Or more precisely, what is it that compels gamers to want to make good versions of thoroughly evil creatures to use as characters? I've seen this come up time and again with players, DMs, and even the writers of gaming material. So what is it that compels people to do this in a game where lines between good and evil are clearly defined in the very rules of the game? The opposite, having normally good creatures be evil, doesn't seem to come up nearly as often.
I'm not really looking for a clear answer to this so much as trying to promote discussion.
Or more precisely, what is it that compels gamers to want to make good versions of thoroughly evil creatures to use as characters? I've seen this come up time and again with players, DMs, and even the writers of gaming material. So what is it that compels people to do this in a game where lines between good and evil are clearly defined in the very rules of the game? The opposite, having normally good creatures be evil, doesn't seem to come up nearly as often.
I'm not really looking for a clear answer to this so much as trying to promote discussion.
I assume you're referring to the "Drizzt" paradigm, and I guess it speaks to the concept of the antihero and the subversion of an overly simplistic system of morality. Given the B.S. that's gone on since the beginning of the last century I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rational, intelligent person who actually believes that ALL members of any given group are classically, irredeemably evil or beatifically good.
'Course, I'm just spit-balling. I enjoy orthodox (old school) gaming. No monsters as PCs in my game.
Zo
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangst
Alternately, villains are cool. Players don't remember the unicorns, they remember the illithids.
AAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangst
Alternately, villains are cool. Players don't remember the unicorns, they remember the illithids.
I agree, the villains do often make the story.
|
There's also a lot of folks that don't like the concept of inherently evil beings, or at least inherently evil mortal beings.
I have to admit, I'm one of those folks. My homebrew may have orcs and elves being racist towards each other at times, but neither of them have much of a moral high ground over the other.
Another thing is a lot of folks think good should be about more than kicking evil's teeth in, but also about redeeming it when possible.
AND then you have folks that like the idea of risen fiends to go along with fallen angels...
AND there are those that love the idea of someone having enough will to fight against their unnatural lycanthropic/vampiric curse...
AND then there's folks that want to get it on with a hot body from Team Evil. Hey let's face it. Redeemed succubi/incubi, erinyes, and mariliths probably outnumber redeemed babau, nalfeshnee, and gelugons by quite a bit.
If we're asking why players like to attempt to redeem evil creatures rather then play, it comes down to the very human - and frankly proper - ideal that all "evil" sentient beings are not born or forced into doing so, and that there's always a chance for redemption and good for anyone.
There's also a lot of folks that don't like the concept of inherently evil beings, or at least inherently evil mortal beings.
I have to admit, I'm one of those folks. My homebrew may have orcs and elves being racist towards each other at times, but neither of them have much of a moral high ground over the other.
Another thing is a lot of folks think good should be about more than kicking evil's teeth in, but also about redeeming it when possible.
AND then you have folks that like the idea of risen fiends to go along with fallen angels...
AND there are those that love the idea of someone having enough will to fight against their unnatural lycanthropic/vampiric curse...
AND then there's folks that want to get it on with a hot body from Team Evil. Hey let's face it. Redeemed succubi/incubi, erinyes, and mariliths probably outnumber redeemed babau, nalfeshnee, and gelugons by quite a bit.
This is pretty much it in a nutshell. The only things in my games that are inherently of a specific alignment are outsiders with that particular alignment as a subtype. I specifically ditched the "ancestral memory" thing for dragons that got mentioned in Draconomicon because I liked the idea of good chromatics/other normally evil dragons and fallen metallics too much to pass up when I ran a dragon-based campaign.
Barbaric species like orcs tend toward evil more often than civilized species like humans, dwarves, elves, etc. ... but that's simply because they have a culture of "power=survival". And yeah, even the "goodly" races can be real bastards.
Unless you're up against an evil over-fiend or super-powerful dragon, 99% of BBEGs are of civilized races, most of the time. At least in my experience. I always felt this was intentional - in a world full of monsters, demons, and vicious creatures, the most villainous thing the characters encounter, their personal enemy, is one of their own kind or close enough to pass.
