New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: Evil, why not?

  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Evil, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince Raven View Post
    A lot of people don't understand that an Evil alignment does not equate to being a Disney villain. Kiritsugu in Fate/Zero would be Neutral or even Chaotic Evil by the D&D alignment and he's a protagonist.
    He's not a very good one. By the end...

    Spoiler
    Show
    Everyone he loves is dead or out of his reach, and he's psychologically broken.


    And everyone with any sense knows the REAL hero of that story is ISKANDAR, KING OF CONQUERORS!! and his comic-relief sidekick, Waver.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Waver, BTW, is just about the only person to get out of that mess unscathed.
    Last edited by Arbane; 2014-11-19 at 06:11 AM.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: Evil, why not?

    When people are playing Good / Evil characters how do you feel about your party changing your alignment.

    I don't mean them just deciding you have to be something else, but the slow process of starting to see the other guys point of view.

    If you play Evil that is in a party with good people. Lets say a 4 man group, 2 good, one neutral and one evil. Over time the good people work convincing the evil to mend his ways. Show him compassion and forgivness and slowly the evil guy turns neutral.

    See I often play good and I am unsure how I feel about being in the reverse group. I am playing an idolistic good guy who thinks he can right the worlds wrongs. Over time the two evil guys telling me that the world is a terrible place and why bother playing fair, the other guys certainly aren't doing that. I think if I planned or thought about a fall down the ladder I would be fine with this. I normally don't and half way though a campaign I would feel I wasn't playing who I wanted to be. Its wierd.

    This is after all character growth.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Milo - I know what you are thinking Ork, has he fired 5 shots or 6, well as this is a wand of scorching ray, the most powerful second level wand in the world. What you have to ask your self is "Do I feel Lucky", well do you, Punk.
    Galkin - Erm Milo, wands have 50 charges not 6.
    Milo - NEATO !!
    BLAST

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Evil, why not?

    Having been a GM who has banned being evil on a number of occasions, I can come up with a list of reasons.

    First: In a distinctly less mature group of players (we were all young once, we all grew, still everyone starts somewhere) being evil turns into "Oh, hey, if your character doesn't come back because a terrible accident happened to them, I get more loot for my character's progression!" If you know that sort of motive or habit exists in your player base, banning Evil may really be more a statement of "You people had better like each other, get along with each other, and not hose each other for personal gain."

    Second: Depending on the specific game or edition, a character willing to do selfish, or borderline things, not out of malice, but for personal gain, can frequently actually be Neutral, as some alignment definitions specify tyranny, hatred, sadism, etc. etc. extremely villainous traits for someone to actually be considered evil within the game's alignment system. In theory, a majority of "gray" alignment characters can fit in as neutral, which makes sense, if, along the usual spectrum "White" is good and "Black" is evil, morally gray character are literally neutral.

    Third: As mentioned, if there's a Paladin in the party, or even some varieties of Good (Chaotic or Lawful) Cleric, the beliefs of their order (and the ever troublesome Detect spells that they have access to), simply means an evil party member can be straight out unviable, because even if you argue "Well, just because their magic thing says the person is evil doesn't mean they should just kill them out of hand if they haven't done anything," (a perfectly fair statement I feel like people should sometimes remember, outside of alignment requirements that force all evil characters to be mustache twirling supervillains, in which case that's a perfectly understandable and legitimate response) the character's willingness to not kill them very likely doesn't because a willingness to work with the other person longer than necessary. And if you ever plan to have your players get to visit a town, or just have some time off to make items or all those other things, any sort of GM enforced necessity will be likely dissipated.

    Also ultimately, these sorts of games function largely as communal storytelling, and if including excuses and reasons to force the evil character either to stay with the party, the party to keep them around, and them to stay active and invested in what the party is doing feels like it would be forced, or so obviously artificial you mine as well hang a sign on the character saying "This is a Party Member, you may not interact with them like you normally would a real person," the verisimilitude of the experience is lost, and whatever suspension of disbelief your party had going is easily strained.

    That being said, I have had cases where evil-ish characters managed to function in a party just fine. While, technically, I believe the character in question was neutrally aligned, they tended to do a lot of dubious stuff (as in that setting Necromancy wasn't soul torturing evil), like have undead minions as their bodyguards and stuff (dressed up with incredibly extensive disguises to hide their true nature), and tended to try to push the party overall towards missions and such that would benefit him and expand his power, and he was more than willing to torture adversaries for information (which is probably the most unpleasantly evil thing he'd done, and even then, due to a values dissonance with medieval culture, one could argue torture, in and of itself, wouldn't be considered intrinsically evil), and despite that sort of tone to his overall behavior, in any setting where Necromancy is not a wickedly evil act simply due to ripping souls out of the heavens or whatever for personal gain, that character could easily be neutral. As has been observed in this thread, outside of a few edge cases, if you aren't planning on being perturbingly villainous or disruptive, you don't really need to be evil to play a less morally firm character. At least in any flexible alignment system. There's always the settings and systems that go for stuff like "Anyone who steals anything for their own benefit is evil. Period." In which case evil PCs may be more common simply because the bar for "evil" is set so low.
    If you're tired of signatures telling you to copy and paste things into your signature, do not copy and paste this into your signature.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Raven777's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dominion of Canadia

    Default Re: Evil, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endless Query View Post
    Third: As mentioned, if there's a Paladin in the party, or even some varieties of Good (Chaotic or Lawful) Cleric, the beliefs of their order (and the ever troublesome Detect spells that they have access to), simply means an evil party member can be straight out unviable [...].
    Couldn't it mean instead that the Paladin or Good Cleric are the ones to be unviable? Why are classes that say to other players "no, you cannot play that" not the problem?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    The professionally offended will always find something to be angry about.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •