I decided to start this thread after reading a lot of posts stating or implying (by the actions described) that the character of the player writing it was evil through and through, or at least decidedly non-heroic. Given as most written adventure paths and material tend to assume benificent motivations on behalf of most players, it seems a lot of people reject that convention and choose the path of the villain.
I want to be able to wrap my head around why various people like to play evil characters. I confess to not really understanding it that well myself, as I have almost never played evil characters, and want to know what it is that draws other players to them. I think there are some misconceptions out there as to why people enjoy it, and would like to give those players a chance to explain their reasons.
I also warn that I am utterly uninteresting in amateur psychoanalyzing of those who do choose the dark path in their gaming life, or in any other criticisms of their choice. There are other threads where people have debated evil characters and their impact on the game at length, and that's not what I'm after here.
What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
I don't like to play evil per se, but I do enjoy playing the anti-hero, which sometimes is LE.
IMHO, the evil characters that are fun to roleplay don't think they are (evil).
Often they're a character who otherwise would be neutral or even good, except for some tragic flaw. They have a terrible temper, or they're just too vain for words, or they can't let a slight go, or they're a compulsive gambler or drug addict (and willing to do anything, ultimately to feed the habit), or they're a touch too paranoid and sometimes think innocent people are out to get them, or they focus too much on their task to the exclusion of other concerns, or whatever.
Have you ever played a more principled character and thought, "Doing X would neatly accomplish my character's goals, but the ends don't justify the means"? A character for whom those ends do justify the means is a fun evil character.
Obviously this is just a small, small subset of possible evil characters; it's the only subset that usually appeals to me. Generally I play good characters.
I don't like to play evil per se, but I do enjoy playing the anti-hero, which sometimes is LE.
How do you define an anti-hero?
How do you define an anti-hero?I don't like to play evil per se, but I do enjoy playing the anti-hero, which sometimes is LE.
Someone who accomplishes the overall "good" goal but uses less than "good" tactics.
As someone who often enjoys playing characters with non-positive personality traits (like the euphamism?) here are some of the reasons I can thing of
1. Something different: Most people go through their lives being generally good and following most rules. Sure you might speed or something but for the most part chances are everyone at your table is a pretty good person (or you wouldnt be friends with them in the first place). We play this game often to be something we are not. It is kind of fun to roleplay a character that is nothing like you.
2. The good guys are suckers: Lets face it, being good usually means giving up opportunities for personal gain. Unless a dm goes out of his way to reward good behavior, its usually easier/more profitable to get the job done without worring about stepping on kittens, or saving the damsel. Sure you could respect the human rights of that low level bad guy you just captured. Or you can torture/enchant him untill he tells you where the big bad is hiding. The guy who lies cheats and steals often gets the job done faster and more profitably(particulary in the short term untill everyone catches on). Particularly when DM's forget to reward good behavior (IE doing the right thing) doing the bad thing tends to be particularly appealing. Then it becomes a matter of not getting caught instead.
3. Its Fun to be bad. For many people being a jerk can be really fun. It ties into #1 but its more then just something different. There is something satifying in many people's baser nature with just being bad. Its kind of a forbidden fruit thing. Its not just intellectually interesting to roleplay being bad, it can be fun to shock people at the table with your actions.
there are more reasons but these come off the top of my head.
IMHO, the evil characters that are fun to roleplay don't think they are (evil).
Often they're a character who otherwise would be neutral or even good, except for some tragic flaw. They have a terrible temper, or they're just too vain for words, or they can't let a slight go, or they're a compulsive gambler or drug addict (and willing to do anything, ultimately to feed the habit), or they're a touch too paranoid and sometimes think innocent people are out to get them, or they focus too much on their task to the exclusion of other concerns, or whatever.
Have you ever played a more principled character and thought, "Doing X would neatly accomplish my character's goals, but the ends don't justify the means"? A character for whom those ends do justify the means is a fun evil character.
Obviously this is just a small, small subset of possible evil characters; it's the only subset that usually appeals to me. Generally I play good characters.
Good examples, and I can see how those would make compelling, if not admirable characters. Most of them seem more neutralish to me, or at least only slightly evil. I wouldn't term any of them irredeemably evil. You might even say they are just fatally flawed heroes. I've played a couple of those myself, a certain fanatical revolutionary sorcerer pops to mind.
Also, it's easier to be completely and utterly bada$$ with an evil character.
Is this more or less important than your other reasons?
Playing RPGs in order to play someone who's totally different from myself is a lot of fun. But sometimes, I want to play someone who is closer to myself. Hence the evil character.
As someone who often enjoys playing characters with non-positive personality traits (like the euphamism?) here are some of the reasons I can thing of
1. Something different: Most people go through their lives being generally good and following most rules. Sure you might speed or something but for the most part chances are everyone at your table is a pretty good person (or you wouldnt be friends with them in the first place). We play this game often to be something we are not. It is kind of fun to roleplay a character that is nothing like you.
2. The good guys are suckers: Lets face it, being good usually means giving up opportunities for personal gain. Unless a dm goes out of his way to reward good behavior, its usually easier/more profitable to get the job done without worring about stepping on kittens, or saving the damsel. Sure you could respect the human rights of that low level bad guy you just captured. Or you can torture/enchant him untill he tells you where the big bad is hiding. The guy who lies cheats and steals often gets the job done faster and more profitably(particulary in the short term untill everyone catches on). Particularly when DM's forget to reward good behavior (IE doing the right thing) doing the bad thing tends to be particularly appealing. Then it becomes a matter of not getting caught instead.
3. Its Fun to be bad. For many people being a jerk can be really fun. It ties into #1 but its more then just something different. There is something satifying in many people's baser nature with just being bad. Its kind of a forbidden fruit thing. Its not just intellectually interesting to roleplay being bad, it can be fun to shock people at the table with your actions.
there are more reasons but these come off the top of my head.
You could just be politically-correct and say morally and ethically challenged. :)
1. Interesting take. I agree with your basic premise on wanting to play something you're not. Of course most people aren't terribly heroic, either. To be truthful, there aren't many people, regardless of alignment, who resemble their characters in any significant way.
2. So expedience/gameplaying advantage is one important reason?
3. This I understand, and admit to having enjoyed the same experience in one-off adventures, but not in a whole campaign. Kind of a guilty pleasure. I actually feel guilty about it later, though.
I had the time of my life playing an evil character in an evil game. The problem with evil characters as opposed to good characters is that there is a sharp learning curve, similar to that with the paladin. You can't be evil and stupid, it really doesn't work, as my friends and I all learned the first time we tried it. After that party(all but the bard, of course) was killed, we came up with another set of characters who had some tenuous connection to each other. After a while, that connection turned into genuine friendship, as we realized that we would be discriminated against by many good aligned people we came into contact with and took the time out to learn about one another out of necessity. We were still cruel, petty and vindictive, but we also saved the day, faster albeit cruder than our good counterparts. We were still heroes, just a whole lot sloppier or more selfish about it. My players in my mostly evil Darklight Sisterhood game are discovering this too.
D&D alignments have more in common with Red vs Blue than an actual struggle between Good and Evil.
The only real practical difference is that Evil characters can pretend to be Good if it suits their purposes, but Good characters cannot do the same for Evil characters.
With that said I, and those I game with rarely play evil characters. Though one of the most enjoyable times I've ever had with D&D involved a Lawful Evil character in an otherwise good aligned party who was so good at hiding his intentions they never caught on, even as he slowly corrupted them all to his way of thinking.
I usually aim for a more neutral, practical bent. At times mercenary, at other times simply down to earth. Any idealism they may have had is dead already.
So, for you the RPG is essentially just a game in which the alignments are arbitrary ways of defining what "team" you play for? And amoral rather than immoral describes your usual bent? Don't let me put words in your mouth. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.
Playing RPGs in order to play someone who's totally different from myself is a lot of fun. But sometimes, I want to play someone who is closer to myself. Hence the evil character.
KY, remind me to hide my wife and daughters if you ever come over to my house to game. :)
I usually aim for a more neutral, practical bent. At times mercenary, at other times simply down to earth. Any idealism they may have had is dead already.
Right about here I decided your posting persona must be a carefully constructed parody meant to troll people.