I assume you're referring to the "Drizzt" paradigm, and I guess it speaks to the concept of the antihero and the subversion of an overly simplistic system of morality. Given the B.S. that's gone on since the beginning of the last century I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rational, intelligent person who actually believes that ALL members of any given group are classically, irredeemably evil or beatifically good.
'Course, I'm just spit-balling. I enjoy orthodox (old school) gaming. No monsters as PCs in my game.
Zo
The Drizzt paradigm...I like the sound of that. Yes, Drizzt is a prime example. Granted he started as an individual character, but then you had legions of fans attempting to emulate the same type of "good drow" as a character. Someone was asking about playing a good half-fiend in these forums just a day or two ago, I'd throw that into the same category.
One thing though. I wouldn't put Drizzt into the category of antihero. He's very much a hero, displaying all the prerequisite qualities. Now a character like Jarlaxle from the Drizzt series very much exemplifies the antihero, as he inspires reader sympathy without displaying archetypal heroic qualities.
Bad is good man, bad, is, good.
(On a more philosophical standpoint, I myself pretty much throw the racial good/evil alignments out the window except for outsiders. A species may have more lawful or chaotic tendencies [think Dogs vs House Cats for example] but alignment is, at least from my perspective, an individual choice.)
I tend to be in agreement here. Granted, I'll have racial alignments usually in place where countries/tribes/large groups are concerned, and let the alignment stray for particular individuals and small groups. Outsiders almost never stray out of their usual alignment in my games except for rare instances, and those are almost exclusively good creatures that become non-good. (After all, what need does a demon have of redemption?) I'll also keep alignments in place for things like aberrations, because those tend to be alien in mindset, and their ideals and goals invariably run counter to the humanoid ideals of good.
There's also a lot of folks that don't like the concept of inherently evil beings, or at least inherently evil mortal beings.
I have to admit, I'm one of those folks. My homebrew may have orcs and elves being racist towards each other at times, but neither of them have much of a moral high ground over the other.
Another thing is a lot of folks think good should be about more than kicking evil's teeth in, but also about redeeming it when possible.
AND then you have folks that like the idea of risen fiends to go along with fallen angels...
AND there are those that love the idea of someone having enough will to fight against their unnatural lycanthropic/vampiric curse...
AND then there's folks that want to get it on with a hot body from Team Evil. Hey let's face it. Redeemed succubi/incubi, erinyes, and mariliths probably outnumber redeemed babau, nalfeshnee, and gelugons by quite a bit.
** spoiler omitted **
I've done the risen fiend thing once in a campaign, and that was a PC.
With things like vampirism and lycanthropy though, I tend to stick with the evil overwhelming any goodness that the person may have had. After all, if it were that easy to control, it wouldn't be a curse and something to be feared.
...One thing though. I wouldn't put Drizzt into the category of antihero. He's very much a hero, displaying all the prerequisite qualities...
Yeah, my initial thought was to call it "The Man with No Name" paradigm but I wanted to relate it to D&D. You got the point, though. 20+ years of "I'll save you, milady" is boring to some. Quite a few folks on these boards have spoken out against the alignment system as a whole, and they have a point.
Zo
...One thing though. I wouldn't put Drizzt into the category of antihero. He's very much a hero, displaying all the prerequisite qualities...Yeah, my initial thought was to call it "The Man with No Name" paradigm but I wanted to relate it to D&D. You got the point, though. 20+ years of "I'll save you, milady" is boring to some. Quite a few folks on these boards have spoken out against the alignment system as a whole, and they have a point.
Zo
I've seen some definite problems with the alignment system, but I think most of it stems from trying to take a complex idea and represent it through a simple system. I tend to play off the text of the detect evil spell when explaining it to players, showing how there is a huge difference between an evil PC or NPC and, say, a demon. The demon is EVIL. The very essence of it oozes from its pores, so to speak. In the case of a humanoid, one good act does not necessitate an alignment change. An evil person might have some areas where they draw the line. ("No women, no children" might be the guideline for an assassin.)
