Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BriefcaseRonin 02-19-04, 12:27 PM	I've been wondering this for some time, would a evil aligned character in a good aligned group offer more character to that group? I've seen in shows/movies/comics, what have you. That the groups in them usually have some sort of 'semi-evil' guy with them. Take Dragon Ball Z for example *shudder*, Vegeta is a evil guy and half the time he's trying to get stronger so he can kill the main character.. I think. Then there is 8-bit Theater, a web comic that I think is hilarious, in this group of Final Fantasy Characters, Black Mage is a sadistic, violent and evil character and it makes him funny and offers more to the group then a dumb fighter, a twink Red Mage or a... thieving thief. Anyway, I would like your opinions. Do Evil Characters offer more character to a group of good characters? BriefcaseRonin "Why, it would take some kind of insane meglomaniacal fiend to take pleasure in wielding the tapestry of creation to focus pure energy into reality through nothing more than my own will, the rush of electricity through my being, the power--My GOd, the Power! IT'S THE ONLY TIME I FEEL ALIIIIIIIIIVE!" - Black Mage, 8-bit Theater on nuklearpower.com
Ph33r_the_Wheelchair 02-19-04, 04:44 PM	I personally enjoy playing evil characters, and I think it does add more flavor to a party. When I DM, I always enjoy it when I end up with 2 good and 2 evil characters in the party; it makes for some interesting situations. Of course, this can also cause problems in two ways. First, if the good characters have a narrow view of evil, there will be unwanted friction. It's always annoying when one character creates a zombie and another character immediately tries to kill him. The other problem arises when the evil players are bad at roleplaying an evil characters. So many people have the mentality that evil characters are mean all the time, kill people indiscriminently, and will automatically oppose the rest of the party in all things. So it can be tricky, but generally, yes, evil characters add flavor. Mmmm... evil. Just remember, the correct answer to, "How many fifth level spells can an experienced wizard cast?" is NOT, "More than enough to destroy you all and your families."
BriefcaseRonin 02-20-04, 12:20 PM	Yeah, the only way you can pull off a evil character in a Good Party is if you know how to play a evil character. My character was a 'reformed' Necromancer who joined up with a Fighter and a Monk. I decided to be wicked one time and when the Fighter was close to death I stepped away from the fight and let him die, then turned his corpse into a Zombie servitor. ^_^ BriefcaseRonin "Why, it would take some kind of insane meglomaniacal fiend to take pleasure in wielding the tapestry of creation to focus pure energy into reality through nothing more than my own will, the rush of electricity through my being, the power--My GOd, the Power! IT'S THE ONLY TIME I FEEL ALIIIIIIIIIVE!" - Black Mage, 8-bit Theater on nuklearpower.com
Nimzz 02-22-04, 10:39 PM	i agree evil charecter add so much more flavor... but you do need people who are good at role playing (or naturaly evil)... I agree that most people just think that evil is just to kill everyone and anyone and go and do bad things but thats not right... I played an evil charecter in a good party and there was no problem (albit a lot less treasure as i got hold of 1/2 of the parties treasure) until we got to the big bad guy in the campain... then i went "allied" myself with the bad guy...watched my party and the bad guys fight kill the winners and take the spoils... that is much more evil then killing a begger cause he asks for coin
Slivvy Gaidin 02-26-04, 10:15 AM	If you're gonna have a mixture of good and evil, then you have to have a solid reason for why they are adventuring together. It gets really tiring when the evil characters start randomly killing good characters, or when good or neutral characters take up a massive quest vs. evil and start killing the evil PCs (even when they would normally reason their way through most evil monster encounters). Personally, I don't like playing evil characters that much. The most that I really enjoy playing are neutral (or LE) anti-heros. Killing zombies and slaying dragons just isn't the same when you're a bad guy. hehe- notice that whilst being quite evil, Vegeta didn't kill any of the party members. his reason- he wanted to kill on of the party members... ??!??
Ahnehnois 02-26-04, 03:37 PM	Let's face it: good is generic. The basic D&D game was meant for good players who do good deeds (which is why blackguard is a prestige class and paladin is somehow a base class). They did this not for any reason so much as because D&D has a reputation that the head people up at WOTC would like to shake. There have been far more good player characters played than evil. Thus, evil is, by default, relatively unique. Also, evil characters give you more freedom, and let you take out your agression and such in the game world. The real world has enough rules that many people play D&D to get away from it. Thus they are not inspired to play characters whose morals forbid them to kill and steal and such. The most fun and interesting roleplaying experience is probably a character who has a conflict between good and evil. Which is why Gollum is such a big deal. A character who has both good and evil in him can do the most in a D&D game.
Hizar 02-26-04, 03:48 PM	I have recently been DM'ing a Casmpaign that I allowed "anyhting you want" I now see that I was INSANE! In a mixed group party infighting and subjecation (virtual slavery) becomes a big issue, and you can't plan a game for them it is constently rolling with whatever strange turn of events the players through at you (instead of the other way around). All in all unless you are a super DM or your players are really going to work with you I would stear clear of mixed/evil games.
Hodo 02-26-04, 06:11 PM	<<The most fun and interesting roleplaying experience is probably a character who has a conflict between good and evil. Which is why Gollum is such a big deal. A character who has both good and evil in him can do the most in a D&D game.>> I like to play characters who could be considered good , but have some really nasty personality trait, like being snooty, selfish, or an all around jerk. They have people/things/ideas they don't like and will make it very well known. Kind of like alot of people in real life. Everyone knows a person who's a real pain to get along with, but you most likely wouldn't consider that person to be evil. Our DM recently started an evil campaign. So far our characters are all mercenaries working for the local powers. One of us is a slave to the local ruler, but most of us are working out of duty to our mentors/churches/etc and to further the interests of our nation. We use a misison based playing system, although it's all connected to a larger plot. Also, our DM does a good job of making our leaders and challenges pretty tough. This gaurauntees that our party spends more time dealing with the challenges at hand, and less time bickering amongst themselves. Our missions also tend to stress stealth and low collateral damage in order to keep the people from rising up (i.e. no going on murderous rampages or pillaging villages).
rollplayer 02-27-04, 02:59 AM	I think evil characters are seen as more interesting because they have a flaw, they are evil! My feeling is that characters with flaws are interesting. I think many make good-aligned characters and forget to give them a flaw or personality quirk that makes them 'human'. A LG paladin can be stingy, a CG ranger can be sarcastic, and a NG cleric of Pelor can be 'of loose morals'. I think any of the above characters would add plenty of flavor to the group without compromising the integrity of the group. An evil character in a good group (particularly in a world where evil is NOT subjective) doesn't make much sense. There are lot's of plot reasons something like this might happen, but to just come to the game with Joe Evil is really pushing the suspension of disbelief. It is a flaw of the game that groups of characters spend so much time together. To stretch this by purposefully putting incompatible characters together really highlights the limitations of most campaigns. I think a group with flawed heroes is preferable to a mixed group of heroes and villains
MiscDebris 03-01-04, 02:20 PM	I've an evil character in a generally good group. We are all from the same race, and from the same community. We've got to find this gem to supposedly continue the survival of our people, but we don't know if it's actually important or not. In general, Sebastian is a pretty nice guy. Helpful and all. He just has less-than-moral things that he does when negociations fail, or diplomacy doesn't work. Completely ends justifies the means kind of guy. Has no problem with torturing, manipulating, or using anyone or anything he comes across to further his goals. Nor does he hesitate to employ such methods. I couldn't make him neutral or good because he's done some very bad things. Example. His current sidekick is the son of a noble that wouldn't help him. Zombie like. Should the noble break down, Sebastian will return him to the noble alive and well. Beyond all of that, he is very polite and helpful, as long as those traits further his ends.
Cynosure 03-01-04, 07:54 PM	I currently play an Evil character in a group composed almost entire of good characters. The interesting thing is that the character is a half-illithid, half sun-elf. Basically, I use a persistent change self to constantly deceive the party. He's evil to the core, but he's very polite, and respectful. He's quite better at being a diplomat than anyone else in the group for his politeness and all. When playing an Evil character in a campaign of good guys, you really have to play them intelligently. A stupid evil barbarian would get himself killed by the self-proclaimed harbingers of good before even finishing the first adventure. This guy has been smart enough to last entirely into an epic campaign. I would say that having an evil guy in a campaign of goodness is not necessarily a bad idea. As long as the character & player is somewhat intelligent. My evil character has eaten every one of his companion's brains at least once, and they have yet to find out. (He's a mystic theurge that can resurrect his party members.) As a result, the entire party feels he is extraordinarily intelligent, and that he can surmise one's entire history merely by analyzing them for a moment. :lucifer: My point is, play your evil character intelligently, and you've got some great opportunities for suspense and suspicion. If the DM is decent, it gives him some opportunities in building his campaign, as well. Just be smart about it.
Sarta 03-01-04, 10:31 PM	I sort of see it as a role-playing progression: Step 1: Most new players are unsure what they can or should do and are looking to be spoon-fed plot hooks. They rely on the dm to give them their motivations and rewards and limit personal decisions to choosing between using a long sword or a scimitar (and generally settle upon whichever type of magical weapon their dm hands them first). Step 2: Then they decide to play an evil character and enjoy the new-found sense of freedom. This freedom is the ability to pursue their own agendas. Unfortunately, quite often these agendas are diametrically oposed to the well-being and desires of the rest of the characters in the group. This usually leads to out of character discord and frequently to the collapse of a perfectly good campaign. Step 3. Eventually, they realize that good characters can have their own agendas too and make characters that work toward fulfilling these goals, while not disrupting the good times had by everyone else in the party. Step 4. Some very experienced players eventually figure out how to come up with an evil character with complex motives that will allow them to walk the thin line of being true to their persona, while not disrupting the rest of the group and game play. If you are just getting to step two, you may want to try to skip past it and stick with step 3 for a while. Sarta
Princeoflowlight 03-01-04, 11:46 PM	An evil character's goals might just be the same as the rest of a good party. A fighter may be fiercely loyal to the Good kingdom he was born in and will be tireless in his quest to destroy the evil cultists who seek to subvert it. But if he readily uses unnecessary cruelty, kills enemies who try to surrender, and brutally interrogates those whose surrenders he accepts, and once more takes great pleasure in inflicting horrible, uneccessary pain on the enemies of his home, he'll still be considered Evil. But not necessarily in any way that would disrupt a predominately Good party.
cheshire_grin 03-02-04, 11:51 PM	Originally posted by Princeoflowlight An evil character's goals might just be the same as the rest of a good party. A fighter may be fiercely loyal to the Good kingdom he was born in and will be tireless in his quest to destroy the evil cultists who seek to subvert it. But if he readily uses unnecessary cruelty, kills enemies who try to surrender, and brutally interrogates those whose surrenders he accepts, and once more takes great pleasure in inflicting horrible, uneccessary pain on the enemies of his home, he'll still be considered Evil. But not necessarily in any way that would disrupt a predominately Good party. Um. If the "predominantly Good party" is aware of these antics, and allows them to continue, it ain't going to be a "predominantly Good party" for very long. I'd say that disrupts it pretty heavily. ;) As to the topic at hand, there is no inherent reason a Good character can't be every bit as inventive, creative, and interesting as an Evil character. Some of the most interesting characters are good; it is the choices they make, and the flaws they struggle with, that make them interesting. Batman is an interesting character, but a thoroughly Good one. So is the Sandtiger from the Tiger and Del books. So is Rand al'Thor from the Wheel of Time. All of these characters have flaws, all of them make hard decisions, and all of them are ultimately as interesting as their Evil counterparts. It's the skill (and effort) of the roleplayer that makes the character interesting or not, not some alignment written on a piece of paper. An evil character can be flat, two-dimensional, and boring (and many are), and a good character can be vibrant, fully realized, and interesting -- and vice versa.
Levism84 03-03-04, 09:14 PM	It seems to me the only thing that makes a evil character dangeous is when it is bored.
Fox Lee 03-03-04, 11:05 PM	I wouldn't say so, no. Evil characters are not inherently interesting, and Good characters are not inherently boring (even though they are, as was mentioned, the "norm" for D&D parties). It's how you construct the character as a person, not what their alignment is, that makes trhem interesting or boring. Sure, it's boring if every character in a group is a goody-two-shoes type, but "Good" does not mean "Paladin" - there are thousands of shades of Good out there, many of them every bit as interesting as Evil. I don't think there's particularly more opportunity for an interesting character provided by an Evil alignment than by a good one. As for interaction with the other characters, I do agree that most Good-guy groups need an anti-hero or two. These don't have to be Evil characters, though - just a "bad boy" by the standards of the others (Chaotic character in a group of Lawfuls, for an easy example). That character need not be Evil, just different in a way which provides enough conflict to make things interesting.
