Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ShadeGirl 06-20-03, 02:50 PM	I have a thing for the dark and evil. Does anyone else? I don't know what it is, but I enjoy playing evil characters. I love writing about evil characters, and I like roleplaying them. I like coming up with their histories, thoughts and quirks that cause them to progress in their cutt-throat ways, and every evil char I've come up with is entirely unique. Yes, most of them get along with the party...to an extent. Never has an evil char really disrupted the group, and in one instance I had an evil char gradually turn the rest of the party evilish by them witnessing his own ruthlessly efficient actions. My evil chars are often times people-persons with smiles just as bright as everyone elses. In general I find that I adore things that are dark, sad or tragic. Music, books or movies, you name it, if it has an artistically dark aura about it, I'll probably love it. It just touches something deep inside of me to the point where I feel drawn to it. I feel fascinated by darkness perhaps. If I was in star wars, I'd so be on the dark side of the force. Often, I've wondered what causes my kinship and interest in all things dark and evil, and I honestly can't come up with anything. Maybe because I am cynical and don't believe in absolute goodness. Perhaps because it is ingrained in me that everyone has an alternate agenda and is only truly looking out for themselves. It is easier for me to roleplay evil then good, because I feel I know it so well. Good seems false to me. Good appears phony. It sickens me how people doggedly think that a party of adventurers should get along no matter what. That they should be heros. Good heros. That there are never conflicts and dramas between certain party members that should be roleplayed or considered. In the strife and turmoil of adventuring, living closely beside companions there will be conflict. It is how life is. I think that adventurers should not have to conform to a static cliche to be 'heros'. They should be individuals. And that includes characters that are evil. This is not to say that evil is slashing, killing, murdering fools who can't get along with anyone. That is ridiculous and is a common misconception of evil characters. Evil chars are much more subtle. They have their own brand of compassions, feelings and fears and even, yes, friends. Evil characters who do not possess any of the above and are only destructive killing machines are not true characters. They are cardboard one dimensional morons and uninteresting to say the least. If an evil character is to be played, he should be played with all the depth and intricacy that a 'normal' character would be played, perhaps more. He is not evil 'to be evil' in many cases. He was not born that way. Evil characters are 'people' too. In how many cases are the villions remembered more then the hero's? Occasionally, you get the villion that *is* the hero. Thats my favorite kind.
Eyes in the Darkness 06-20-03, 04:17 PM	Ummm... first off... you scare me a little there ShadeGirl, of course there's nothing particularly wrong with that. I must admit that I do to like the bad guys to a certain extent, although I doubt to the degree you do. Frankly this is because most modern stereotypes make all alignments out as idiots. Good characters always get along (hardly), and evil characters are just out to kill. Hell some of my most sadistic characters detested killing because it wasted resources (one bad guy basically ran his subjects into the ground, and then took the bodies for "recycling". He had a rather large contingent of flesh golems). Also, evil characters can make good PCs because they are: a. Efficient b. Deadly c. Determined d. Not easily swayed once they have set their path (can't threaten them with the destruction of innocents) f. Motivated Let's face it, evil can be just as interesting and powerful as good, and a great deal of evil NPCs (other than your random encounters) are a great deal more developed than many PCs out there. This is because evil needs a reason (and a good reason too) to work, and reason is the driving force behind everything.
Leap 06-20-03, 04:32 PM	Shadegirl – I have a thing for the dark and evil. Does anyone else? I have found such attitudes tend to alter sharply once a friend or loved one has come face to face with such “fascinating” evil in the real world – It is a peculiar voyeurism that takes evil as a form of Pornography in the way you describe it. Maybe because I am cynical and don't believe in absolute goodness. Perhaps because it is ingrained in me that everyone has an alternate agenda and is only truly looking out for themselves. May I assume you were brought up in that paragon of community values that is “the land of the free” ;) Of course everyone has a certain degree of a personal agenda – that does not mean you should cast aside good quite so quickly…for good is not a matter of angels and fluffy bunnies but a simple understanding that the world is a better place when we realise that we are both competitive AND social beings (and thus that we need to curb our competing to allow for both it and a social existence – we used to call it “good-sportsmanship”…competitiveness that does not destroy the trust and intimacy needed for the community that we need as much as competition to be “whole beings”). Ok so that is more lawful than good per se, but good and evil are attitudes to such (good believing repentance and atonement are possible, evil harshly absolutely condemning any weakness or failing). Oh god, you’ve got me all preachy now! :) Sorry! It is easier for me to roleplay evil then good, because I feel I know it so well. Good seems false to me. Good appears phony. Good exists every time you realise that people are not perfect but often need a second chance (how many times has someone doe that for you?). It sickens me how people doggedly think that a party of adventurers should get along no matter what. That they should be heros. Good heros. That there are never conflicts and dramas between certain party members that should be roleplayed or considered. In the strife and turmoil of adventuring, living closely beside companions there will be conflict. It is how life is. I think that adventurers should not have to conform to a static cliche to be 'heros'. They should be individuals. And that includes characters that are evil. Of course that is so. Anyone who claims otherwise is living in fantasy……ooops this IS fantasy ;) This is not to say that evil is slashing, killing, murdering fools who can't get along with anyone. That is ridiculous and is a common misconception of evil characters. Evil chars are much more subtle. They have their own brand of compassions, feelings and fears and even, yes, friends. Evil characters who do not possess any of the above and are only destructive killing machines are not true characters. They are cardboard one dimensional morons and uninteresting to say the least. Ah. A, erm, think you may misunderstand what constitutes evil (oh god that sounds arrogant and I do apologise for that!). Evil is a matter of being utterly unforgiving. Where good offers the chance for repentance and atonement, evil sees weakness as absolutely unacceptable. The Lawful Evil is scrupulously honest and honourable but punishes transgressors with great harshness (think “Judge Dread” or Inspector Javere from Les Miserables). The Chaotic Evil is thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy and utterly without mercy in his backstabbing ways. If an evil character is to be played, he should be played with all the depth and intricacy that a 'normal' character would be played, perhaps more. He is not evil 'to be evil' in many cases. He was not born that way. Evil characters are 'people' too. In how many cases are the villains remembered more then the hero's? Occasionally, you get the villain that *is* the hero. Are you perhaps confusing evil and chaos here m’lady shadegirl? Chaos being a matter of dishonour, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, whilst evil is a matter of absolute lack of mercy in the face of failure / weakness? Eyes in the darkness – Ummm... first off... you scare me a little there ShadeGirl, It is sadness she fills me with ‘Eyes’ most modern stereotypes make all alignments out as idiots. Good characters always get along (hardly), and evil characters are just out to kill. Hell some of my most sadistic characters detested killing because it wasted resources (one bad guy basically ran his subjects into the ground, and then took the bodies for "recycling". He had a rather large contingent of flesh golems). [Gulp!!!] :)
ShadeGirl 06-20-03, 05:48 PM	I don't mean to make anyone scared or sad. :) Don't worry. I'm harmless! Originally posted by Leap: I have found such attitudes tend to alter sharply once a friend or loved one has come face to face with such “fascinating” evil in the real world – It is a peculiar voyeurism that takes evil as a form of Pornography in the way you describe it. Ok...I don't know what myself being partial to evil and the more shadowy of ventures has to do with Pornography...and I'd rather not relate the two if its ok with you. I am in complete agreement that I (and others like me) tend to despise evil in reality/real life. Its heartbreaking and staggering. Honestly, I hate it and I hate those who cause it. It makes me want to cry. Oh god, you’ve got me all preachy now! Sorry! No, not at all! I enjoy responses like this. :) A, erm, think you may misunderstand what constitutes evil (oh god that sounds arrogant and I do apologise for that!). I think I know why you may think that. My group does not play by alignment exactly; there are many shades of gray. No one is good and no one is evil, chaotic or lawful. We only use alignment for spells but players are encouraged not to think in terms of alignment with it comes to their chars. This leaves me with an unbelievable scope and magnitude of character types to create and develop, yet if I looked on the D&D align-o-meter, they would always come up evil. Some more then others, of course, as I've probably had alot of neutrals. Perhaps this is because I believe no one in life is ever purely 'good'. It is incredibly difficult for me to believe, in fact. Are you perhaps confusing evil and chaos here m’lady shadegirl? Chaos being a matter of dishonour, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, whilst evil is a matter of absolute lack of mercy in the face of failure / weakness? I absolutely agree with this, and perhaps I was intermingling the two. Its rather difficult when in my game, everything is gray, you see. :) Originally posted by Eyes in the Darkness: Frankly this is because most modern stereotypes make all alignments out as idiots. Good characters always get along (hardly), and evil characters are just out to kill. Yes, this is what I don't like! It seems like it is always one way or the other. I have played some good characters which I have wholeheartedly enjoyed, and they often bickered with other people in the party, real-anti-social. On the other hand, one of my worst chars in terms of downright ruthlessness was the happinest, most cheerful person in the party. Down with the cliche's, I say. ;) Hell some of my most sadistic characters detested killing because it wasted resources (one bad guy basically ran his subjects into the ground, and then took the bodies for "recycling". He had a rather large contingent of flesh golems). Now that is very interesting. Let's face it, evil can be just as interesting and powerful as good, and a great deal of evil NPCs (other than your random encounters) are a great deal more developed than many PCs out there. This is because evil needs a reason (and a good reason too) to work, and reason is the driving force behind everything. Ah, I think I am getting to the heart at it now. I am a writer, you see. Writing fantasy is where I get all my juice from. And in any story, you have to have adversity. Usually this is in the form of some unprecedented disastor, or typically, a 'villian'. How many times have I read fantasy novels that have underdeveloped bad guys that are idenifiably *bad*? You *know* who the bad guys are, you *know* who the good guys are. But, a memorable villian creates a unforgetable story, IMO. Creating the most unique person I can to fill that role is what I like to do. Thanks for the replies, gentlemen! :) -ShadeGirl
The One and Only... 06-20-03, 06:07 PM	Exactly how dark do you like music? Cause if you like dark/aggressive/psycho music, you should really check out bands like: Dark Funeral Marduk Noism Exhumed Pig Destroyer Nile Suffocation Cryptopsy Dying Fetus Cannibal Corpse Scar Culture Bane Darkthrone Haemorhhage Dead Infection Opeth Grave Arch Enemy Carcass Napalm Death and the list goes on... Yes, I do like playing evil/dark characters.
ShadeGirl 06-20-03, 06:53 PM	Strangely enough, I like my 'dark' music to have a mystical, fantasy type feel. The music of "Requim of a Dream" comes to mind. I had the soundtrack before I saw the movie and adored it. Its so heartwrenchingly wistful and sad.
