. Believes in honor and probably has a personal code of behavior. Most likely evil alignment to have good manners and a strong work ethic. Typically prefers harsh penalties and few mitigating circumstances for broken rules. Respects strength of character and despises unfocused or lazy behavior. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to create disorder.
Archetypes: hanging judge, hereditary nobility, head of crime family
NE - Wants to avoid obstacles. Believes in self-gratification, even to the detriment of others. Most likely evil alignment to do good, if only because it makes life easier. Probably a social outcast or drifter, NE takes a pessimistic view of life and assumes that others think the same way; making them distrustful of others. Respects determination and despises attempts to alter their personality or beliefs. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to make sacrifices.
Archetypes: bounty hunter, carouser, mercenary
CE - Wants to destroy obstacles. Believes in will to power, or that "might makes right". Most likely evil alignment to be identified outright as evil, making life difficult within society. Has no desire or respect for laws and institutions. Respects strength of arms and despises weakness. Experiences a personal crisis when forced to conform.
Archetypes: bandit, serial killer, rebellious servant
So basically my perception of the evil alignments is that they differ from good alignments in their point of view, but are otherwise pretty similar.
My theory:
Evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. They're intended to be bad guys.
That may be the intent of most game designers but D&D (until 4E) seemed quite happy to allow evil PC archetypes :)
I currently have a cleric of Orcus under the Beta rules (using Death & Darkness domains) and am having lots of (evil) fun. I agree that channelling negative energy is the weaker option due to the saving throw inherent in its use. It is, however great for murding weak townsfolk and other innocents of low hit points so quite fitting in flavour. It also allows for the permanant control of skeleton/zombie minions over the limit on animate dead so does have other useas.
One tactic is to take the Turning Smite feat which then allows use of negative energy channeling in an attack routine. This is quite good in a 1-on-1 fight (except with the new paladins and their damned swift healing).
|
|
Slightly off-topic (but still about Evil Clerics, so...)
In my current game, the Clerics are a pair of siblings, worshipers of Nethys.
The "Good cleric" is actually CN, and espouses a generally easy-going, take what you need, don't start fights you don't need to, kind of manner. He also has NO problem coup de grace'ing downed opponents or rather drastic "creative interrogation."
The "Evil cleric" really doesn't care about the plot of the story or what they're supposed to be doing. Her major goal in life is to achieve enough personal power to go through the Test of the Starstone, and become a deity. She's generally polite, if cold, to the rest of the party, and is an exceptional chef (prepares all the party's meals, all the time.) She is NE.
Now, these characters are being played in a long-term group (about 12 years, I think) by a married couple, one of whom has a BA in Philosophy and is attending university to obtain his Doctorate in the same. The rest of the group fluctuates between Good and Evil alignments pretty regularly, and I specifically set ground rules (no Evil, no Psionics, etc..) right when we start a new campaign.
Evil characters CAN be self-serving, irritating jerks, wanting nothing more than the next score or the next orphanage to burn down. They can also be erudite, polished, max-diplomacy, high-Cha, smooth talkers who realize that evil can better achieve their goals than good. These are the ones I like to play with, people for whom the ends DO justify the means, and for whom no obstacle is permanent.
This kind of character (in the hands of a smart, foward-thinking, and experienced player) will advance your plot, feed you new hooks constantly, and never gripe about the seemingly endless waves of enemies/dangers coming his way. If he plays his cards right, he will become the cornerstone of the party, providing in-character leadership and public speaking, and out-of-character motivation to maintain a particular path of action. This is the most important part, to me as DM, so we can continue to play the actual game, rather than have it degenerate into night-long BS sessions or fractured individual activities (Plants vs. Zombies, I'm looking at you!)
-t
|
Actually, all of the above are a bit too whiny for me.Me too! But it sure is what almost every wannabe evil-doer brings to the game table.
Ew! Do you really think all Evil characters want to run some kind of globe-spanning evil empire?Nope, no more than I think all good characters want to save the world. Again, far too many players see it more Pinky-and-The-Brain than you and I do.