I'm wondering if it's really a case of wanting to redeem or humanize what is normally considered evil, or if it's just munchkinism and wanting to take a really cool powerful thing and play it. I mean, in the case of Drizzt, dark elves were the shiznit. That character coming to light kind of opened the door to the idea of having that kind of power which was earlier off limits.
...The demon is EVIL. ...In the case of a humanoid, one good act does not necessitate an alignment change.
Yeah, I'm playing in a game with another PC who's a paladin, and the paladin player has been trying to use Detect Evil as a lie detector...
I'm wondering if it's really a case of wanting to redeem or humanize what is normally considered evil, or if it's just munchkinism and wanting to take a really cool powerful thing and play it.
Well that all depends on the maturity of the player I guess. In most cases it's probably a mixture of both. I played a 2nd ed. game back in the day where the party consisted of a halfling thief (me) a couple of dwarven warriors and a wemic. Fer chrissake.
Zo
...The demon is EVIL. ...In the case of a humanoid, one good act does not necessitate an alignment change.Yeah, I'm playing in a game with another PC who's a paladin, and the paladin player has been trying to use Detect Evil as a lie detector...
But good people do lie. Sometimes from the best of intentions, but it still happens.
And bad people can tell the truth. Often when it is to their benefit, but they have the ability.
So, I can't see how Detect Evil works as substitute.
...The demon is EVIL. ...In the case of a humanoid, one good act does not necessitate an alignment change.Yeah, I'm playing in a game with another PC who's a paladin, and the paladin player has been trying to use Detect Evil as a lie detector...But good people do lie. Sometimes from the best of intentions, but it still happens.
And bad people can tell the truth. Often when it is to their benefit, but they have the ability.
So, I can't see how Detect Evil works as substitute.
I think the player is under the assumption that telling a lie is automatically an evil act, or perhaps what you alluded to: that an evil person is automatically lying.
Anyone that has ever been asked the question "Do these pants make my butt look big?" can tell you that lying in that instance is not an evil act; it's an act of self-preservation!
I'm wondering if it's really a case of wanting to redeem or humanize what is normally considered evil, or if it's just munchkinism and wanting to take a really cool powerful thing and play it.
Not to defend Drizzt, but what exactly is so "munchkin" about wanting to play a really cool powerful thing?
I don't think anyone does anything but that. When we make a paladin, we think of them as an awesome and righteous warrior. When we make a wizard we think of them as an arrogant and powerful spellbinder. It's not exactly common for people to make a character then think "Ok, I want to make him as lame and weak as possible!" If Joe wants to make a mysterious and frightening elven warrior, that makes him no more of a "munchkin" then Bob who's playing strong and courageous human warrior.
I swear the word "munchkin" is meaningless these days.
I'm a good necromancer!
Munchkin=
1. A player who creates a character for the purpose of bending rules and breaking a game.
2. A jerk who delights in causing ingame fighting and destorying a game world for no reason other that want of destrution.
3. A player that creates a character so strong or weak as to disrupt a game.
The short of it is a "munchkin" is an A@* H&&% that plays with the intent to ruin the experience for the other players and the DM.
God help you if you have to play with more than one.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well for me, from an RPG point of view, it's a matter of wanting to play a character that is rising above type, and dealing with the darkness in them.
Mental Health aside
I also don't like that evil can't be redeemed, but good can fall. I understand it's a meme in most RPGs, (in part because evil eats the weak), but I want to see the occasional Barghest that only feeds on the 'guilty' (ala Ghost Rider) or the succubus that, having been around mortals for so long corrupting them begins to feel. In Golarion it seems more likely, since demons are made from the souls of the damned (cf Bestiary). What if a 'clerical error' accidently mixed in a CG or LG soul of someone who died in the Abyss in the resulting demon, so there was some pang of guilt?
I'll admit Half fiends and tieflings are better 'built' for this than pure demons/devils, but the concept stands.