Lord of the Ninth 06-20-03, 09:03 PM	Yeah, my whole group is kinda like this at times. First we have the DM, he's Catholic and one of the nicest and most polite people you could meet. When he doesn't DM he plays a CE necromancer, who usually makes a go at lichdom. Then there's the powergamer, he's also a very nice person, who plays mostly clerics and monks, CE and LE respectively although one of his longest running characters was a CE rogue/assassin who had a thing for explosives (blew up a bar once, that was fun). Then the new guy, he has some tendencies towards senseless violence. After this is the Russian, he's the only one who is evil in real life, I'm mean he seems alright at first, but he's a bit to much like the Niecheans from Andromeda. He plays LG and CG elves, usually with a fighter/mage concept. And last there is me. I've played the evilest gnome in D&D, he once flayed a dryad and made cloak out of her skin (which he wore on a regular basis), and the next day he burned a temple of Garl Glittergold, before helping the Powergamer release 3 plagues into an unsuspecting town. This was topped off by a riot he started. Then we have my current character who just killed a king (and framed his son for it), kidnapped a princess (and framed the kings other son), for the purpose of starting a civil war. [He is the ambassador to this country] He also owns a castle 30 miles out to sea, "you know, just in case I commit treason against everyone". In real life I'm a Unitarian pacifist who doesn't eat cows, and protested against the war in Iraq. On the other hand I read vampire books, research demons and post under the name Lord of the Ninth (refering to Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine Hells). My sig used to say WWSD (what would satan do?), I laugh at my friends' dead baby jokes, and most of the people I know think that Smeagle and the Balrog are the coolest things in LOTR (I like Gandalf). I'm not evil, I'm simply fascinated by it. There is little wrong with this, evil is in general more interesting than good in D&D, even though they have so many little things in there that push you towards Law and Good.
Arilou_skiff 06-20-03, 10:30 PM	I don't play very often (usually DM) but this time I'm playing an evil necromancer.. And having a blast. He's not *really* evil, he's just self-centered as a gyroscope and cares nothing for anyone else.
BetterButterBuddha 06-20-03, 11:19 PM	Hmm... if all you guys like playing evil characters so much, maybe you can give me some advice on playing one. I'm about to play an alignment change with my favorite character, Roc Wedingo. He's been attacked by a demon, and the resulting effect was that the demon drained his life force down to nothing, only enough to keep him alive for about another year. Up until now, he's been CG, seeking vengeance on the demon (who also destroyed his entire tribe - he's a wild elf). About 3rd level I saw a pretty ironic option to turn to, which came in the form of the PrC, "Acolyte of the Skin". I plan on having an alignment change so drastic that he will actually, by the end, seek out the demon not for the purpose of destroying it, but for the purpose of fusing with it. The reason for the alignment change comes with a tie to the land. In this campaign, the making of magical items weakens the attachment of the spirit world to the material plane. Obviously this is awful for a shaman/sorcerer, then. Funny thing is that destroying these magical items repairs the damage. I plan for, at the higher levels, to be sort of an "avenger for the spirit world". His fusion with a demon will give him immense power with which to keep this self-appointed position, and it will further the shift towards CE as well. My problem is that previously, I've only played good characters. Heck, this character has practically taken an oath of poverty - he even destroys any magical items that he is rewarded with. I think I might have a lack of ideas on playing a character who goes and razes an order of paladins because of their magical swords. So... do you gothy evil folks have any ideas on motivations, and tactics on how to carry out those motivations? This is definately not your usual "knock off a couple hundred thousand babies in the name of Nerull" character.
Lord of the Ninth 06-21-03, 02:40 AM	Every once in a while have this character get really mad, have it start with something that makes sense, like a bar room brawl and then have him go too far. Always have him keep going even if someone begs for mercy, and in the beginning have him realise what he's done, too late. Mabye after a while have him start to like it, like the violence, enjoy the killing, revel in it. If you want a great description of an arcane/demonic descent into evil try Encyclopaedia Arcane: Demonology (heck you just might want the stuff in this book anyway). Also, any comic book heros who tend to be a bit grim (the Daredevil movie), Punisher etc. are all great for this kinda character. Remember, your motives are great, but your means just keep getting worse, until you eventually just give in to evil inherent to your new nature. The road to my town is paved with good intentions. ;) Have fun:devil: (As a side note, I'm not really a goth I don't quite have the 'look')
Leap 06-21-03, 03:01 AM	As a side note, I'm not really a goth I don't quite have the 'look' Meaning you consume more calories than are found in coffee, you actually *do* have a suntan, and have an alarming tendency to smile? ;)
Leap 06-21-03, 03:14 AM	Shade Girl – I don't know what myself being partial to evil and the more shadowy of ventures has to do with Pornography...and I'd rather not relate the two if its ok with you Hi shadey. The context I meant this in was of evil being used as a kind of pornography in the sense of it being something experienced for a “kick”, rather than any reference to Lady Loviatar’s Laced-up Love-in ;) My group does not play by alignment exactly; there are many shades of gray Personally I found the alignment system useful as map and so have kept it [although by preference it would be a cube rather than a square :) ]. Strangely enough, I like my 'dark' music to have a mystical, fantasy type feel Perhaps you should listen to Blackmore’s Night [ok so I am kidding here as BMN are more twee than a room full of baby elves ;) ]
Lord of the Ninth 06-21-03, 03:15 AM	Alright, so I sorta look gothic, what with my aversion to sunlight, my tendency to not smile unless laughing and the whole thing where I'm 5'9" but only weigh 118 (very high metabolism). I was thinking more clothes, hair etc.
ShadeGirl 06-21-03, 12:38 PM	I have blonde curly hair and blue eyes, lol. Not exactly 'dark' I guess. I'd post a pic if I knew how, or even if I was allowed to. Oh well... :) Originally posted by BetterButterBuddha So... do you gothy evil folks have any ideas on motivations, and tactics on how to carry out those motivations? This is definately not your usual "knock off a couple hundred thousand babies in the name of Nerull" character Cool character concept. Unforunately, I cannot offer advice on this without knowing more about your guy. (subtle vices, quirks, etc) Keep us posted on his 'descent' into evil though...bwahahaha!! :razz: Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth Mabye after a while have him start to like it, like the violence, enjoy the killing, revel in it. Actually, one of my most disturbed guys was a frail (think 6 con and 6 str) yet obnoxious fellow who only killed in the passionate wave of his emotions and was left staggered and depressed afterward. He would weep and often get ill at what he did, yet he would never resolve not to do it again. He simply never thought about the acts beyond the feelings it gave him. He was very..in alignment terms...'chaotic'. It was sad. He eventually was led to do 'good' things in a backwards way. In a fit of anger he once stabbed a serving girl and then magically healed her up in the next instant. He gave a bum on the street a hundred gold pieces in exchange for one of the bums finger's. (don't ask) All of these things seemed 'good' to him, like he was doing the right thing, but very clearly, they probably were not on the ol align-o-meter. I still get sad when I think about him. :( Ah, well...he was a blast to roleplay. :) I've played the evilest gnome in D&D, he once flayed a dryad and made cloak out of her skin (which he wore on a regular basis), and the next day he burned a temple of Garl Glittergold, before helping the Powergamer release 3 plagues into an unsuspecting town. I shudder when I think of the terrible things some of my chars have done and won't mention them here. I feel physically sick whenever they do something particulary bad, but thats part of their own darkness. Its all in the roleplaying I guess. I laugh at my friends' dead baby jokes, and most of the people I know think that Smeagle and the Balrog are the coolest things in LOTR They are! :D Although dead baby jokes just make me sad. I am still a female afterall. :cool:
Lord of the Ninth 06-21-03, 11:26 PM	That's what's weird, DM's sister is the one who is really into the whole dead baby thing, that and her friend. Also, you can kill people and still be frail (after all the gnome was no power house), I consider fireballing someone to count as violence.
Strife 06-22-03, 04:49 PM	Now, this isn't about me, or really my intresst in evil, but rather a tip. If you haven't read any of Dean Koontz book's yet, pick 'em up at nearest public library or book outlet or something and prepare yourself for some truely evil characters (well, not everyone in every book... but one or two in most). These characters are evil, and they are belivable which makes it a lot worse. Sitt back and enjoy:cloud9:
Ankhalab 06-23-03, 01:22 PM	The good thing about D&D is that you get to be anything. Good guy or bad guy or even the guy that doesn't give a $&*/. Actually, I've noticed people try to play something they never will be cause that's the only chance they get to be it. The only chance a nice person gets to be evil is in a D&D game. You're probably a good person, that's why you like playing evil characters. :D Besides, playing good characters all the time gets tiring... :devil:
Tzor 06-23-03, 02:03 PM	Originally posted by ShadeGirl It sickens me how people doggedly think that a party of adventurers should get along no matter what. That they should be heros. Good heros. That there are never conflicts and dramas between certain party members that should be roleplayed or considered. In the strife and turmoil of adventuring, living closely beside companions there will be conflict. It is how life is. I think that adventurers should not have to conform to a static cliche to be 'heros'. They should be individuals. And that includes characters that are evil. In the real world, people meet, associate and disassociate all the time. People get married and divorced all the time. There are millions of people in the world, and apparently the DM of the real world is quite happy managing all those million seperate plots. In roleplaying, you more or less have four to eight players and that is it. Thier characters must meet and associate, because the DM typically hates to run two seperate plots, nevermind eight of them. This is advanced roleplaying. In the real world four random people can get together or not. In the role playing environment you need to have some reason to have the characters associate. This does not mean that adventurers should get along no matter what. It does mean that there is a point of no return that crossing will cause the long term game to break down. Yes you can have interesting adventures with evil characters, but at a high level, evil is harder. Evil is by definition selfish, so what keeps the party together? Why do they continue to assocaite? What mechanisms exist to keep minor disputes from becomming party breakers? I tend to prefer evil characters more as an NPC when I am DM as opposed to a PC when I am a player, especially for long term campaigns, since evil breaks down to selfish motivations. anti-heroes tend to be heroic inspite of themselves. That can be fun for short term adventures, but not for long term epic ones in my opinion.
Lord of the Ninth 06-23-03, 02:56 PM	If you wonder why an evil party can exist, it's not that hard really. In my gnome's party (CE Cleric, NE Wizard, CE Doppleganger), the cleric stayed with me (wizard) because I greatly enhanced his ability to a lot of people, plus I could also provide him with a place to sleep so he wouldn't get lynched by the mobs of people who hate him. I, likewise, used the cleric because he was a very impressive combatant (buff spells, later was polymorphed into a stone giant), he made an excellant defence for me to shoot spells from behind. The doppleganger, was mostly for infiltration, but he had a tendency to roll low... But anyway the point is that members of an evil party need to have goals and they need the rest of the party to the best way of achieving these goals. The cleric (Erythnul) wanted to huge amounts of people for the glory of his god, and he wanted to live to this for a long time. The doppleganger had similar goals, but with a little bit less direction. I wanted to follow in the footsteps of Vecna and become an evil god, but first I wanted a worldly empire, perhaps some sort of dark magocracy. And I saw the cleric as an excellent means to eliminate future enemies and gain strength. The idea is that an evil party lasts as long as its members believe that they benefit from its existance, don't organize a party based on fear, these generally don't last long.
Leap 06-25-03, 02:46 PM	Tzor - Evil is by definition selfish Arggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh! Evil is NOTHING to do with being selfish; it is about being devoid of mercy and compassion!
The One and Only... 06-25-03, 02:47 PM	No, that would be a possible aspect of neutrality.
Lord of the Ninth 06-25-03, 03:40 PM	Evil doesn't have to be selfish, after all my friends cleric of Erythnul did everything for his god, he never really asked for anything for himself, but he was very evil (probably killed hundreds of inocent people with those plagues and the riot, not to meantion the inocent 10-20 people we killed our selves, the rest didn't count though because they were also evil). However, evil is frequently selfish, my gnome was selfish, as is my Fated character. I'm trying to think of some other evil people who weren't selish, maybe Darth Vadar (sometimes). Is killing someone because it's fun selfish? Of course if that's true, is helping someone because it makes you feel good selfish?
Leap 06-26-03, 03:24 AM	TOAO – Neutral is not lacking mercy and compassion; neutral simple only offers such to “me an mine” as they are “are committed to others by personal relationships”. Evil is the one that holds weakness in contempt, has no mercy for failings and has no compassion for those who do not “measure up”. Lawful evil expresses this as an utter unwillingness to show mercy to anyone who turns from the path of honesty and reliability, whilst Chaotic evil expresses this as holding the weak to be the valid prey of the strong and stealthy.
Ahriman Tenebris 06-26-03, 04:14 AM	Originally posted by ShadeGirl I have a thing for the dark and evil. Does anyone else? I don't know what it is, but I enjoy playing evil characters. I love writing about evil characters, and I like roleplaying them. I like coming up with their histories, thoughts and quirks that cause them to progress in their cutt-throat ways, and every evil char I've come up with is entirely unique. Yes, most of them get along with the party...to an extent. Never has an evil char really disrupted the group, and in one instance I had an evil char gradually turn the rest of the party evilish by them witnessing his own ruthlessly efficient actions. My evil chars are often times people-persons with smiles just as bright as everyone elses. In general I find that I adore things that are dark, sad or tragic. Music, books or movies, you name it, if it has an artistically dark aura about it, I'll probably love it. It just touches something deep inside of me to the point where I feel drawn to it. I feel fascinated by darkness perhaps. If I was in star wars, I'd so be on the dark side of the force. Often, I've wondered what causes my kinship and interest in all things dark and evil, and I honestly can't come up with anything. Maybe because I am cynical and don't believe in absolute goodness. Perhaps because it is ingrained in me that everyone has an alternate agenda and is only truly looking out for themselves. It is easier for me to roleplay evil then good, because I feel I know it so well. Good seems false to me. Good appears phony. It sickens me how people doggedly think that a party of adventurers should get along no matter what. That they should be heros. Good heros. That there are never conflicts and dramas between certain party members that should be roleplayed or considered. In the strife and turmoil of adventuring, living closely beside companions there will be conflict. It is how life is. I think that adventurers should not have to conform to a static cliche to be 'heros'. They should be individuals. And that includes characters that are evil. This is not to say that evil is slashing, killing, murdering fools who can't get along with anyone. That is ridiculous and is a common misconception of evil characters. Evil chars are much more subtle. They have their own brand of compassions, feelings and fears and even, yes, friends. Evil characters who do not possess any of the above and are only destructive killing machines are not true characters. They are cardboard one dimensional morons and uninteresting to say the least. If an evil character is to be played, he should be played with all the depth and intricacy that a 'normal' character would be played, perhaps more. He is not evil 'to be evil' in many cases. He was not born that way. Evil characters are 'people' too. In how many cases are the villions remembered more then the hero's? Occasionally, you get the villion that *is* the hero. Thats my favorite kind. I agree with you wholeheartedly as does my entire group. There are many reasons for this, the first of which is all of us have played since 1E, and playing the same old cliche rehashed heroes deifintely gets old after awhile. An evil campaign does require mature roleplayers whom realize that evil characters can have complexity and subtlety in their personas and often have a great deal more than good characters. We have found that evil campaigns are more challenging, as the game itself is set up to give the forces of good the advantage, and offers numerous possiblities for more depth of character and roleplay. Furthermore, it is not exigent that an evil party bickers incesssantly either, evil characters are perfectly capable of conspiring towards a common goal and in fact evil parties often possess a level of focus and determination that good groups lack. In the end its all up to the group chemistry/composition as to whether they can pull off an evil campaign, I would recommend it more so for the advanced gamer. However, we have found that evil campaigns are every bit as rewarding as your standard campaign if not more so. We're starting a new campaign this weekend, and it will be an evil campaign. Entitled by the DM the "Weave War" I surmise the focus will be on the burgeoning conflict between the weave and shadow weave. I'll keep you posted on the campaign, my chars background summary is posted on this board if you'd care to give it a look.
Eagle Prince 06-26-03, 04:31 AM	I really like playing evil guys, and I am pretty sure I know why. I DM a lot, and so I get to play the evil dudes so much, I had to develop a love for it to enjoy DMing. I love writing too... I love a cool villian, so long as it is the villian. I don't like having the main guy evil. Not that I care if someone plays an evil character, or that I won't enjoy a novel where the main character is evil... its just not my style. I do love playing cool villains though, and I like to think I'm pretty good at it. I've had a few people tell me this character or that has been scary, so I guess I do an alright job with it. Anyway, that's my take on it.
Leap 06-26-03, 04:35 AM	It would be interesting to know what people actually mean when they say "evil" in here...............
Eagle Prince 06-26-03, 04:46 AM	Originally posted by Leap It would be interesting to know what people actually mean when they say "evil" in here............... When I say evil, I mean it in every sense of the word. That's why I like evil characters mostly as villains; you just arn't very heroic when you are evil to the core. Theft, murder, rape, lying, self-abuse, greed, revenge, hate... all of it. Not that every evil person does all or even most of them. Everyone is different, including villians. Each one will have his own reasons, what he feels about doing it (just because you do evil things doesn't mean you feel good about it or have no regrets). What defines evil is pretty objective, but the whys, hows, ifs are all subjective to each person. Theft is always evil, but why someone does it or how they feel about it (perhaps they have their own code on when it is alright and not alright to steal), it all depends on the character.
Leap 06-26-03, 08:54 AM	A lot of what you think of as 'Evil' seems to me to be more a matter of Chaotic Evil specifically
Tzor 06-26-03, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by Leap Evil is NOTHING to do with being selfish; it is about being devoid of mercy and compassion! Well actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with being selfish, because mercy and compassion is all about being selfless. Caring for others over caring for ones self. Once you no longer care for anyone else ... the only one left is yourself, thus you become selfish. Sometimes we assume a lukewarm idea of selfish, just like we assume a lukewarm idea of selfless good. The very evil person will easily kill another person to save his own life. This is selfish. The very good person will sacrifice his own life to save another. This is selfless.
Leap 06-26-03, 09:51 AM	Well actually it does. It has EVERYTHING to do with being selfish, because mercy and compassion is all about being selfless. Caring for others over caring for ones self. Once you no longer care for anyone else ... the only one left is yourself, thus you become selfish. Mercy and compassion are not about “Caring for others over caring for ones self”, they are about understanding that we make mistakes and that holding weakness in contempt is ludicrous given our nature. Evil sees weakness as contemptible; they are perfectionist. Lawful evil is perfectionist-ly honest and trustworthy (think, like I have said before, Inspector Javere from Les Mis’). Chaotic evil is a perfectionist-ly dishonest (a perfectionist predator, utterly untrustworthy and deceitful). Sometimes we assume a lukewarm idea of selfish, just like we assume a lukewarm idea of selfless good. The very evil person will easily kill another person to save his own life. This is selfish. The very good person will sacrifice his own life to save another. This is selfless. The whole selfish/selfless concept is potty anyway given that when a good person feels good about doing good they are being selfish. Evil is cruel. Evil is extremely harsh. Evil has no compassion for weakness and failings. In evil there is little if any place for redemption, forgiveness and atonement. These are the province of good. Good is not perfectionist but understands that “to err is human”. Good is comfortable with less preciseness.
The_Dark_One 06-26-03, 04:08 PM	I have always thought that mercy was a concept dreamed up by evil people who knew they would need it at some point. A good person should do the right thing regardless of personal consequences, and sometimes people have to die. A truly good person will kill the unrepentant monster and live with the guilt. The evil person, will appeal to compassion, all the while planning the next attrocity. Example, the pcs have been chasing an evil priest who has been scarificing young grils to an evil god. The hack through his zombie army, defeat his mercenary guard, and even destroy the foul priests and wizards of his inner circle. They finally subdue him after an extended battle in which the group's halfling rogue is killed horribly. After questioning the fiend, they discover why he has been doing it. A servant of the evil god put a terrible curse on the once good priest's daughter. She sickened and died. The demon servant then took her soul. The evil god offered to restore her if he would sacrifice one thousand maidens in the god's honor. The priest begs the pcs to spare his life. All he has done, he did out of love for his daughter. It should be obvious that if he gets free, the killings wikk start again, the man is mad with grief. The paladin of the group wants to take him back to the church elders to decide his fate. This would mean many days journey where this monster could escape. In the end, the paladin is distracted with preparing the halfling's body for transport and the fighter quietly cuts the priest's throat. Where is the good here? Where is the evil? THose of you who have read Discworld will remeber Granny Weatherwax saying that being good doesn't always mean that your nice. :cool: Guess its in the eye of the: :behold:
Lord of the Ninth 06-26-03, 04:18 PM	Perfectionism isn't an evil trait, if anything it's a lawful trait. You can be a good and also be a perfectionist, you can be neutral and be a perfectionist. The difference between an LG perfectionist and an LE perfectionist is that the LE will most likely kill the flawed ones, whereas an LG would not. The evil is not in perfectionism. Evil is a lack of respect for the sanctity of the lives of others. It is a willingness to kill others irregardless of what they have done to you or others. You of course don't need to kill someone to show a great lack of respect for their life, this is why slavery, rape, and torture are also acts of evil. Evil can be unforgiving, and frequently is, however Good can be just as unforgiving (dwarves for example). So evil: murder, slavey, rape, and torture. Good: Self sacrifice for the sake of others, compassion towards those in need, going out of the way to prevent evil. Chaos: desire for freedom, acceptance of change, problems with authority. (I also consider theft, gambling and vandalism to be chaotic, but some people might consider these neutral or evil). Lawful: Respect for order and authority, desire to keep the status quo, codependance. (I would also put perfectionism here, but that could also be a neutral or evil trait). Neutral: Either a passion of maintaining balance, or a lack of interest in good, evil, law and chaos. Neutrality prefers the company of good, but mostly because they won't stab you without good reason. Also, remember every rule as an exception, good can be greedy (dwarves, dragons), chaos and understand the need for order, law can understand freedom, and evil can still have friends.
Leap 06-27-03, 04:45 AM	Dark One – I have always thought that mercy was a concept dreamed up by evil people who knew they would need it at some point. What a strange idea! Mercy, compassion and forgiveness are simply an understanding that “to err is human (or elf or whatever)”. The priest begs the pcs to spare his life. All he has done, he did out of love for his daughter. It should be obvious that if he gets free, the killings wikk start again, the man is mad with grief. The paladin of the group wants to take him back to the church elders to decide his fate. This would mean many days journey where this monster could escape. In the end, the paladin is distracted with preparing the halfling's body for transport and the fighter quietly cuts the priest's throat. Where is the good here? Where is the evil? Mercy REQUIRES contrition and remorse. Its purpose is redemption, to give others the second chance we would all like (and that to deny we would threaten the very basis of a sound and healthy society), but if the other is not willing to embrace this and turn away from evil, then mercy will only let a monster go free. Good is the possibility of mercy, not the absolute expectation of it. Lord of the Ninth – Perfectionism isn't an evil trait, if anything it's a lawful trait. You can be a good and also be a perfectionist, you can be neutral and be a perfectionist. The difference between an LG perfectionist and an LE perfectionist is that the LE will most likely kill the flawed ones, whereas an LG would not. The evil is not in perfectionism I disagree. Good accepts failings and weaknesses as part of the whole deal, but seeks redemption for mistakes, whilst evil sees weakness as something deserving only of contempt. They are the epitome of ‘Perfectionist’; weakness and failure is unforgivable. Good: Self sacrifice for the sake of others, compassion towards those in need, going out of the way to prevent evil No, no, no, no, NO! ;) Willingness to make personal sacrifices is NOT the same as “self-sacrificing”. Good is about recognising that we all fail at some point and that agreeing with each other to support each other should (when!) we fall, supports the sociality that we all value (being, in general, social critters). Ok so I suppose that is a LG interpretation more than a pure good one, but I think it is carried over well enough……….. Evil can be unforgiving, and frequently is, however Good can be just as unforgiving (dwarves for example). Good is not always forgiving, it simply offers the chance of forgiveness in return for contrition. Evil does not even offer the chance. Evil is not rape and pillage, that is more Chaotic Evil; Lawful Evil is scrupulously honest but utterly without mercy for failings. Chaotic Good meanwhile, is as dishonest as Chaotic Evil (dishonesty being a Chaotic trait, not an evil one – if you disagree, read the PHB on “Law” and “Neutrality” as well as “Chaos”) and so would see no problems with, say, slipping a drug into a girl’s drink to seduce her but should the girl fall pregnant, their generosity would kick in and have them leave “gifts” for the girl to help her…..just as a few examples.
Lord of the Ninth 06-27-03, 04:43 PM	Lawful evil is much more than someone who is honest and cannot except failure, these traits do not put on the same level as the person who murders, rapes, and tortures people. The lawful evil person also has either an evil purpose, or an evil way of getting there, or boths. You can be a perfectionist without killing all those who aren't perfect, you just end up doing almost everything yourself, or telling people to stop as soon as they fail and then getting someone else to do it, this isn't evil. Lawful evil is when someone is using the law to do something it was not intended to, usually hurting their enemies or helping them. These are your very corrupt politicians, your tyrants etc. This is not your english teacher (it can be, but they would have to fairly abberrant). Just because someone is a murderer doesn't mean they're CE, as long as they can murder someone within the law, or through it, they can be lawful. For example, getting someone on trumped charges and then arranging evidence so it looks like someone committed a big crime (like murder), and then they are executed for this. This is murder, it's also LE murder.
Henchcritter 06-27-03, 09:29 PM	I humbly disagree with Lord of the Ninth. Look lawful up in the PHB, it doesn't mention the term "the law". But back on topic *humbly bows and joins this group of closet darkness likers.* I too like darkness. Since I'm a nice person that enjoys helping others I'm not scared of it. I'm far more scared of people that join my campaigns. They find the nasty and evil NPCs far better and cooler then the non-evil ones. But the real nasty feeling comes when I let people play in one of my LE one-shots. The people often find out that: 1) The group works better together and is more motivated then a mixed good one. 2) They discover that they role-play better then usual. 3) They discover that they are very inventive when it comes to doing evil. 4) They enjoy every second of it. How can people get out of touch with themselves?
Sir Neil 06-27-03, 11:17 PM	For those interested in real evil, I recommend House of Secrets by L. Cauffiel and Whoever Fights Monsters, by R. Ressler.
Lord of the Ninth 06-28-03, 08:21 PM	I would assume that the reason "Lawful" is called such would have something to do with laws, I could be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure. By law of course this can mean any rule, code, or similar thing. However, I think the whole thing works better if you just look at very specific things and say "yes this is evil/good/lawful/chaotic". So I'll stop arguing about the definition (well after this last bit).
Xixt412 06-28-03, 09:08 PM	Originally posted by Leap Lawful evil is perfectionist-ly honest and trustworthy The problem with alignment as described in the PHB is that lawful evil is not nearly as evil as choatic evil. If you take online alignment quizzes and try to simply answer each question as evilly as possible you will generally end up as CE more often than LE. To me a truely LE villian is a cold and calculated organized person. His methods and goals are orderly in nature, generally involving becoming some sort of ruler or power behind the throne. When his allies are of no further use to him, he kills them unless it would be more convienent to let him live. He prefers to use the law to eliminate his enemies for him, but has no compunction against breaking the law himself if it would further his ends. A LE henchman is almost always more loyal and reliable than a CE one, as LE people are more likely to side with authority (even though its only for their own benefit) than CE people.
Mysteris 06-29-03, 06:17 AM	Personally, I enjoy the temptation aspect of evil. I have a preference for Chaotic Neutral characters myself, so (depending on personality), they could swing towards evil or good. A truly well-done PC can corrupt a party, like ShadeGirl said. I'm curious. What do you think gets people to equate evil with chaotic stupid?
Henchcritter 06-29-03, 07:32 AM	*Humbly agrees to disagree with lord of the ninth.* My insignificant answer to Mysteris' question, these two behaviors: GM: You're entering a crowded tavern. SE PC: I order a drink. Bartender (NPC) : that's three copperpieces please SE PC: That's too much, I kill bartender, select a table to finish my drink. GM: Some armed guys enter the tavern, lead by a peasant who points at you. Player: after a long fight that killed his SE character: But GM that wasn't fair, those guards were way too strong. GM: So you made a rogue, after the barbarian killed your wizard that tried to fireball the barbarian after a dispute about prisoners. SE player: Yes this is an entire new PC. *some time passes * SE: I take first guard. GM: You're guard passes without any incident. SE: Not entirely, that barbarian snores too loud so I'll coup de grace him. I don't belief LE would kill his allies once he's done with them. If you get a reoutation that your allies often disappear, you're permanently out of them. Besides, sometimes you just may need the same allie twice. LE is far more evil then CE. A lawful person is quite capable to lead persons, sometimes a whole nation. So in that case he may turn a peaceful nation into an aggressive beehive. Such a nation can cause far more evil then a single individual can.
ShadeGirl 06-29-03, 03:15 PM	LE is far more evil then CE. A lawful person is quite capable to lead persons, sometimes a whole nation. So in that case he may turn a peaceful nation into an aggressive beehive. Such a nation can cause far more evil then a single individual can. I agree with this. I remember reading in a dragon magazine not too long ago, that CE was the perverbial 'wildchild' capable of a wide range of emotions, even compassion and love. I think I also read in that same article that LE was cold and aloof, not willing to reveal any weakness (i.e love, compassion) that could be used by his enemies against him. I'll try to find the article and quote it properly.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-29-03, 06:14 PM	Often, I've wondered what causes my kinship and interest in all things dark and evil, and I honestly can't come up with anything. Maybe because I am cynical and don't believe in absolute goodness. Perhaps because it is ingrained in me that everyone has an alternate agenda and is only truly looking out for themselves. It is easier for me to roleplay evil then good, because I feel I know it so well. Good seems false to me. Good appears phony. I feel the same way. People always talk about evil PCs as if they were mindless killers. They neve talk about the guy who has just decided that the 'path of light' is not for him. Especially CE. Noone thinks evil can be smart anymore. the stereotyping of the adventurers as good and just heros and nothing else bothered me alot after I really got into the game. Like you, I also get into the darker type characters (like my namesake character) I find nothing wrong with this, and run my games in a grey world. Its not about wheither you are good or evil, its all about getting off you advetnturous can and doing something... Epic. More power to the dark side, Shadegirl.
Henchcritter 06-29-03, 07:15 PM	My worthles view on evil and being stupid: An evil PC has to be smarter then a good one. The only place a good character usually is in danger is on a quest. Evil character must always be careful. Killing innocents leaves bloodstains on your hand. Servants of good may recognize these. And in D&D the death do tell tales. Any running in with a paladin can be lethal. Being stupid is a luxury an evil PC can't effort.
Leap 06-30-03, 04:37 AM	In 3rd edition DnD, Good in intricately entangled with lawfulness and evil is intricately entangled with chaos. The values of each coincide with the other. In good, ongoing community is valued through the embracing of forgiveness and giving folks a “second chance”, whilst in lawful is valued through the embracing of honesty, honor and forthrightness. Evil meanwhile gives no regard to ongoing community (as can be seen in its icy lack of forgiveness for weakness and failings), a move that has much in common with chaos’ embracing of dishonesty, weaseliness and lack of concern for honor. Both good and law are about building an ongoing community (through recognising that such is better served by honesty (Law) and the capacity to forgive (Good)), whilst both chaos and evil are the mindsets of short-term, narrow focus benefit that gives little of no regard for wider concerns and issues (as can be seen in the short-term expediency of both dishonesty (Chaos) and intolerance of weakness (Evil)). Think of alignment in terms of a diamond rather than a square, with LG at the top, allied with LN and NG all on the side of Community. On the bottom we then find CE, allied with CN and NE all on the side of casting aside Community. Leaving the “in the middle” alignments of N and its ‘allies’ LE and CG! So whilst I would not say “evil is stupid” (evil bods often have exceptional power in the short-term) they are foolish because they fail to consider the fuller picture (just like “reckless” chaotics)..
Lord of the Ninth 06-30-03, 12:38 PM	Leap, I'm pretty sure now that forgiveness is CG, and refusing to forgive is LE. Evil can frequently build communities, however these tend to be communities that start with good (or at least non-evil) people being ruled by someone evil. In general these work best if the evil one disguises their alignment and intentions. Firsth they focus their evil outwards away from their own nation, by planting evidence of great wrong-doing in nearby countries, and always ones they think they can defeat. Or they can simply claim "manifest destiny", that works too. Then after they have an empire they either use it rule the world with an iron fist, fund their magical research, use its resources to find people they can kill for fun, or some similar such thing. Er, whoops, ok so this is more of a plan to take over the world than an example of an evil community, why does that always happen?;) [note to self, use plan] As to the stupidity of evil, I have often come into conflict with this one. Evil is, if anything, smarter than good. Because if an evil person doesn't commit an evil act because it might get them killed (for example, killed the baby infront of the palladin or whatever), it doesn't matter, they don't suffer from somesort of "reverse conscious". Nope I can be nice and polite and follow all the rules, right up until I can stab you in the back without a single witness. This is how Krinzl (KRIN-zul) acted when he was around a community, he would never openly commit acts of evil. [In fact, when our group decimated a gnome city, Krinzl was the only one who could completely escape punishment]. Evil can be brilliant, and when it is, it always has an alibi, t was always 'somewhere else' whenever someone dies. Smart evil knows better than to step on the paladin's toes. Smart evil also tends to disguise its alignment when ever in mixed company or when dealing with spellcasters. If evil is smart no one realises it's ever there at all.