And, truth be told, many evil people really do want to run such an empire, either on a small local scale or on a global one, depending on their vision, their power, and their egomania. Etc. . .
I have to agree with Mr. Blake here. I have a lot of experience with trying evil games, and it always, always breaks down fast. No matter what sorts of barriers the DM tries to place to keep things running, it has never worked. Personally, I think it is because each evil player, wants to be the only evil character. They want everyone else to be their minions or their foils to show just how much evil fun they (and only they) can have. This is the player, not the character. And 99% of the time, in my experience, it is also that player that also plays the Rogue that destroys the game, (they want all these scenes that no one else can have a chance to protect against, want to go off and do things alone, and just generally want to pocket all the good loot and think no one else should have a chance to catch them). In my experience Evil just means "oh, that means I can play a douche character".
On a previous topic, I disagree about the alignments. I personally, think Neutral (morally) is just boring. In theory I can sort of see it maybe being fun. But I have never seen it done well for more than a short time or with NPC's. There are two predominate reasons that I have seen characters be neutral, (usually chaotic neutral, too).
1 is that they want all the benefits of being evil, but none of the responsibility and restrictions that come with it, like being zeroed in on by a paladin, or losing class abilities. Otherwise though, it basically means they can do whatever they want, and not be overly targetted by holy word, blasphemy, etc.
2 is (like most of the above examples) they are just boring. It is not character and personality to be the lone wolf that has no friends, beliefs, connections, religion, or politics. 3.0 made a terrible mistake when they changed the meanings of the alignments. Neutral previously meant that yo were all about balance. You served both good and evil as much as possible to keep the scales equal. 3E doesn't even define morally Neutral beyond not cool enough to be in the good side, and not sith enough to join the evil gang.
Worse yet, mechanically speaking, Neutral is the best choice. You never have to worry about the more devistating divine spells and similar abilities, your not evil enough to be targetted by angels or what not, and there are very few, and usually not very good, ensentives, mechanically, to not be Neutral.
|
Contributor
|
My theory:
Evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. They're intended to be bad guys. And as bad guys, who can blast foes with negative energy or bolster undead while at the same time being a pretty tough fighter AND spellcaster/buff support for allies, they do quite well. Especially since a bad guy cleric is only going to be around in combat for, on average, about 5 rounds, so you can fill up his spells prepared slots with, say, 75% cure spells and presto, the bad guy NPC has a fair amount of healing to draw upon even if he can't swap out for the spells.
Clearly a great way to design your evil cleric NPC foe, James, but I dislike the notion that evil clerics aren't intended to be PCs. If players want to play an evil cleric -- especially if the rules purport to support it -- I think they should be allowed to do so without penalty. If there is, effectively, an inherent mechanical disadvantage to a PC playing an evil cleric, I'd argue that is a design weakness in the game. Otherwise, why allow evil clerics in the class at all? Why penalize one person's fun preference because it doesn't accord with all PC clerics being mostly good?
I'm not convinced there is an inherent disadvantage to being an evil PC cleric, though; and of course, I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be tradeoffs (pick an evil cleric get these advantages, those disadvantages -- and vis versa), but not an inherent disadvantage just because a player's character concept is evil. Basically, I'm thinking any class should be intended to be played in all the ways that the rules allow it to be played. Otherwise it limits the player fun options.
|
|
I suggested that Clerics just channel energy. Any cleric can choose each time if it is positive or negative, but you also choose at character creation, and based off of alignment/religion, if you focus on positive or negate. The one you focus on is just lke normal. the one you don't focus on is like you are a Cleric -4 levels or so (min 1), and you can not Control or Destroy undead (unless you are focused on the one that allows it).
I never liked the idea in 3E that all good Clerics could only spon. heal, while all evil Clerics, (even if their deity was all about he healing), could only spon. inflict. So I started allowing all Clerics to do both, but they either Turned or Rebuked.