Tony Vargas 03-04-04, 03:52 PM	Evil characters are probably less interesting, even than good ones. Evil has a tendency to be one-dimensional, and to lack conflict. Good characters at least have to balance morals, desires and expediency. Evil characters are just occassionally restrained by expediency. Ultimately, though, taking an extreme alignment puts you on the lunatic fringe of human behavior. If you want an interesting character, one who's alignment gives you the freedom to roleplay the conflicting nuances of a human psyche, just play a Nuetral. Sure, Nuetral can be the bland "I don't care about all this moral stuff" - but, it can also be the character with internal conflict, and real motivations. The one who wants to do Good, but also gives in to temptation or rage or weakness... or the one who sees the need to be ruthless, but ultimately has a soft heart.
Daikona 03-04-04, 08:45 PM	Now, as a preface, I *love* a well-played evil character. But neither evil nor good is inherantly either more or less developed. Either one can be played as a flat, one dimensional character, and either one can be played as a well thought out, deep, interesting character. It's about how it's played, not what you start with.
Varrik 03-12-04, 01:13 AM	Now this I have to disagree with. If you look at all the postings of people who play evil characters they in-evitably have the same flaw and the same plot trajectory. They are greedy (for power, or knowledge, or gold. whatever) and they wind up killing (or trying to kill) the rest of the party at some opportune moment. Post after post after post. My point being that Evil is just as generic as Good. If you role-play either one well, they can be interesting and complex. But the vast majority of people role-play as a stereotype. They just think Evil is great because it is NOVEL. If you want character try this: 1) Be evil without killing the party (what only good guys are loyal?) 2) Be evil without killing anything (that isn't trying to kill you) Evil comes in many forms, murder isn't the only way. Pick one of the seven deadly sins, add water, shake. :D
Cynosure 03-13-04, 07:29 AM	Interesting point, Varrik. You are right about the fact that, generally, posts about evil characters are lead by greed of some sort. However, all is quite a broad term. Not all evil characters try to kill the party at some point, and not all evil characters are driven by greed. I know of a character in a campaign that I'm playing in that hasn't killed a single PC... for any reason. He's been tempted to kill the bard, but hey, bards just deserve it. :D As a side note, about my character that I described farther up in the thread, he was very loyal to the party. He didn't kill them, but when someone died and he was supposed to resurrect them, he went off to a secluded place and proceeded to eat their brain, he always brought them back. He never killed them. He simply didn't view life as sacred, as such he had no problem eating their brain post mortem as long as no one else saw him doing it. 2) Be evil without killing anything (that isn't trying to kill you) Evil comes in many forms, murder isn't the only way. I think the reason many people play evil characters that murder people is that murder is, almost always, the most widely accepted evil act. Not to mention, it's the most easily imagined and manifested in roleplaying. Pick one of the seven deadly sins, add water, shake. Interestingly enough... Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Just so happens, most people pick this one when creating their evil character. Besides, who wants to play a fat slob that doesn't want to do anything except have sex with everything and proclaim how awesome he is? Isn't the point of roleplaying to be something we're not? :eek: I can't believe I just typed that. Disclaimer: The previous statement was not a personal attack on anyone, simply a poor attempt at comedic relief.
Aluroon 03-13-04, 08:12 AM	I have to agree with Princeoflowlight when he says that an evil charictor does not have to be constantly in conflict with good. I often play an NE char because it frees up my options. my current charictor is a Half drow-half high-elf wizard. He had a difficult early life and as such he live a life of the ends justify the means as someone else has said. He has been known to murder people in cold blood and use any other tatic to achive his goals. as for which is more flavorful...there both like powerful spices, they are both great but must be used sparsy, and need to have other indgreadiants to be great.
afromonkey 03-13-04, 12:59 PM	I think the reference to seven deadly sins wasn't meant literally, i think it meant that people should be more original choosing vices for their characters, good or evil.