I had the time of my life playing an evil character in an evil game. The problem with evil characters as opposed to good characters is that there is a sharp learning curve, similar to that with the paladin. You can't be evil and stupid, it really doesn't work, as my friends and I all learned the first time we tried it. After that party(all but the bard, of course) was killed, we came up with another set of characters who had some tenuous connection to each other. After a while, that connection turned into genuine friendship, as we realized that we would be discriminated against by many good aligned people we came into contact with and took the time out to learn about one another out of necessity. We were still cruel, petty and vindictive, but we also saved the day, faster albeit cruder than our good counterparts. We were still heroes, just a whole lot sloppier or more selfish about it. My players in my mostly evil Darklight Sisterhood game are discovering this too.
Agree that alignments aren't straightjackets, and nobody needs to play stupid. Just curious, what is your evil party's motivation for saving the day?
You could just be politically-correct and say morally and ethically challenged. :)
1. Interesting take. I agree with your basic premise on wanting to play something you're not. Of course most people aren't terribly heroic, either. To be truthful, there aren't many people, regardless of alignment, who resemble their characters in any significant way.
2. So expedience/gameplaying advantage is one important reason?
3. This I understand, and admit to having enjoyed the same experience in one-off adventures, but not in a whole campaign. Kind of a guilty pleasure. I actually feel guilty about it later, though.
1. Absolutely, and I like playing both sides. I think my characters all told are pretty evenly distributed over the alignment scale. Playing the pinacle of righteous goodness is as interesting to me as playing belkar.
2. Definately, especially when alot of dms try to apply pressure to players via 'moral choices', or when there is a tightly controlled game. When you arent sure if the dm is going to provide the rewards you want, you start getting used to asking for them (IE when the Mayor asks you to save the town, you ask for a reward instead of doing out of the kindness of your heart). But its not just about gameplay advantage, its in character advantage. If a character isn't altruistic, he is trying to get something for himself out of his adventures. And most of the time you get more if you dont play the goody goody.
3. I dont think i've ever actually felt guilty unless it has caused havoc with a game, though the only time a moral question for my character was disruptive to a game that i can remember, was the other way around. A character in a d20 modern game i played left the campaign because he wouldn't turn against his own government (misguided though they were).
KY, remind me to hide my wife and daughters if you ever come over to my house to game. :)Lock up your daughter, lock up your wife, lock up your back door and run for your life :D
So you're saying that... he should lock up his back door because the KY is coming?
Suddenly this thread seems for mature audiences only...
As far as the motivation of evil characters goes...
For a long time now, I've figured that there are a lot of people running around in this world who would commit evil acts all the time if they had the means to do so and thought they could get away with it without consequences.
Now in the fantasy role-playing world, characters are loaded to the teeth with dangerous abilities and powers, and escaping the long arm of the law (or defeating it) is often pretty easy.
In the real world, a lot of people default to being good because it is easier. Being good causes you less trouble overall.
In a gaming setting, being good is a conscious choice because it often makes things harder.
What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
Because "Halo" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" both have interesting stories.
And because "Superman II" and "The Godfather II" both have interesting stories.
So is this meant to be a variant of "There is a windmill in my beard. Your argument is invalid." or was there some sort of logical thought process that led you to this conclusion?
No, no, I'm on to you now. (And I don't think you were making an argument in this case.) I honestly just don't think anyone's actually as dead inside and/or ruthlessly cynical and/or consumed with success in a cooperative game without regard to whether that success is even enjoyable as you're pretending to be.
It's a pretty good parody (if taken up a notch) of some people who have posted here, which is probably why most of the posters are missing the joke.
3. I dont think i've ever actually felt guilty unless it has caused havoc with a game, though the only time a moral question for my character was disruptive to a game that i can remember, was the other way around. A character in a d20 modern game i played left the campaign because he wouldn't turn against his own government (misguided though they were).
Too much Sunday School for me, I guess. :)
Actually the other DM in my group likes to try to force morally gray decisions on our characters. I've gotten pretty deft at dodging them or finding an innovative way to change the question, but he did nearly force me to retire a character in one game, by introducing another PC with a background (created by the DM, not the player) guaranteed to cause conflict with mine.