Now the concept has gone horribly wrong in the past. I played a 2e tiefling blade, neutral evil. I saw her evil as coming from lack of trust, and everyone manipulating everyone. She had a soft spot for children, in part because of her own horrid childhood. (indeed, as a scout, she once led an army around a group of female kobolds and their children, to avoid a slaughter) It was my plan to have her see the rest of the party acting good, and discovering that everyone wasn't always out to get everyone, and slowly transition to NG. That went south when rather than lifting her up, she drug everyone down to her level. :-(
Or more precisely, what is it that compels gamers to want to make good versions of thoroughly evil creatures to use as characters? I've seen this come up time and again with players, DMs, and even the writers of gaming material. So what is it that compels people to do this in a game where lines between good and evil are clearly defined in the very rules of the game? The opposite, having normally good creatures be evil, doesn't seem to come up nearly as often.
I'm not really looking for a clear answer to this so much as trying to promote discussion.
I assume you're referring to the "Drizzt" paradigm, and I guess it speaks to the concept of the antihero and the subversion of an overly simplistic system of morality. Given the B.S. that's gone on since the beginning of the last century I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rational, intelligent person who actually believes that ALL members of any given group are classically, irredeemably evil or beatifically good.
'Course, I'm just spit-balling. I enjoy orthodox (old school) gaming. No monsters as PCs in my game.
Zo
If it can be played as a PC, I consider it a human with pointy ears and therefore subject to moral variety. If it can't be played as a PC, it probably just wants to eat your face. :)
(Also, I think Drizzt is solidly Hero. The only D&D character I can think that might fit Antihero criteria is Raistlin. Though I stopped reading D&D novels years ago, so there may be others.)
Hmmm... I've been thinking of weighing in on this since a few of my favorite characters have been 'evil' races that swung for a different team. In fact, my forum namesake was perhaps my favorite character as a player, a gnoll that found a sense of honor and self-sacrifice. The other was an NPC, an orc that was rescued and helped the party escape from a particularly nasty situation. When the resident dwarf and the rest were safe, the dwarf turned his axe on the orcs, but the party's paladin stepped in and protected them. The Orc was LN (Orcs were lawful back then) and the paladin was the first human that kept his word to him. So he swore fealty to the paladin.
The paladin died, but the orc stayed in the party as an ally, and eventually became the bosom fighting buddy of the dwarf. It was story magic.
I subscribe to the idea that most mortal races can have variations in alignment. Just as there are evil (non-drow) elves, there can be good orcs (gnolls, goblins, bugbears, etc.), though they are rare and noteworthy to encounter. 99 percent of their populations are as bloodthirsty and dangerous as their alignments states, but there can be more. Hmm. If there are dark elves, could there not be a community of 'light orcs?'
There are other (probably psychological) reasons I like playing noble 'beast men' type characters, but I like the story ideas it presents and the ability to shake preconceptions (always useful in a game). I'll admit that sometimes I'm attracted to the numbers (the gnoll was back in 2nd Ed. and could wield two two-handed swords), but the character usually has to grab me, (and I liked his loyalty, honor and pack mentality toward his friends).
That said, I like the idea of 'risen fiends' as well as fallen angels. The concept is not without storytelling basis. Spawn, for example, many 'good' vampires and other redemption seekers. As PCs, they might get a bit out of hand, but if they're allowed in the game, the DM should be ready for it. I think that redemption is a greater result than destruction.
Hmm...might have to have a 'risen fiend' show up in the game...
Oh, and as for Detect Evil and lies, lying is more about chaos over law than evil over good.
I'm wondering if it's really a case of wanting to redeem or humanize what is normally considered evil, or if it's just munchkinism and wanting to take a really cool powerful thing and play it.Not to defend Drizzt, but what exactly is so "munchkin" about wanting to play a really cool powerful thing?
I don't think anyone does anything but that. When we make a paladin, we think of them as an awesome and righteous warrior. When we make a wizard we think of them as an arrogant and powerful spellbinder. It's not exactly common for people to make a character then think "Ok, I want to make him as lame and weak as possible!" If Joe wants to make a mysterious and frightening elven warrior, that makes him no more of a "munchkin" then Bob who's playing strong and courageous human warrior.
I swear the word "munchkin" is meaningless these days.