Leap 06-30-03, 02:56 PM	LOTN – Leap, I'm pretty sure now that forgiveness is CG, and refusing to forgive is LE. I do not think I said otherwise; however, good has more in common with law than it does with chaos (both good and law are about building community, whilst both chaos and evil are set against community – LE and CG contain two opposing concepts within them….in the case of CG those are community pro good and community anti chaos…………and vice versa for LE). Evil can frequently build communities, I do not entirely agree or disagree; evil itself is a fundamentally anti-community principle [lack of understanding of failings is not high up there in the “builds trust and intimacy” stakes ;) ] however, when blended with Law (a pro-community principle) it can actually build something resembling a community (if you think Megacity 1 under the rule of Judge Dread actually counts as a “community”!). however these tend to be communities that start with good (or at least non-evil) people being ruled by someone evil. In general these work best if the evil one disguises their alignment and intentions. First they focus their evil outwards away from their own nation, by planting evidence of great wrong-doing in nearby countries, and always ones they think they can defeat. Again, this is not evil per se (no concern for weakness and failings here……….) but sounds more chaotic (or at least non-lawful) in its dishonesty. Remember, alignment does not cover everything…….[that sounded a bit arrogant…sorry!) Or they can simply claim "manifest destiny", that works too. Then after they have an empire they either use it rule the world with an iron fist, fund their magical research, use its resources to find people they can kill for fun, or some similar such thing. Er, whoops, ok so this is more of a plan to take over the world than an example of an evil community, why does that always happen? [note to self, use plan] Exactree. Evil is no more good at making communities than chaotic is. Chaotic ‘communities’ tend to be warm and welcoming but lack honesty and reliability, making them fall apart shortly. Evil tends to have a stable basis but falls apart under challenges when it is clear that failure meats with cruelty rather than understanding. As to the stupidity of evil, I have often come into conflict with this one. Evil is, if anything, smarter than good. I disagree. Evil is smart in the narrow picture but foolish in the fuller one. Evil is the bod who in seeking to save a village makes a deal with a devil to sell the souls of the children of the village……………..a case of “er? Duh!” if ever there was one :) Evil (and chaos for that mater) brings gains that are empty because they bring gains that have only a superficial resonance with the human heart. Both are a small picture, short sighted approach that fails to fully consider what it actually means to be human (as can be seen in the above example). This is why the classic temptation to evil is through power – power comes through specialisation and excessive specialisation brings massive power but at a loss of a fuller picture. It gradually nibbles into the soul in return for the power that comes from a narrower focus. We see it in the workaholic executive who, in the desire to get more power (often for apparently good aims – housing his family for example) ends up losing his family by becoming obsessed with the work to the degree that he forgets what he is working for and starts to think that he lives to work rather than works to live.
Henchcritter 06-30-03, 08:15 PM	I do not think I said otherwise; however, good has more in common with law than it does with chaos (both good and law are about building community, whilst both chaos and evil are set against community – LE and CG contain two opposing concepts within them….in the case of CG those are community pro good and community anti chaos…………and vice versa for LE). Although I'm, as a puny henchcritter, almost certain wrong on this, I disagree. Perhaps it's the time, but because we live at the present in an society where the induvidual is strong and society is weak, we only see the disadvantages of this system. When we look back at the times when society ruled the individual we tend to suffer from the nostalgia, if we even can remember those times. At one time in Holland, prior to WW2 we had a situation called "verzuiling", which I translate with pillarization. Society was divided into neat pillars. These pillars would take care of there own people. Sound pretty structured and lawful. The benefits of the system were simple. If you were weak for a reason, the pillar would help you. Also the pillar made sure that you were under social surveillance (possible bad translation). This meant that crime was low and you could walk the street and feel safe. You could say that the old and needy were better of with this system However there were also losers. You went into the area of another pillar, tough luck. You were in love with somebody from another pillar, tougher luck. You were gay, tough luck. You were Jew, gypsy or other non-native, tough luck. If you don't belief the dogmas of the pillar, tough luck, my granddad found that out. The strange thing is that the losers of the old system were the winners of the modern one and the winners of the old system are the present losers. I can't say I find any system the more people friendly. I would also like to point at George Orwell's 1984. This book has its roots in the real world. The society is very lawful. Everything in that society is lawful. One society and one thought, can it get more lawful then that? Still it is as evil as any chaotic world I can think of.
Lord of the Ninth 06-30-03, 11:46 PM	LE is your totalitarian governments. Don't tell me evil is self defeating and never lasts long in power, history disagrees. Histories longest lasting emppires committed many acts of evil (Rome practiced slavery, watched people kill each other for fun and started wars to help its financial situation). Many Roman officials were Lawful evil, sure they also had lawful good and chaotic good people, and of course chaotic evil folks too, but LE had great presence. Saddam Husein, did many things that would be considered LE (maybe CE/NE too, I'm not an expert), but he stayed in power for an exceptionally long time, a similar story with Fidel Castro (how old is that guy?). Egypt is one of the worlds oldest nations, and it has had its share of LE rulers too. Law and evil can go together very nicely. We simply associate law with good because quite frankly we live in lawful societies. It's true, odds are if you have a computer you live in a lawful society. That means the people running your country have an interest in you believing that we need laws, that laws help people and that breaking the law is bad. It is also no coincidence that the laws of most nations have a very close connection to the domminant religions of that country. For example, in the US our founding fathers were almost entirely Christens of some sort, so our laws are almost entirely based on the principle of christianity. Because our religion also determines what we believe is right (and what we believe is right also determines our religion), we agree with most of our laws. In general law is better for people than chaos, in a lawful society people live longer. However, there is still the matter of chaos being evil (or at least more evil). Chaos is not just anarchy, it is also freedom. Chaos is change, which can be good or bad. In general societies without chaos become stagnant and obsolete, they don't last very long either. Because chaos allows us to see that a different way might be better, we need chaos to progress. Of course won't argue with you that D&D tends to protray law as being superior to chaos from a moral prospective.
JusticeZero 07-01-03, 04:06 AM	Originally posted by Lord of the Ninth For example, in the US our founding fathers were almost entirely Christens of some sort, so our laws are almost entirely based on the principle of christianity.(pet peeve on) Uhm, no. George Washington didn't go to church and generally made priests pull their hair, Jefferson, Franklin and several others were deists, who believed that there was a God who wound the universe up then walked away and was never seen or heard from again - Deism is where the term "Nature's God" comes from as is found in the Bill of Rights. Several of the most often used version of the Commandments are meaningless or at odds with our legal code - for instance, our legal system requires an actual criminal act, at odds of the proscription against Coveting.. and 'freedom of religion' certainly defies "thou shalt not have any gods before me'. "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Messelmen, --and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever interupt the harmony existing betweenthe two countries"--Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, Article XI, written by Joel Barlow (USA diplomat) and Hassan Bashaw (of Algers), late during George Washington's second term and later ratified by President John Adams. Original and copies preserved in the national Archives in Washington, DC. under Treaty series no.358. Official Senate treaty found in the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II p. 18-19. "Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America" vol.2, edited by Hunter Miller, US. Government printing office, 1931, p.349-385. Anyways, as far as religion being added to your argument, I find it wholly unnecessary. In addition, the laws of other "Christian" nations are not found to differ to any intelligible degree from the laws of non-Abrahamic-religion based nations. When one enters a country with fully secular laws, wrong does not become right. We do not lead the world in morality, nor do we lag behind, and the correlation is not present. I have encountered those who consider themselves amoral and lacking in religious guidance, and they are among the most highly respected (as regards trustworthiness) people around according to many. They ignore the laws entirely, however, they avoid doing foolish things which would inspire a defensive reaction from people, and this happens to correlate with the laws as a rule.
Leap 07-01-03, 04:45 AM	Hench Critter Perhaps it's the time, but because we live at the present in an society where the individual is strong and society is weak, we only see the disadvantages of this system. When we look back at the times when society ruled the individual we tend to suffer from the nostalgia, if we even can remember those times. You are perhaps confusing 2nd edition Lawfulness (Institutionalised power as having higher priority than personal agency) with 3rd edition Lawfulness (Honesty and reliability)? At one time in Holland, prior to WW2 we had a situation called "verzuiling", which I translate with pillarization. Society was divided into neat pillars. These pillars would take care of there own people. Sound pretty structured and lawful. Lawful, like I said, is not about heavy duty structure. It is about honesty, trustworthiness and conservativeness (with a SMALL ‘c’) - (making it perhaps inappropriately labelled as “Law”-“ful”….). I would also like to point at George Orwell's 1984. This book has its roots in the real world. The society is very lawful. Everything in that society is lawful. One society and one thought, can it get more lawful then that? Still it is as evil as any chaotic world I can think of. Because it did not accept weakness and failings (which must by its nature include some level of variety and diversity). LG embraces a certain level of diversity although is basically conservative at heart, whilst LE is the “hard fast line” with no give. LOTN – LE is your totalitarian governments. Don't tell me evil is self defeating and never lasts long in power, history disagrees. Histories longest lasting empires committed many acts of evil (Rome practiced slavery, watched people kill each other for fun and started wars to help its financial situation). Many Roman officials were Lawful evil, sure they also had lawful good and chaotic good people, and of course chaotic evil folks too, but LE had great presence LE does indeed build empires that last, but they are empty empires that have crumbled on the inside, leaving a hollow edifice of power largely devoid of any larger meaning. They get a lot of power to do a few things but end up loosing the things that give any amount of power any meaning. They are cold unwelcoming places that are epitomised, in dnd terms, by the wall made up of godless dead in FR (structure without soul). We simply associate law with good because quite frankly we live in lawful societies No, we associate law with good because good has more in common with law than it does with chaos. Both seek to build community, but both are needed to build a sound community. Law without good is cold and unwelcoming, turning on itself in its zeal for ‘perfection’. Good without law is dishonest and unreliable, breaking down the bounds of trust needed for a community to continue. Saddam Hussein, did many things that would be considered LE (maybe CE/NE too, I'm not an expert), but he stayed in power for an exceptionally long time, a similar story with Fidel Castro (how old is that guy?). Egypt is one of the worlds oldest nations, and it has had its share of LE rulers too Without going too far into RL politics [the elves behind the scenes get jumpy if we stray too far from fantasy………hmmmm sounds like much of RL :smirk: ] SH is not the epitome of honesty and honor that lawfulness demands. He is far more the NE or CE even. That said, he remained in power by exceptional brinkmanship (there is no way the guy is the dull witted thug western media like to make him out to be). there is still the matter of chaos being evil (or at least more evil). Chaos is not just anarchy, it is also freedom. Chaos is change, which can be good or bad. In general societies without chaos become stagnant and obsolete, they don't last very long either. Because chaos allows us to see that a different way might be better, we need chaos to progress Chaos is not Evil; they are two different things, yet they are both fundamentally opposed to community, which is why they team up well together. Law and good are more compatible, whilst chaos and evil are more compatible. Societies that place a lower value on community tend to be more inclined to “progress” and a general linear, short-sighted approach to life that has little concern for ongoing relationships. These values are exemplified by CE through Chaos’ dishonesty (which is a good tactic to use when you will not have an ongoing relationship with someone – the “screw ‘em blind and leg-it” approach) and “'Chaos' impl[ying] freedom, adaptability, and flexibility” and through Evil’s lack of concern for compassion and repentance (not allowing people to learn and grow from mistakes but instead condemning weakness because ‘the ongoing’ means nothing to them). Strangely this attitude is the one that brings bureaucracy with it (from the linear and short-sighted approach)! Societies that place a great value on community tend to more inclined to conservatism (slow change only) and a general cyclical, wider integrative approach to life that holds ongoing relationships in greater value. These values are exemplified by LG through Lawful’s honesty and tendency to “honor tradition” and through Good’s allowance for the fact that “to err is human” (allowing space for repentance and forgiveness). LE and CG hedge their bets, the former trying to make an honest society without allowing for failings, weakness and variety (measuring all by one hard standard – like I said before, think Judge Dread (no NOT the film ‘version’), the Honor killing approach of Sharia Law, or Inspector Javere (Les Mis’)), whilst the latter are trying to make a welcoming and understanding society but embracing unreliability, betrayal and dishonesty as a way of life (think of the “free love hippy crowd”).
Henchcritter 07-01-03, 11:06 AM	Lawful, like I said, is not about heavy duty structure. It is about honesty, trustworthiness and conservativeness (with a SMALL ‘c’) - (making it perhaps inappropriately labelled as “Law”-“ful”….). I beg your pardon, which I'm not worthy, but lawful is also about obedience to authority, close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalism and a lack of adaptation. In short, nearly all of these terms weaken the freedom (chaotic keyword) of the individual and strengthen the community. And we all can agree that lawful is not about the law (although lawful characters are more likely to see the benefits of written laws.) lawfulness is more about the unwritten laws. I do notice you putted two positive terms in your quote and one neutral. The ugly face of lawfulness shines because of absence.
Leap 07-01-03, 11:29 AM	Hench Critter – lawful is also about obedience to authority, close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalism and a lack of adaptation. In short, nearly all of these terms weaken the freedom (chaotic keyword) of the individual and strengthen the community. I agree; although the freedom of chaos is the freedom not to keep your word or be honest………so not exactly what we generally have in mind when we say freedom (we usually think of freedom, or at least liberty, as being free from undue interference by others). Real freedom (liberty) is what you get for obeying the basic tenets of lawful goodness (honesty, trustworthiness, honor, reliability, forthrightness, tempering punishment with mercy and forgiveness, repentance when wrong, ) because if you obey those basic tenets you get a blend of community life with the understanding that no one has the right to interfere in your life. False freedom (licence – chaotic “freedom”) is what you get when you abandon honesty and honor for betrayal and cheating. The first is the freedom of the man who does not wrong and thus warrants no interference. The second is the freedom of the man who does as he will regardless. And we all can agree that lawful is not about the law (although lawful characters are more likely to see the benefits of written laws.) lawfulness is more about the unwritten laws. I agree; an illiterate society could still be lawful (although writing down a basic code of conduct is a good way to keep it to mind and hand). I do notice you putted two positive terms in your quote and one neutral. The ugly face of lawfulness shines because of absence. Not really. I am perfectly willing to ‘admit’ that Lawfulness is far less accepting of change (in a healthy lawful society change is slow and gradual, like human aging, whilst in an unhealthy lawful society change is frozen into a debilitating ice-block).
griffen132 07-01-03, 11:12 PM	Shade girl, Maybe you have this fascination with evil because you are...... a bit lacking in morals yourself? I find no Problem with this and am kind of shocked by the bigoted response of everyone else posting. Just because someone admits to have a liking for evil every now and then in a fantasy game is no cause to be “scared” by that person. It’s not reason to try to redefine what it is she likes that you don’t have to deal with the possibility of a non-conformist (gasp). If someone likes to indulge a fantasy in a game or two not harm done but, it’s much more enjoyable to do it in real life.
ShadeGirl 07-02-03, 12:44 AM	Shade girl, Maybe you have this fascination with evil because you are...... a bit lacking in morals yourself? I find no Problem with this and am kind of shocked by the bigoted response of everyone else posting. Its cool. :cool: Everyone has been very courteous with their posts, which was what I really wanted. As for my morals, well...lets try to leave them out of it, but I assure you they aren't so bad. ;) I'm enjoying following the thoughtful discussion here also, by the way. Good insights by everyone. :)
Leap 07-02-03, 04:21 AM	Griffen – I … am kind of shocked by the bigoted response of everyone else posting. Just because someone admits to have a liking for evil every now and then in a fantasy game is no cause to be “scared” by that person. It’s not reason to try to redefine what it is she likes that you don’t have to deal with the possibility of a non-conformist (gasp). If someone likes to indulge a fantasy in a game or two not harm done but, it’s much more enjoyable to do it in real life. :eek: So now it is “bigoted” to say that evil is wrong because that would be to criticise a “non-conformist”?! What utter, unfathomable, nonsense! :teach: :) Griffen, when people approach evil as a form of pornography (that is, getting a kick out of it in itself rather than simply playing an impressive villain) THAT is a dangerous perspective to take despite it being in a “fantasy” environment. If you think that it is bigoted to say “cruelty and dishonesty are bad” then I am afraid you are in serious need of a values transplant! Shadey – “Its cool. ” :)
ShadeGirl 07-02-03, 07:44 AM	Posted by Leap: Griffen, when people approach evil as a form of pornography (that is, getting a kick out of it in itself rather than simply playing an impressive villain) :) Actually I think I figured out that I don't like 'evil' or 'darkness' as much as I like 'edginess', if that makes sense. I like things to be intense when I play D&D...even the very word *intense* sounds intense. :cool: So I play intense characters, and more often then not they tend to be (alignment wise) neutral or evil. Since my DM doesn't dwell too much on alignment, I feel rather free. Also I believe that most people on Earth today are neutralish, at least from my perspective. I think it would be fun to play a fanatically good person as long as they were...sort of edgy. Hehe...sometimes I don't feel like I've played a good game of D&D unless my poor character stresses me out in some way. :) Its fun in its own way. :cool: -ShadeGirl
Leap 07-02-03, 09:21 AM	Hiya Shadey – Actually I think I figured out that I don't like 'evil' or 'darkness' as much as I like 'edginess', if that makes sense. I like things to be intense when I play D&D...even the very word *intense* sounds intense. So I play intense characters, and more often then not they tend to be (alignment wise) neutral or evil. Since my DM doesn't dwell too much on alignment, I feel rather free. That makes a lot more sense Shade Girl :) I do have problems with the “Evil! Kewl!” attitude often found in RPGers (especially the younger ones) and think that when this is directed at genuinely evil practices can be subtly damaging. I do not think hey are likely to take up axes and hack their class mates apart but I do see a coldness creeping into their general attitude that I find worrisome. Also I believe that most people on Earth today are neutralish, at least from my perspective. I think it would be fun to play a fanatically good person as long as they were...sort of edgy. Hehe...sometimes I don't feel like I've played a good game of D&D unless my poor character stresses me out in some way. Its fun in its own way. ‘bet ya really like roller coasters too :o) I agree that most folks today are neutral (they fluctuate between being forgiving and unforgiving, and between being honest and dishonest).
ShadeGirl 07-05-03, 07:58 AM	‘bet ya really like roller coasters too :o) Of course! :) That makes a lot more sense Shade Girl I probably should have not necessarily used the word 'evil' to begin with, but the reason I started this thread was to try and decipher the root of my fascination and its causes and to see if anyone else felt the same way. It turned out alright. :cool: -ShadeGirl
Rysellan 07-05-03, 07:17 PM	It is my belief that the attractiveness of evil in RPing stems from a sort of admiration for the freedom and directness that the evil character is able to exercise, as well as their sense of determination. A character who is pragmatic and does what needs to be done may well be evil in the roleplaying framework, because so much that occurs is of life-or-death importance, and "you gotta do what you gotta do". This lies I believe in a very narrow view of the good and neutral alignments. If a character is ruthlessly ambitious, but not necessarily murderous or even hurtful, that character may be seen as evil, when perhaps neutral would be more appropriate. And who says good cannot be vengeful or retributive? Would it really be so strange for extraordinary circumstances to cause a character to act "out of alignment"? Is it evil to kill out of desperation or self-defense, and then hide from authority? Yes. Does it make someone evil, and would an action of this type automatically cause alignment change? I don't think so.
Lord of the Ninth 07-06-03, 02:47 AM	Killing in self defense isn't evil, not by a long shot. As a matter of fact, in the D&D world, it could even be a good act (provided that you were fairly certain it wasn't just you they wanted to kill). As hiding from the authorities, that isn't evil either, depending on the nature of the authorities. If your in a place with laws similar to those in America all alignment aside that's silly, killing in self defense isn't a criminal act. If your in a place where all killing is illegal (if the person you killed isn't subject to the same laws you are), then you are simply protecting yourself, which is not evil either. The act of hiding is never evil. The act of killing in slef defense isn't either. Neither of these are good acts (but see above), so I fail to see your point. There are a surprisingly large number of ways you can kill someone and not be evil, there are more if you are evil, but still. Killing in self defense: neutral. Killing to defend others: Neutral, although of course killing good people is still evil. Killing someone who is evil is a good act (if they are very evil). That reminds me, we really ought to have degrees of alignment. I mean, isn't a wizard who killed a thousand innocent people for fun, more evil than the paladin who put on a funny hat? (helm of alter alignment), but when pally no. 2 comes along and whips out the old "vilemeter" they both just show as "evil". Something ought to be done about this.
Elemir Hin 07-06-03, 03:36 PM	i always thought that the contrast between George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino in "From Dusk till Dawn" was a good example of the extremes within the evil umbrella i dont know if i would go so far as to call Seth LE and Richie CE but it works in some ways
Leap 07-07-03, 07:37 AM	On the subject of “silly hats” (HOOA) I have always refused these in my campaigns (preferring evil aligned items that corrupt slowly rather “Zap! You’re Evil!”). On the matter of shades of evil, there already is a bit of a precedent for this in the ol’ Paladins Handbook, however is this necessary in a roleplaying context [beyond the “there is something so evil in the next room you can feel it without even trying” warnings that say “come back next level” :) ]? I do wish WOTC would sort out what good, evil, law and chaos actually mean in the game, as, from the contradictions in the PHB and with other core tomes…………….the PHB suggests that law is about honesty and trustworthiness whilst BOVD and Defenders of Faith head back to the 2nd edition line of this being a thing for good whilst law is about being part of a structure……in fact BOVD goes so far as to suggest evil should be only for the truly vile and abusive; having good to evil being a kind of “humanity” scale………… Bring back a more 2nd ed approach with its “good is honest, charitable and forthright” and “law is promoting of living in a heavily institutionally controlled society” (with evil and chaos being the literal opposites – chaos preferring a society where institutions are kept small and few, evil being a matter of habitually dishonest and weasely and opposed to sharing). PLEASE!
Mikal 07-07-03, 11:00 AM	Evil's fun. Evil allows me to blow off steam, be melodramatic, and hell, just ham it up and chew the scenery. When I play evil as a player the DM loves me, because he knows that I'll be keeping the party (my group is notorious for playing CG, cept for one that likes to be an assassin every now and then, heh) busy while he weaves his little tale with my 'assistance'. Sure odds are I'll lose. I'm one against however many pc's are there. But hey, I get to have fun, let loose, and every once in awhile, get mine back, ya know? So yeah, I have a thing for evil. S'long as it isn't selling used horses. I HATE horse traders.
Leap 07-07-03, 11:11 AM	Playing a "bad guy" can be fun, but that is hardly the same as "enjoying evil".....................
Lord of the Ninth 07-07-03, 04:13 PM	I don't think lying should be inherently evil, like in Harry Potter, book five, the order is a clandestine organization and must therefore lie to protect its interests. However they are most certainly good, and not made less so by the lies. Likewise the ministry is either LN or LE (Umbridge is LE). I don't care if WOTC thinks that lying is evil, it's not, chaotic maybe, but mostly it's just a means to an end. Sorta like necromancy. That reminds me, isn't illusion evil because it's basically lying? And can't we all agree that enchantment is the vilest of all magics because it takes away free will?
Leap 07-08-03, 07:12 AM	LOTN – Going from the 2nd edition definition of good (which is my stated preference, and I have yet to see why WOTC chose to change it in 3rd edition!) it is not lying that is evil, but habitual dishonesty, weaseliness, bad-sportsmanship, one-upmanship and a refusal to share (evil being described as the antithesis of good, and good is described as being habitually honest, charitable and forthright). An evil person is marked by the habitual preference in their behaviour for cheating, betrayal, treachery, weaseliness and a refusal to share. It is naturally more ‘individualistic’ than ‘community living oriented’ (cheating etc., and a refusal to share, are definitely a more ‘individualistic’ biased approach to life than a ‘social’ biased one) and tends to put short-term achievement before ongoing social-relationships (treachery and betrayal are more the approach of the get-what-you-can and run approach to life than the “we’re in this for the long-term”). A good person conversely is marked by a habitual preference, in their behaviour, for fair-play, honesty, trustworthiness, forthrightness, good-sportsmanship and a willingness to share. This is naturally more ‘community living oriented’ than ‘individualistic’ (sharing, fair-play and trustworthiness are intimately linked in with community building) and tends to put ongoing-social-relationships before short-term achievement (trustworthiness and fair-play are more the approach of “we’re in this for the long-term / ongoing” rather than “get what you can and get out”). Neutral is a position of no strong preference either way but instead a tending to vacillate between these two positions – think “Athasian Half-Giants” :)
ShadeGirl 07-08-03, 08:23 AM	Now reading your analysis Leap, I found that several of the characters that I have played would have been found as neutral by this, although on other boards they were pegged as clearly evil. That sort of bothers me. I know that alignment is only meant to be a guide, but some people take it very seriously and are unable to look at it in a broader sense. This is why I prefer to play in a gray world, rather then have someone immediantly peg my character as evil over the slightest misdemenor. :rolleyes: -ShadeGirl
Leap 07-08-03, 08:57 AM	I know that alignment is only meant to be a guide, but some people take it very seriously and are unable to look at it in a broader sense. This is why I prefer to play in a grey world, rather then have someone immediately peg my character as evil over the slightest misdemeanour. I tend to agree with the “book of evil” stance that evil should be saved for “real scum” and not simply your day-to-day, non-too-serious, occasional criminal; a stance that coincides with my own unpacking of 2nd addition alignment. Most ‘opportunist rogue with a bit of a conscience’ characters should be Neutral. Evil is reserved for the habitually treacherous and unsharing. I wish WOTC would actually give alignment a bit more consideration [at perhaps a slower pace :)] to create a system that does not instantly turn most folks off by its sheer unplayability……… Right now good is classed as altruistic when sharing would be a better word to use, whilst honesty and forthrightness are pushed into lawfulness; together with obedience to authority. NOT a happy blend! I wonder how I could get my suggestions to WOTC – HEY WIZZIES! Any ideas?
ShadeGirl 07-09-03, 07:08 PM	While standing in line at Pirates of the Caribbean (great movie by the way) I had a thought today that shocked me. Would you, or would you not say, that playing 'evil' 'dark' or unsavory characters changes a person in some way? For instance, the characters evil or misdoings has to come from somewhere. It originates in the player, and it demonstrates itself through the character. I was thinking today that could it be that once a person decides to get so deeply ingrained and creatively involved with an evil or insane character, they too become capable of that same evil in some way? I would say yes. Although the evil manifests itself through the character, is it unreasonable to say that the player has it in them to be just as capable of that evil? Is it more then just fun? Is it a subtle form of self-brainwash? Opinions on this interesting question wanted. :) -ShadeGirl
Kevmann 07-09-03, 07:35 PM	Hello everyone! This board rocks, as I also like to play evil characters... but I want to bounce a character idea I have been playing around with... The characters names is Udi Monisto. He is a human, strong, good looking, but his left arm did not grow after birth, and is still the size now as it was when he was born (useless). he ties it to his side with a leather strap, tells everyone it was cut off in battle. Anyway, here is the concept. I want him to start as a paladin of Tyr, good, righteous, everything he should be. I want him to end up a blackguard, who is thoroughly convinced he is still a paladin. He was alone, with nothing, causing trouble. And the temple of Tyr took him under their wing. He was slow to come around, but eventually he went at it with a zeal that even the priests were surprised at. In fact, some thought it obsession, but they kept their mouth shut, for he always followed every word of the clergy and of his god Tyr. Soon, his training ended, and they made him a full paladin, and he went out into the world to battle evil. Or so they thought... Have any of you read my paladins seven virtues from Regdar’s Repository in the D&D boards? Here is a link... THE SEVEN VIRTUES OF THE PALADIN (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47385) I am basing the character off of these virtues. Unknown to anyone but him, he hears the voice of god himself! Udi knows the voice as Tyr. Actually, this is not the god of Tyr at all, and it isn't even a split personality, but I will get to that later. He goes out, and does good, but soon he falls to the first and easiest temptation for a paladin of Tyr to fall into... LAW- The first virtue that Udi breaks is the virtue of law. As he soon finds that he believes that he is the direct hand of the god of Tyr, and his word should be law, since he speaks with the mouth of Tyr himself! This naturally leads to the next and almost simultaneous loss of the next virtue... WISDOM- The second virtue that Udi breaks is the virtue of wisdom. He stops seeing things from other angles, believing he is the one and true voice of justice. The next natural step in his fall from grace is... COMPASSION- Next, Udi breaks the virtue of compassion. He gives out death and punishment for crimes that do not deserve it, and believes so much in that a person must earn their own help, that he never helps others. And of course, and easy next step is... HONOR- Udi stops his honorableness. And now feels no regret at sneaking up on enemies, lying, and using poison as methods of killing. It is all in the name of justice, right? COMBAT- Udi never really breaks the vow of combat, but he no longer belives in the rules of combat, no longer has hindrances. This alone can break this... Then, it is on to the really bad stuff, the final straws in his loss of paladinship... GOOD- Udi no longer sees the boundary between good and evil. Because the roles are twisted, evil becomes good to him, and good become evil. And almost simultaneously... RELIGION- Udi then goes away from the followers of Tyr. Believing them all to be "false" in Tyr's eyes. After all, if he hears the voice of Tyr, and they believe differently then he does, they must not be true to him. UNITY- WIth the loss of all the other virtues, Unity falls as well. But the voice is not a god, he is a devil, a pit fiend from hell (named Monifinopolis). He calls to Udi, convincing him that Monifinopolis is a servent of Tyr, and Udi meets him, and falls to his knee in reverence. Monifinopolis then commands him, in the name of Tyr, to go out and rid the world of evil! Then, Udi will travel around, having become a blackguard. He believes he is a paladin still, wearing the same white armor he always does. He believes that his detect good is actually detect evil. He no longer has mercy or anything else, believing that it is all in the name of justice. I want him to actually get along well with the party. Believing that the party members are just "misguided" and need his mercy to bring them to the light of Tyr himself. What do you think, is it a good character, do you think it could work?
Sevik 07-09-03, 09:10 PM	Shade Girl rocks my world :b:
Lord of the Ninth 07-10-03, 03:23 AM	On the subject of playing evil changing a person... I play evil characters, and I alos design a lot of evil characters that I never play. I am not evil, as bizarre as it seems even to me, I am a paragon of virtue;) . However through playing evil characters I have come to understand the way evil (or at least outragiously selfish and uncompassionate) people think. When I talk to someone about an act of terroism, I'll think things like "well that was stupid, if the moron had thrown the bomb instead of just running at people with it he could have survived to kill others" (I actually had this conversation recently). I also have a list of 8 way to kill someone with a spoon. But I don't see this a corruption of my soul, because I also have similar thoughts about religion. For example, a frequently have conversations with people based on the principle that god, or Jesus, or Odin, or Zeus exists, despite the fact that I am a Unitarian and an atheist. The key is to never act on these kind ideas, never even consider them in a practicle light. I know that I can easily think about shooting someone I don't hate while they're talking to me, but I have never acted on such ideas, because I'm a pacifist. It's about having a firm grasp of the difference between reality and fantasy As to playing evil making other people evil, I rather doubt this, it might even act as an outlet. My DM almost always plays an evil necromancer, but in real life he is one of the nicest and most polite people I have ever met. Whereas one of the other players who generally plays LG or CG characters is also one of th only people I know personally who might in fact be pure evil. It's not that he's a jerk or a sadist or anything, but when listening to his political views, life ambitions or poetry I start to think that maybe I wouldn't be surprised if he did end up killing a lot of people. He has never played an evil character. The other people in my group who play evil also tend to be more liberal, laid back and went to the peace rallies with me. Kevmann, sounds like a pretty cool concept:cool: . But what I want to know is how is the devil keeping him convinced that he is the voice of Tyr? Is this guy under some sort of enchantments, I wouldn't think that he would be so easily hoodwinked. Also, what does the real Tyr have to say about this? (more of a DM issue). And last does this guy ever figure it out (like when the demons show up good but the paladin fighting them shows up evil)? But like I said, very nice character, cool background, it should be fun.