KY, remind me to hide my wife and daughters if you ever come over to my house to game. :)Lock up your daughter, lock up your wife, lock up your back door and run for your life :D
So you're saying that... he should lock up his back door because the KY is coming?
Suddenly this thread seems for mature audiences only...
I was trying so hard not to go there. Thank you for introducing yet another horrible image into my mind that I won't be able to shake for days. I know I'm going to have a sexually aggressive evil harlequin jester in my dreams to tonight. Thanks a lot! :)
I decided to start this thread after reading a lot of posts stating or implying (by the actions described) that the character of the player writing it was evil through and through, or at least decidedly non-heroic. Given as most written adventure paths and material tend to assume benificent motivations on behalf of most players, it seems a lot of people reject that convention and choose the path of the villain.
I want to be able to wrap my head around why various people like to play evil characters. I confess to not really understanding it that well myself, as I have almost never played evil characters, and want to know what it is that draws other players to them. I think there are some misconceptions out there as to why people enjoy it, and would like to give those players a chance to explain their reasons.
I also warn that I am utterly uninteresting in amateur psychoanalyzing of those who do choose the dark path in their gaming life, or in any other criticisms of their choice. There are other threads where people have debated evil characters and their impact on the game at length, and that's not what I'm after here.
What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
It's easier in many cases to play an evil character. If something/someone gets in your way, you just kill them. Your motivation can be as simple as "I want money and power" and the character will do what it takes to get it. Or "I just want to have fun" and nothing will stop the character from doing what he/she perceives as fun.
An evil character doesn't necessarily do whatever they feel like but if they can get away with it they will. Often thinking of ways to get away with what you want to do is fun.
If someone surrenders to a good character they have to accept the surrender and "bring it to justice". If someone surrenders to an evil character they can just cut their throat and take their stuff.
Many of us often try to do the "right" thing in real life wheneve possible. It's fun to play a character who is out for themselves and doesn't care about what's "right".
So, for you the RPG is essentially just a game in which the alignments are arbitrary ways of defining what "team" you play for? And amoral rather than immoral describes your usual bent? Don't let me put words in your mouth. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.D&D alignments have more in common with Red vs Blue than an actual struggle between Good and Evil.
The only real practical difference is that Evil characters can pretend to be Good if it suits their purposes, but Good characters cannot do the same for Evil characters.
With that said I, and those I game with rarely play evil characters. Though one of the most enjoyable times I've ever had with D&D involved a Lawful Evil character in an otherwise good aligned party who was so good at hiding his intentions they never caught on, even as he slowly corrupted them all to his way of thinking.
I usually aim for a more neutral, practical bent. At times mercenary, at other times simply down to earth. Any idealism they may have had is dead already.
If D&D had actual morality, it would be different. But ultimately the only difference between good and evil in D&D is what people you kill. You're still killing people, out of necessity if nothing else. When you die and go to an afterlife you are rewarded or punished not based on what team you played for but how well you played for it. A character who was on Team Good, but wasn't especially Good has a worse afterlife than a highly successful warlord on Team Evil who committed all manner of evil acts before finally being put down.
The only reason why team good even is Team Good, and not just a different section of Team Evil is because evil acts are somehow acceptable if the target of them has green skin. I don't even want to get into the unfortunate implications of that.
When I show up at the table with a LN or a TN character I am both saying that I am more interested in non absurd motivations and the things I already...
Fair 'nuff. I've posted before about the quesionable morality of many of D&D's basic premises like kill the monsters in their homes and take their stuff. That said, I think equating all acts regardless of motive or target is an ethical fallacy, but one I'm not really interested in arguing right now. Just not my goal for this thread. Maybe another time.
As far as the motivation of evil characters goes...
For a long time now, I've figured that there are a lot of people running around in this world who would commit evil acts all the time if they had the means to do so and thought they could get away with it without consequences.
Now in the fantasy role-playing world, characters are loaded to the teeth with dangerous abilities and powers, and escaping the long arm of the law (or defeating it) is often pretty easy.
In the real world, a lot of people default to being good because it is easier. Being good causes you less trouble overall.
In a gaming setting, being good is a conscious choice because it often makes things harder.
So the lack of consequences for powerful characters enables them to act more freely/naturally? So you take the philosophical bent that people are inherently evil, and only the conventions of society and threat of punishment keep them from acting that way?
What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
Because "Halo" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" both have interesting stories.
And because "Superman II" and "The Godfather II" both have interesting stories.
** spoiler omitted **
Good point. You can certainly find lots of high quality media references that feature villainous or anti-heroic main characters. Do you think this creates a desire in people to play similar characters?
A large part of an RPG is doing something you can't ordinarily do.
I can't wield a great sword, i can't roll batpoop and sulpher into a fireball, I can't wield a symbol and pray and have pillars of fire fall out of the sky on someone I do not like.
I can't be 3 feet tall and ride a dog into battle or attend a tea party by a 200 foot dragon who's interested in listening to me play the harp. (which I also can't play).
By that same vein- I am not evil. I've never done harm to anyone who did not at first harm me, and I've never wielded a blunt or sharp object in danger. Or a gun- and definately not a crossbow. I've never tried to take over the world.. yet in D&D (and RPG's in general) I can embrace that, and try to accomplish it. I can wield a sword openly for evil or i can be a cowardly, sniveling rogue of a man who will cut the throat (or purse) of anyone it takes to get ahead or just to get what he wants.
I am not that person- but I can role play one.. I can step out side of myself and be that something that I am not. Just like playing a gold dragon, or a gnome, or an elf.
I would play evil simply because I can, and because I am not.
-S
I decided to start this thread after reading a lot of posts stating or implying (by the actions described) that the character of the player writing it was evil through and through, or at least decidedly non-heroic. Given as most written adventure paths and material tend to assume benificent motivations on behalf of most players, it seems a lot of people reject that convention and choose the path of the villain.
I want to be able to wrap my head around why various people like to play evil characters. I confess to not really understanding it that well myself, as I have almost never played evil characters, and want to know what it is that draws other players to them. I think there are some misconceptions out there as to why people enjoy it, and would like to give those players a chance to explain their reasons.
I also warn that I am utterly uninteresting in amateur psychoanalyzing of those who do choose the dark path in their gaming life, or in any other criticisms of their choice. There are other threads where people have debated evil characters and their impact on the game at length, and that's not what I'm after here.
What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
It's easier in many cases to play an evil character. If something/someone gets in your way, you just kill them. Your motivation can be as simple as "I want money and power" and the character will do what it takes to get it. Or "I just want to have fun" and nothing will stop the character from doing what he/she perceives as fun.
An evil character doesn't necessarily do whatever they feel like but if they can get away with it they will. Often thinking of ways to get away with what you want to do is fun.
If someone surrenders to a good character they have to accept the surrender and "bring it to justice". If someone surrenders to an evil character they can just cut their throat and take their stuff....
Perhaps a little early to tell, but I'm starting to see a couple of themes, including expedience/advantage for the character (easier to be able to do whatever you want without moral redlines) and catharsis (fun to be able to what you can't in real life). Am I getting warm?
Regarding the first, I'm tempted to make a wild leap of logic to guess that perhaps the optimizers, with their focus on achieving the most powerful characters possible and the most effective strategies to defeat encounters efficiently, might also bridle at the restrictions placed on them by roleplaying an alignment with more ethical redlines?
So the lack of consequences for powerful characters enables them to act more freely/naturally? So you take the philosophical bent that people are inherently evil, and only the conventions of society and threat of punishment keep them from acting that way?
The key difference between what I said and how you paraphrased it is that I said "a lot of people..." and you interpreted it as "people... " Perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I intended.
I used to work for a guy who was fond of saying that integrity is what you do when no one else is looking. I guess that could be extrapolated into the RPG world as what you do when surrounded by first-level commoners who can't stop you.
Because sometimes its fun to play on the other side of the fence. There are a number of very popular "evil" characters in fiction. A part of roleplaying is exploring personality flaws and traits and well as social interactions that we can't in real life.
Some great examples of "Bad guy" characters that I have modeled characters after.