Note the third definition under Mr. Fishy's post. By powerful, I wasn't trying to imply that no one likes to play powerful characters. By powerful, I meant beyond that normally allowed under the standard rules of the game. For some, it's not enough to fight dragons with mighty warriors or masterful wizards; they need to be the dragon.
Note the third definition under Mr. Fishy's post. By powerful, I wasn't trying to imply that no one likes to play powerful characters. By powerful, I meant beyond that normally allowed under the standard rules of the game. For some, it's not enough to fight dragons with mighty warriors or masterful wizards; they need to be the mighty warrior dragon or masterful dragon wizard.
I swear the word "munchkin" is meaningless these days.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.Note the third definition under Mr. Fishy's post. By powerful, I wasn't trying to imply that no one likes to play powerful characters. By powerful, I meant beyond that normally allowed under the standard rules of the game. For some, it's not enough to fight dragons with mighty warriors or masterful wizards; they need to be the mighty warrior dragon or masterful dragon wizard.
I swear the word "munchkin" is meaningless these days.
Yep, thanks. That edit definitely buries the needle on the munchkin detector.
Oh, you meant as a PC. That still would be really cool, to be honest, it just needs to be done in a balanced way.
I agree. However, inserting a dragon into a campaign of otherwise "normal" characters often isn't workable. One of my pet peeves is when I'm starting a new campaign and a player wants to do something "unique and original" which usually translates to "something overpowered and difficult to mesh with the campaign."
Swerving back toward the original topic, suppose a player wants to play a non-evil red dragon in a high level campaign suited to having that kind of power level. Then the GM has to deal with the constant roleplay of NPCs mistaking said character for a bad guy...unless the red dragon PC uses disguise self to turn his scales gold.
I think one reason for this behaviour is the fact that playing evil* is only allowed in the minority of games.
And a lot of the more powerful options, and especially a lot of the "cooler" options are classically evil.
So if you want to play them, you'll have to play the "redeemed" version
*I use a broader definition of evil here. Sure, some GMs just say "No evil alignment", which can have several reasons - inexperienced GM and/or players, lazy GMs, and the like. But others take a broader view: It's not necessarily about playing evil alignments, but about playing disruptive characters. Evil characters don't have to be disruptive, and non-evil characters don't have to be non-disruptive.
Personally, I require characters that "play along": As I usually run modules / adventure paths, there is only so much I can/want to do to tailor the campaign's story to the characters. I also don't like adverserial party interplay, so I require that the characters a) are adventurers and want to go on exciting and very dangerous quests b) will play nice in the party (there can be bickering and everything, but the game is NOT about characters finding ways to betray their companions) c) fit into the campaign and d) play along (i.e. when there is a quest, they will accept it without too much fuzz. Doesn't mean they have to do it for nothing, but if they demand to be made king for getting rid of half a dozen goblins, or ignoring the army invading their home town, their characters will probably fall prey to a terrible affliction)
20+ years of "I'll save you, milady" is boring to some.
Yeah, but another 20+ years of "I'm super-emo and oh-so-interesting because I'm the GOOD (insert evil race here)" is getting to be equally boring.
Ya know Kirth, there is a broad spectrum in-between those aspects that have a lot of potential for independent characterization and unique stories.
There is indeed. Sadly, I've seen very little of it, especially on the emo end.
In a word; Redemption; is a pretty huge concept; Good characters can be corrupted; evil characters can be redeemed. In my game; there are a few creatures who are more elementally evil or good and they dont change; takes conscious thought and desire to change and backsliding to old alignment is always a possibility.
As for convincing people a red dragon like that isn't evil... people run into that all the time with Drows and Tieflings, it's no different for a dragon lol.
While I can agree with drow, and even there it's quite a pain, I don't think tieflings are on the same level. People may look upon tieflings with distrust and suspicion and perhaps even run them out of town on a rail. With dragons on the other hand, it's "Eeeeeee!!!! Dragon! Run! Call the knights! Call the church! Call the archmage!"
Dragon: "*SIGH* Here we go again. Start casting Eagle's Splendor and be prepared to talk fast."
I think one reason for this behaviour is the fact that playing evil* is only allowed in the minority of games.