Leap 07-10-03, 05:36 AM	‘Morning Shadey :) “Would you, or would you not say, that playing 'evil' 'dark' or unsavory characters changes a person in some way” To quote Nietzsche ‘That which does not break me makes me stronger’. A person who can play a villain without coming to agree WITH that villain will generally be stronger for the experience. Good and evil are born of our values and understandings, which games (like any social situation) can confuse (especially in particularly intense and involving games). One of the problems with games is that evil characters do not tend to suffer the same problems they suffer in real life (nor good characters feel the benefits): The prize that comes from good is a warm and welcoming social environment, whilst the price of evil is cold and alienating social environment. In the game world, just as the player does not experience the hunger of a character, nor do they experience this sense of ‘its just me’ (or for that matter, the pleasure of the food their PC ‘eats’ or indeed the sense of community that good brings). Playing evil in games, and not experiencing the ‘price’ of evil (loss of community) can lead to the belief that evil carries no cost; and is instead simply a source of “kewl” powers. This belief, if carried over into RL can be very dangerous. This is why a good DM, if he allows evil PCs, must always make the price of evil something the player can experience [perhaps by agreeing with the player that he will be excluded from one non-game social event a month – I am hoping here that most role-players posting actually do have a life away from their games!! ;) ]. This does raise the question of the DM (who is supposed to play the villains) however the DM does (SHOULD!) not play villains for gain but simply to give believable opposition for the players (in a similar way to writers). Sevik – “Shade Girl rocks my world” Steady! ;) LOTN – “I am a paragon of virtue” But most notable is your truly exceptional level of modesty ;)
Lord of the Ninth 07-10-03, 03:41 PM	Actually, now that you mention it playing evil does cause you to lose a certain sense of community. For example, Grogneo was a wanted man so I had to always wear a disguise and I couldn't ever sleep anywhere I might be discovered (couldn't sleep in a disguise). So he was on the run, now more then ever that his home was attacked, he really had no place to go (whole continent thought he was a terrorist or a traitor). And then he got shot in the back of the head with an iron arrow. Krinzl on the other hand never felt the consequences of his actions. But I think you're right about D&D not reflecting the warm fuzzy feeling, thus making good less fun to play. Leap, you do know that Nietsche was insane right? I mean I do kind of agree with what your saying, but I thought I should point that out. As to my lack of modesty, you'll notice I say nothing of my stunning good looks;) .
Kevmann 07-10-03, 06:50 PM	Kevmann, sounds like a pretty cool concept . But what I want to know is how is the devil keeping him convinced that he is the voice of Tyr? Is this guy under some sort of enchantments, I wouldn't think that he would be so easily hoodwinked. Also, what does the real Tyr have to say about this? (more of a DM issue). And last does this guy ever figure it out (like when the demons show up good but the paladin fighting them shows up evil)? But like I said, very nice character, cool background, it should be fun. Thanks for posting! Feedback is realy helpfull. 1. I don't realy think that he needs convencing, he so completely belives it that no-one can ever convence him otherwise. Even if the devil himself said that he was not hearing Tyr, my character would not belive him. My guy has always been a little insane, and goes at things with too much fervor and without asking questions (I tried to hint at that. 2. The real Tyr? That is a good question, one I would be interested in finding out once I play the character. 3. And if he ever finds out? I don't realy know, mabie, mabie not, I think i will just have to wait and find out! Thanks alot!
ShadeGirl 07-10-03, 07:22 PM	Leap: ‘Morning Shadey :) Good evening, Leap. :) The prize that comes from good is a warm and welcoming social environment, whilst the price of evil is cold and alienating social environment. I agree with this! I usually like my characters to be more in the 'grayish' area in our games when it comes to alignment, but once I played a character who was without a doubt evil. There was no questioning it. After playing her for such a long time, I realized that without realizing it, I might have picked up a little bit of her 'cold relentlessness'. This is why I asked the question about players who play unsavory or insane characters subtly becoming capable of 'being' the same way themselves. I think I realized it when I was in the line at the movie theater, and for a moment I saw that I, as a person, have become more cynical, stand-offish, and biatchy lately. I've become tougher. Nothing fazes me...its just something to get around. Hopefully you can tell from my posts that I am generally a kind and hospitable person, because I think that deep down I am. But I think that since playing my 'questionable' chars I might have subtly changed myself in the process. Then I thought, it probably is not just me who this has happened to. It seems amazing to me to think of all the authors/writer/D&Ders who have dabbled in realistic characters with an edgy, immoral or just plain evil side, and then to think that by getting in depth with these characters, they may have subtly changed themselves. I'm sure most people distance themselves from their characters, but does that change the fact that since these people have 'created the monster' so to speak from within themselves, they have became capable of the evil or madness of their characters? I remember a quote by Mervyn Peake, writer of the unfinished Gormenghast Trilogy. He tragically died before the books were completed, but one of the last things he said about his writing was: "I have almost lost my identity...I will never write about mad people again...it has done something to me. I have played too much around the edge of madness". This to me, more then anything else, tells me that our human minds are swayed by what we fill it with. I guess I am trying to find a reason for my own sensations of 'subtle change'. Is it because of real life experiences, where I have had to suck it up and get rough to survive? Is it just a process of maturity? Or could it be, that for all these years of writing and playing darker types of characters I have somehow altered my personality? I have not changed deep within myself. I am still kind, vulnerable and loving. But something has made me tougher and edgier, and lately I was wondering (due to this thread mostly) if that could be because of my own writing and characters I have composed. To me, this is nothing to fear, only to be questioned. Theories and answers wanted. :) -ShadeGirl
Leap 07-11-03, 04:14 AM	LOTN – “I think you're right about D&D not reflecting the warm fuzzy feeling, thus making good less fun to play.” Exactree. The price of evil and the prize of good (community) are not reflected well in DnD, but the price of good and the prize of evil are (power, in a combat / lvl gain heavy game - thus making evil an easy temptation) ”Leap, you do know that Nietsche was insane right? I mean I do kind of agree with what your saying, but I thought I should point that out.” Yes I do know that neechy boy was madder than a room full of accountants :) “As to my lack of modesty, you'll notice I say nothing of my stunning good looks” I was under the impression that you had the perfect face for the internet ;) Shadey – Good evening Shadey :) I realized that without realizing it, I might have picked up a little bit of her 'cold relentlessness'….I realized it when I was in the line at the movie theatre, and for a moment I saw that I, as a person, have become more cynical, stand-offish, and *****y lately. I've become tougher. Nothing fazes me...its just something to get around. Shadey, would you say that you avoid betrayal, do not try to be weasely in agreements and are happy to share? Or would you say that you happily cheat when you can get away with it, are weasely with agreements and are very unwilling to share. NOTE: This (latter) attitude is actually predominant in the US, where “rugged individualism” has become an unwillingness to share blended with a willingness to cheat, lie, weasel and betray (look at law, big business and divorce rates) so perhaps you are just expressing a common cultural mindset. Perhaps I should have cast protection from flame before posting that but it needs to be said considering the US typical response to any mention of sharing or collective [that response being “Arg! Communist!” – VERY childish :( ]. I remember a quote by Mervyn Peake, writer of the unfinished Gormenghast Trilogy. He tragically died before the books were completed, but one of the last things he said about his writing was: "I have almost lost my identity...I will never write about mad people again...it has done something to me. I have played too much around the edge of madness". This to me, more then anything else, tells me that our human minds are swayed by what we fill it with. [/quote] We are not just what we eat……………. I guess I am trying to find a reason for my own sensations of 'subtle change'. Is it because of real life experiences, where I have had to suck it up and get rough to survive? Is it just a process of maturity? Not really. We all have to toughen up to survive as adults but not too much. I prefer to liken it to HP and AC. As we grow older we need to toughen up. Some people choose to boost HP; remaining open to attack but by doing so not cutting themselves off from their surroundings. Some people choose to increase AC, closing off much more opportunity for attack, but in the process isolating themselves from their surroundings. Of course it is easier to put on armour than to earn the xp that allows your HP to increase, so armour tends to tempt (a bit like the old dark side Yoda talks about)…… Hope this helps :)
inci 07-11-03, 06:03 PM	hi, nice discussion about alignments here :) the problem with alignments is that you dont have them iRL. you never know if someone is faking/pretending to be something s/he isnt. personally i prefer the gray world, giving everyone who isnt 'always evil' / 'always Lawful good' etc. an undetectable alignment. why ? because it removes the fact that both a balor and a taxcollector are lawful evil. does that give a right to slay the tax-collector ? should 'smite evil' work on such a person ? i really dont think so. to this 'im playing a bad guys, does that make me evil iRL' discussion: i doubt it. maybe you just pay more attention to what you were already ;) dont take that as an insult pls, i just cant believethat an 'alignment change' takes place because you are playing the evil guy in a game. think about the 'Lawful Evil' DM - poor guy ;) 'cold relentlessness' is a thing that nearly everyone gets with time. to bad, but thats a fact. just some examples from this nice world: look at all those ppl suffering in the world and all the rich country's/persons who dont give a F. and sell them weapons instead of offering help priests who were considered 'good' and who got the 'warm fuzzy feeling' from the community turned out to be rapers(and forcing your will upon others is imho the lamest and most evil thing a person can do). on the other hand you dont even notice all the really good guys, because it's not attracting attention and for the record: i really believe that the majority of humans are 'good'. We only lack the Paladins :( omg, this text sounds so depressive. :confused:
ShadeGirl 07-11-03, 09:16 PM	to this 'im playing a bad guys, does that make me evil iRL' discussion: i doubt it. maybe you just pay more attention to what you were already dont take that as an insult pls, i just cant believethat an 'alignment change' takes place because you are playing the evil guy in a game. think about the 'Lawful Evil' DM - poor guy I never said that. I only thought that it is possible that in creating evil characters, the player has made himself *potentially* capable of his characters actions or a very subtle change in the long term. I wasn't saying that 'if you play evil chars, you're evil'...God help me then..lol! :cool:
Leap 07-12-03, 05:19 AM	Inci – “the problem with alignments is that you dont have them iRL” You have never seen a weasely lawyer then and thought “Hmmm, lawful evil”? ;)
inci 07-12-03, 08:40 AM	Originally posted by Leap Inci – “the problem with alignments is that you dont have them iRL” You have never seen a weasely lawyer then and thought “Hmmm, lawful evil”? ;) thats the sort of guy you really need 'smite evil' for :angel: Originally posted by ShadeGirl I never said that. I only thought that it is possible that in creating evil characters, the player has made himself *potentially* capable of his characters actions or a very subtle change in the long term. I wasn't saying that 'if you play evil chars, you're evil'...God help me then..lol! :cool: you might have a point there. but imho there is still a big difference between thinking about evil actions and actually doing them.