Buba Fett
Darth Vader
Prince Humperdink
Ursula the Seawitch
Jafar (Aladin)
Pinhead or any of the CenabitesSometimes its fun to really explore these types of characters and how they will interact with others.
One of the funnest games I ever played in was a friend and myself playing Evil Elven Nobles that had been run out of their Duchey by a peasant revolt.
My character and his sister wandered the land bitter and complaining about how they were nobility.
Interesting take on the roleplaying challenges. I note that Hollywood actors usually jump at the chance to play villains, frequently seeing them as having more depth and complexity than the heroes. I don't know that I agree that this has to be so, but I understand why people think so.
A large part of an RPG is doing something you can't ordinarily do.
I can't wield a great sword, i can't roll batpoop and sulpher into a fireball, I can't wield a symbol and pray and have pillars of fire fall out of the sky on someone I do not like.
I can't be 3 feet tall and ride a dog into battle or attend a tea party by a 200 foot dragon who's interested in listening to me play the harp. (which I also can't play).
By that same vein- I am not evil. I've never done harm to anyone who did not at first harm me, and I've never wielded a blunt or sharp object in danger. Or a gun- and definately not a crossbow. I've never tried to take over the world.. yet in D&D (and RPG's in general) I can embrace that, and try to accomplish it. I can wield a sword openly for evil or i can be a cowardly, sniveling rogue of a man who will cut the throat (or purse) of anyone it takes to get ahead or just to get what he wants.
I am not that person- but I can role play one.. I can step out side of myself and be that something that I am not. Just like playing a gold dragon, or a gnome, or an elf.
I would play evil simply because I can, and because I am not.
-S
Eloquently said. I wonder if the opposite also holds, and people who are real rat-bastards in real life like to play paladins and other do-gooders to experience "the other side"?
Good point. You can certainly find lots of high quality media references that feature villainous or anti-heroic main characters. Do you think this creates a desire in people to play similar characters?
That seems like an odd question. You're asking, in a hypothetical world where there are no stories featuring evil protagonists, would people still want to play an evil character, yes?
I need clarification -- why are there no such stories in your hypothetical world? Brutal censorship? Or is everyone a saint who can't even imagine an evil protagonist? Or is there some other reason I haven't thought of?
So the lack of consequences for powerful characters enables them to act more freely/naturally? So you take the philosophical bent that people are inherently evil, and only the conventions of society and threat of punishment keep them from acting that way?The key difference between what I said and how you paraphrased it is that I said "a lot of people..." and you interpreted it as "people... " Perhaps I didn't make that as clear as I intended.
I used to work for a guy who was fond of saying that integrity is what you do when no one else is looking. I guess that could be extrapolated into the RPG world as what you do when surrounded by first-level commoners who can't stop you.
Thanks for the clarification.
I've heard that definition of integrity before, usually stated as "integrity is doing the right thing, even if no one is watching", and think it's a pretty good one.
Good point. You can certainly find lots of high quality media references that feature villainous or anti-heroic main characters. Do you think this creates a desire in people to play similar characters?What I want are the thoughts of those who like to play evil characters. My question to all of you is "In your opinion, why is it Good to be Bad?
Because "Halo" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" both have interesting stories.
And because "Superman II" and "The Godfather II" both have interesting stories.
** spoiler omitted **
I think it is less about the media making us want to play those kinds of characters and rather that it's the same desire that causes both. Villains are intersting, they are fun, the same motivation for liking the Sopranos or thinking Xykon Lex Luthor was badass is what drives players to want to play similar characters. If you enjoy them in books, movies, tv etc, you are going to enjoy them in roleplaying games as well (or you probably will).
Good point. You can certainly find lots of high quality media references that feature villainous or anti-heroic main characters. Do you think this creates a desire in people to play similar characters?That seems like an odd question. You're asking, in a hypothetical world where there are no stories featuring evil protagonists, would people still want to play an evil character, yes?
I need clarification -- why are there no such stories in your hypothetical world? Brutal censorship? Or is everyone a saint who can't even imagine an evil protagonist? Or is there some other reason I haven't thought of?
Let me rephrase what I meant. Many people on these boards, at one time or another, have stated that they like to build characters based on some character in a book, or a movie, or a comic, or a viedogame, etc.