And a lot of the more powerful options, and especially a lot of the "cooler" options are classically evil.
So if you want to play them, you'll have to play the "redeemed" version
*I use a broader definition of evil here. Sure, some GMs just say "No evil alignment", which can have several reasons - inexperienced GM and/or players, lazy GMs, and the like. But others take a broader view: It's not necessarily about playing evil alignments, but about playing disruptive characters. Evil characters don't have to be disruptive, and non-evil characters don't have to be non-disruptive.
Personally, I require characters that "play along": As I usually run modules / adventure paths, there is only so much I can/want to do to tailor the campaign's story to the characters. I also don't like adverserial party interplay, so I require that the characters a) are adventurers and want to go on exciting and very dangerous quests b) will play nice in the party (there can be bickering and everything, but the game is NOT about characters finding ways to betray their companions) c) fit into the campaign and d) play along (i.e. when there is a quest, they will accept it without too much fuzz. Doesn't mean they have to do it for nothing, but if they demand to be made king for getting rid of half a dozen goblins, or ignoring the army invading their home town, their characters will probably fall prey to a terrible affliction)
In a word; Redemption; is a pretty huge concept; Good characters can be corrupted; evil characters can be redeemed. In my game; there are a few creatures who are more elementally evil or good and they dont change; takes conscious thought and desire to change and backsliding to old alignment is always a possibility.
I think along the same lines. The last evil campaign I played in, there were those typical evil characters that went along with things while conspiring to do all sorts of detrimental things to other PCs when they got the opportunity. Then there were the ones who were cooperative, because they were smart enough to know that there was strength in numbers...plus, they actually liked each other.
My character was up for fighting all sorts of other evil baddies because they were threatening his country. And I don't mean he was patriotic; it was his country, or would be as soon as he could depose the brother who had wrongfully taken the throne from him.
I don't disallow evil characters unless they're a really bad fit for the campaign. Often they'll end up changing alignment along the course of the adventure, going back again to the redemption idea.
|
It's trendy to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with people who play the game differently than yourself, and assign some funky motivations, like 'powergamers' or 'emo.'
(Given how mechanically more powerful a Paladin is to a Fighter / Blackguard, the 'evul iz moar powarful!11!' meme is hilarious. Since the very beginning of the game, good has always had better rewards, both mechanically in the short-term, and in the whole 'not being tortured for all eternity' afterlife thing.)
Would this be the wrong thread to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with players who *don't* feel comfortable with the idea of redemption, or who aren't comfortable with the idea that there might *not* be a class of person that it's 'okay' to deem unredeemable and good only for guiltless killing?
|
|
On the matter of Risen Fiends, I'm with Origen.
What if a 'clerical error' accidently mixed in a CG or LG soul of someone who died in the Abyss in the resulting demon, so there was some pang of guilt?
Considering all the myriad ways an good or neutral soul can wind up hijacked by the lower planes in both 3.x and PF's cosmologies*, I'd say there's plenty of opportunity for this.
*Heck, check out the Balor Lord in the Bestiary for example.
It's trendy to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with people who play the game differently than yourself, and assign some funky motivations, like 'powergamers' or 'emo.'
(Given how mechanically more powerful a Paladin is to a Fighter / Blackguard, the 'evul iz moar powarful!11!' meme is hilarious. Since the very beginning of the game, good has always had better rewards, both mechanically in the short-term, and in the whole 'not being tortured for all eternity' afterlife thing.)
Would this be the wrong thread to try and figure out 'what's wrong' with players who *don't* feel comfortable with the idea of redemption, or who aren't comfortable with the idea that there might *not* be a class of person that it's 'okay' to deem unredeemable and good only for guiltless killing?
Shoot!
I'd wager many just want to have some folks that are easily designated the blackhats so that they don't have to worry about moral conundrums during a relaxing beer and pretzels game. What I don't get is why some(not all, some) are so vocally against playing any other way.
My evidence for the Evil as Good case.
Fair enough, but in the case of things like demons and devils, they're pretty much made of evil. Granted, with a cool enough storyline, one can overlook the precedent. Case in point.