However, to be fair. This is not exclusively a Cleric problem, (and 3E at least, had a lot of EVil only spells that made a big difference). Everyone has similar problems. It is not that evil is weaker than good. It is that Evil NPC's have better options against PC's than Evil PC's do against NPC's. Poison works great against players, because the players are assumned to survive the 2 or 3 round combat and have to suffer the after affects. With NPC's, they are probably dead before the secondary damage is even 1/4 the way there. Paladins usually have plenty of evil to fight, but there are not that many good monsters, and they are not typical encounters, so evil paladin varients just dont have as many uses for smite good. Assassins with their Death Attack, well they just don't get to use it often, and when they do, it is almost always small stuff that they could have just daggere to death without sneak attack. It can really screw PC's though.
Somewhat off-topic but also in response to DM-blake mentioning that everyone wants to be the punisher or some other similar angst-filled ends-justifies-the-means sort...
That may be true with younger players (those no older than early/mid twenties) but i have to hope that the more mature/seasoned players have moved on into different archetypes.
In one campaign i played a boy about 7 years old who didn't know how or why he could do it but he had divine things happen to him all of the time. I had him cast various summon spells (thats officially how it was) but from his perspective all he knew was that either he was bored and wanted a friend to play with or he was in danger. When he was in danger i as the player would have him cast certain spells but in game he wasn't consciously aware of doing anything. When his friends had ouchies he would try to comfort them (by technically casting cure spells but not being aware that he was). I talked to the dm and he was agreeable to the character being half celestial. The dm kept his official background secret (ie, who and what he was) but over time it became clear that he was some sort of quasi-messianic figure.
In the same campaign i also played Milton, a 60-something farmer who loved to paint. In his backstory he painted something for a famous sorcerer who liked the painting so much he gifted Milton with a "magic" paintbrush. I created Milton as a sorcerer who didnt know he was a sorcerer. He thought all of his magic came from the brush gifted to him. He was also a sort of "reluctant" hero in that he was married, had a farm, children, and grandchildren who depended on him. I have to admit that his "reluctant hero" bit probably made the dms life harder than it needed to be but he rolled with it pretty well.
Those were fun characters and the words min/max and optimized were 100% counter to what i was trying to accomplish, which was to make interesting characters. How well they killed stuff was pretty unimportant.
[Half Orc humour interlude]
Are Evil Clerics Weaker than Good Clerics?
mmmmmm.
Surely depends on their Str score ;)
[Normal intellectual discussion may now recommence]
|
|
Nope, no myth at all. I've seen it over and over. Even in parties that are predominantly neutral, it always breaks down to "I want this" "But I want that" "Well fine, we go our separate ways then" - or - "over my dead body!"
Same sort of deal, only, in my 20 odd years, it has *always* been the LG character that ends up causing the interparty conflict that leads to both a ruined game, and, in some cases, ruined friendships.
Somehow, put the words 'knight,' 'cavalier,' or 'paladin' on someone's sheet, and they just assume that their character is in charge of the rest of the party, and that their code of conduct applies not only to their character, but to everyone else, and that the only appropriate response to a party member 'disobeying orders' or 'fighting dishonorably' is to attack them. Occasionally from behind, even.
Meanwhile, the evil parties we've played (which includes just about every Vampire the Masquerade game, ever) worked like machines and never had this problem. Even when the game encouraged us to plot against each other (in Vampire or Paranoia or a memorable Call of Cthulhu game where some characters ended up in thrall to the bad-guys), we had a great time.
I guess we just like cutting loose, in our fantasy games, and fall apart when confronted with unclear codes of conduct and 1st and 2nd edition social rankings systems that imply that cavalier-paladins outrank hoi-polloi by default and can order them around, take bigger shares of the loot or even execute summary justice on peasants who don't follow the paladin's code.
[Normal intellectual discussion may now recommence]
Surely you give us all too much credit?
I´ve always found that playing a good character is much more difficult than playing an evil character.
A good character easily gets into moral quagmires which force him to make difficult decisions, which affect the lives of the ones he wants to protect.
An evil character can always take the more expedient route, and damn the consequences for anyone who gets hurt by his decisions.