I think one of my assumptions, which can certainly be debated, is that modern media features more antiheroic characters and outright villainous protagonists than has been the case in the past. If you accept that there are a larger number of these examples out there to model characters after, is it that people want to portray what they see and think is cool in other media, regardless of whether that character might be good or evil? So more evil protagonists in games reflects and/or parallels more evil protagonists in literature, movies, viedogames, etc.?
I had the time of my life playing an evil character in an evil game. The problem with evil characters as opposed to good characters is that there is a sharp learning curve, similar to that with the paladin. You can't be evil and stupid, it really doesn't work, as my friends and I all learned the first time we tried it. After that party(all but the bard, of course) was killed, we came up with another set of characters who had some tenuous connection to each other. After a while, that connection turned into genuine friendship, as we realized that we would be discriminated against by many good aligned people we came into contact with and took the time out to learn about one another out of necessity. We were still cruel, petty and vindictive, but we also saved the day, faster albeit cruder than our good counterparts. We were still heroes, just a whole lot sloppier or more selfish about it. My players in my mostly evil Darklight Sisterhood game are discovering this too.Agree that alignments aren't straightjackets, and nobody needs to play stupid. Just curious, what is your evil party's motivation for saving the day?
Overall, it was for glory and money. We went around performing glorious acts to prop up our cash flow for creature comforts. And the fame that came out of it was great. Our excellent DM came up with a counter-party to our own who was composed of stereotypical(and dumb) "good-guys", who would eternally gnash their teeth as we showed them up. It really drove the lesson home that sometimes the difference between good and evil is the motivation behind it moreso than the methods used.
This wasn't to say we weren't evil sons of b!$#%es though. We were. My character was a 14 year old paladin of asmodeus who had a knight as his bodyguard and surrogate father figure. The best scene of the game was when we were on a boat being attacked by some creature, which the party would only help to slay if they were paid for it. The captain said he would not barter away the money he was entrusted to carry to his lord, so we bought the crew's souls instead. My player, with his bodyguard's(a fellow player too!) help, drafted up a fair contract that actually did not screw the captain and crew over(the knight's player had a backstory where he needed to secure a thousand souls for Asmodeus so that when he died he actually became a barbed devil, not a dretch). We made him sign it with the blood of the crew members who were being slaughtered up on deck that was dripping through the celing(we were below decks).
Thanks for all the interesting and eductional replies, folks. I need to go now to DM my own game, but will try to check in tomorrow.
I believe the question was asked, what is the motivation for these evil characters to save the day.
Any evil character I've played has been willing to "save the day" as long as there was something in it for him. If there was a personal gain then he would do the good deed but not for the sake of the deed itself.
On the other hand I've never been able to justify playing a CE character in a party. CE is described as basically a psychopathic bully. They do whatever they feel like at the moment and don't play well with others unless forced to by someone more powerful. If another character pissed off the CE member of the party he might just wait for them to fall asleep and then cut their throat.
It would create a lot of party tension.
Party tension, if used properly and with a group that can handle it, can really spice up a campaign.
On the other hand I've never been able to justify playing a CE character in a party.It would create a lot of party tension.
I've wanted to try it but I've never played with a group that would be able to handle it. PCs killing PCs has always been a no-no.
I guess if the DM set it up so that the party has an overloard that kept the CE PC in check with the threat of a long and horrible death then it could work...
Perhaps a little early to tell, but I'm starting to see a couple of themes, including expedience/advantage for the character (easier to be able to do whatever you want without moral redlines) and catharsis (fun to be able to what you can't in real life). Am I getting warm?
Regarding the first, I'm tempted to make a wild leap of logic to guess that perhaps the optimizers, with their focus on achieving the most powerful characters possible and the most effective strategies to defeat encounters efficiently, might also bridle at the restrictions placed on them by roleplaying an alignment with more ethical redlines?
I wouldn't say "bridle" at the restrictions of the more ethical alignment. Although I will admit that I do not enjoy playing LG because it is too restrictive for me. I tend to be a fan of more Chaotic characters. In fact, I think CN is my favorite to play.