I guess Yoda said it best, the dark side is easier and quicker. :)
I'm really glad a few others have had "positive" evil experiences. Personally I've never actually seen an all evil group, but from the sounds of things we could get a pretty good one going here. (Maybe we could convert DM_B!) =D
Some of my favorite characters have been evil.
I've mentioned two of them elsewhere in the boards...
Ix was a chaotic evil warlock in Age of Worms. He enjoyed pressing the party leader (a druid) regarding moral issues; but was otherwise pretty harmless towards the group. Ix got most of his evil out by messing with NPCs heads (being verbally cruel to people to entice them into lashing out at him) and insisting on parlay with some of the brighter enemies the party faced. He eventually had some pretty good contacts in the world of baddies, and that served him well when I took over as DM for a few months. I didn't want to play a character and run the game, figured no one else would capture his incredible smarm, so he switched sides. It was a gamist decision though, not an infighting thing. (He also made it out of the AP alive, which I find delightful. The druid is still plotting revenge.)
Cingas was a NE minotaur in Dragonlance who went through probably half a dozen revisions and rebuilds. Partly because I was getting a kick out of trying new things, and partly because I felt the character was conflicted and searching his way through life. He was a study in contrasts, a minotaur who deserted the army and shamed his family, gay and not picky about partners provided they were humanoid (a further schism with his family and race), worshiped Sargas and Kiri-Jolith (neither of whom matched his alignment and were probably annoyed at his two-timing), had levels in rogue and a twenty-something strength, and engaged in some of that moral debate that some people find so tiresome. The fun part was his moral stance! "There's no such thing as good and evil." He wholeheartedly believed it, and aside from/because of driving the warblade in the party slightly nuts (You have an EVIL aura!); he was tons of fun. Nothing like sneak attacking a sentry with a barrel.
Cyril, my RotRL character, is a LE fighter. He slings an oversized earthbreaker and has little or no patience for being jerked around. I've spent a lot of time romancing Amiku (spelling?) and have had to sometimes single-handedly hold the rest of the Neutral-heavy party together. I wouldn't have it any other way though, as things are shaping up nicely to become nobility when I finally get a ring on Amiku's finger.
And I have played a dark side jedi before, but I couldn't hang out with the sith for very long in our Old Republic era game. They were "too prissy". My dark sider just wanted his best girl on his arm, a few students, and a bare minimum of entertainment. It was other people who kept dragging him into wars and whatnot.
An evil character can always take the more expedient route, and damn the consequences for anyone who gets hurt by his decisions.
Man, you try waking up from a dark-side inspired nightmare and realizing that you're choking the love of your life; who's pregnant with your child. And try reconciling with her after she attempts to kill you three times so that you don't have a chance to teach your newborn "sorcery".
Never mind having your possessed little brother turn on you, flipping from public enemy number one to messiah figure for a bunch of backwoods sith wannabes, and getting stuck in the body of a diseased and nearly extinct species of near-human.
Being dark ain't that easy.
|
|
I think when we say easy, we are refering to moral dilemas and personal moral conflicts rather than evil characters don't have any challenges.
For the earlier posts, I think the main difference is between evil parties, or majority of evil characters in a party, rather than an evil character or a party with a minority of evil characters.
One is usually ok, if the paladin and good cleric don't find out/have some specific trouble with evil. With the exception of the immature playstyle of screwing the party and expecting other players to be fine with it. It is when the entire party is evil that it just doesn't work very well or long.
I think when we say easy, we are refering to moral dilemas and personal moral conflicts
I think it's interesting you'd say that, as moral dilemmas are fairly common among evil characters I've seen. It's hard to realize that you can't just take what you want when what you want is respect, or love, or honor. Some things have to be earned, or lost, and that's dramatic regardless of alignment.
By the way, if anyone is interested, there's a book:
"Villains by Necessity" - written by Eve Forward.
Probably one of the best stories I've ever read, and an incredibly good look at characterization of evil people. Not to mention a sterling example of a functional evil party in a fantasy setting.
Man, you try waking up from a dark-side inspired nightmare and realizing that you're choking the love of your life; who's pregnant with your child. And try reconciling with her after she attempts to kill you three times so that you don't have a chance to teach your newborn "sorcery".
Never mind having your possessed little brother turn on you, flipping from public enemy number one to messiah figure for a bunch of backwoods sith wannabes, and getting stuck in the body of a diseased and nearly extinct species of near-human.
Being dark ain't that easy.
Well, if you are, y'know, EVIL, instead of "wishy-washy kinda evil, but not really" kind of guy, you could a.) get another wife b.) get another child c.) who needs brothers anyway? and d.) what has that to do with being evil?
Evil = easy
Now try going through that as a good guy.
Well, if you are, y'know, EVIL, instead of "wishy-washy kinda evil, but not really" kind of guy, you could a.) get another wife b.) get another child c.) who needs brothers anyway? and d.) what has that to do with being evil?Evil = easy
Now try going through that as a good guy.
So I can just cry about it?
Look, evil doesn't mean heartless or inhuman. The only reason that evil would be easy is if the people portraying it are simpletons.
Caring about people who are important to you doesn't mean that you won't, say, murder the family of an enemy to draw him out of hiding. It doesn't mean you won't torture to get what you want, disregard the rights of others or take what you need from people who are unable to protect themselves. It just means that you have more to your personality than a child's cardboard cutout version of evil.
So I suppose I would suggest that fools never attempt to play an evil character, but those of us who are capable of it can get a lot out of the experience and shouldn't have to put up with the caterwauling of the less creative.
[EDIT]
To answer part d) of your questions:
All of those situations were direct repercussions of the character's "evil" choices. He was having something along the lines of a psychotic break when he choked his girl, because he was conflicted about valuing someone else's life as much as he did his own. He could easily have killed her at any time and taken his child back, but he weathered repeated attempts on his life in order to take the harder path - proving that despite his fundamentally callous and selfish nature he could be more than a thug. His brother was his only link to a time before his life was ruled by fits of anger and fear, and was lost because the PC forced him to help excavate ruins of dark side cults. He was faced with slow degeneration in the body of a species foreign to him because he refused to die or be captured, which were his only other options; and resorted to "dark" techniques to prevent it.
The character's hardships were created by his own poor choices, but he owned that fact and fought to overcome them without straying from his skewed personal moral compass.
So I suppose I would suggest that fools never attempt to play an evil character, but those of us who are capable of it can get a lot out of the experience and shouldn't have to put up with the caterwauling of the less creative.
Yeah, okay, then. Have fun, we "less creative" "fools" will get back to playing non-evil guys.
I´ve always found that playing a good character is much more difficult than playing an evil character.
A good character easily gets into moral quagmires which force him to make difficult decisions, which affect the lives of the ones he wants to protect.
An evil character can always take the more expedient route, and damn the consequences for anyone who gets hurt by his decisions.
I think they both are difficult. Rampant paranoia, megalomania and other obvious flaws in the psyche of evil characters do not necessarily allow for the most expedient of decisions. Though the character may not care that others get hurt there should care that the consequences of their actions will find them out at some point and be prepared for this. A character that goes on a mad killing spree everywhere he goes must expect to have a short life expectancy. More intelligent or wise evil characters will be able to see the ramifications of their actions and how the consequences will find them out. This can lead to dilemma.
One dilemma that one of my characters faced is whether to have a happy, quiet life of no import or to try to resurrect the cult of Orcus and lead a life of danger (lots of good/evil enemies, serving the whims of an evil demon prince who may discard you at any moment) but gain back his clerical power. He did hesitate before making the right sacrifice.
In short - evil characters can face moral dilemmas and cannot always take the easiets route. The difference is that his quandries are usually self centred rather than about caring for others.
surely that option is for neutral characters ;)
|
|
Come on now.
I am sure evil can have moral problems. Not trying to argue that they can't or even that they don't. As a generalization, I think that they have them less often than good characters, and about equal to Neutral characters. I would also tend to agree that most of their moral dilemas probably do come directly from their own actions, also.