Princeoflowlight 03-14-04, 12:31 PM	A good example for people to conceptualize "Reasonable Evil": Ever seen Pulp Fiction? Vince and Jules were certainly evil. Their job was to kill people who had cheated their criminal boss. But they were nice, usually polite, considerate to friends. Remember: Anyone who sells out their friends to an evil overlord is evil, but not everyone who's evil is going to sell out their friends to an evil overlord. I'm not saying evil offers more flavor. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be the 2D Psychotic. It's just as flavorful and diverse as Good.
beavis123 03-14-04, 03:15 PM	Evil characters are party killers. They become "I want to do what I want" characters. Trust me, they ruin games.
Nimzz 03-14-04, 04:04 PM	Evil characters are party killers. They become "I want to do what I want" characters. thats not true...or its not true with my group... i think it depends alot on what kind of people you play with... an evil charecter should not ruin the party...it is in his advantage to stay with the party (healers treasure and such) if you play with the type that goes about and kills just for the sake of playing evil then yes the will destroy the party... for instance if you play with people who usally play good they will play evil like the evil that they are used to fighting...(the evil murderer or evil overlord) but most people just turn towards evil because it is the easiest way to get somthing... but take the drow for example...they are an example of how people should play evil...they will work just fine together until there is an advantage to be had for themselves... i find that they make game play much more entertianing and enjoying...but you must play with the right type of people
beavis123 03-14-04, 05:14 PM	The drow turn on themselves when it's in their best interest. This is where and when the party dies, because factions should unite, when one is weak, it's time to attack. The game ends. Try a neutral campaign.
Curunir 03-14-04, 06:13 PM	I am generally against evil characters in good groups which is why, as a DM, I have asked my group before hand to come to a consensus as to whether they would really like to play heroes or villains. This is for two reasons: It stretches plausibility: Going back to the aforementioned DBZ example, when Vegita was first introduced, he was a foe to the others. They only worked together later on because the threats to their individual interests absolutely required them to team up. Vegita hated the others even after he stopped being so evil and never spent time with them until after the Buu saga was over. Likewise the others distrusted Vegita always (aside from Goku who is forgiving and merciful to a fault, though I have the good fortune of knowing people like him in real life) until after the Buu saga. It can only work if the evil character conceals his intentions (and alignment via magic) preferably both in and out of game. Even then it will almost never be in the best interest of an evil character to team up with good people for too long. No evil character wants to stick his neck out for relatively little reward unless he is really taking the long view (i.e. building a false reputation for righteousness in order to gain trust and access. It would take less time to kill and impersonate an already righteous hero) Two, conflict and disruption are inevitable. I know some conflict is good but not on this fundamental a level. It would be okay to have conflict between a paladin and a CG rogue, the latter of which wants to rob from fat rich nobles to give to the starving poor. But to have a character in a group of good characters running around with some one who thinks killing and stealing is acceptable for furthering his own ends is too much conflict to be sustained at length. I have ran a PC that worshipped Torm in a group where there was later introduced a PC who secretly worshipped Bane and tried to hijack the group. It was an intensely frustrating experience and it took all the fun out of the game for me particularly since the DM and the other PC (who were running mostly good characters) didn't really object to him. I would never do this to another party. While I'm at it, I also would strongly object to letting anybody play the "reformed" Drow or Tiefling (or other reformed member of an evil race) simply because every group I have ever played in has had at least one guy like that at some point and it generally doesn't work. I would want to see the person in question roleplay a normal character before I could trust him with something like that, and even then I would hesitate for fear of playing favorites.
Tytalus 03-14-04, 10:06 PM	Originally posted by beavis123 Evil characters are party killers. They become "I want to do what I want" characters. Trust me, they ruin games. LOL. Evil does not necessarily mean "I kill everyone" or even "I do what I want". Evil characters can have honor, can have friends, and can have companions. Seeing that you are not a friend of stereotypes (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2853954#post2853954), I'm surprised to see you post something like this. Maybe you should read up on the alignments again.
Noel 03-15-04, 01:53 AM	I believe chaotic evil characters ruin campaigns as the party tends to act as a group of individuals rather than a cohesive team and steal from/murder/sell each other, however lawful evil characters can be brilliant fun. We did a campaign many years ago playing such a group, we joined the local militia, several joined the town guard. We upheld the law, tracked down lawbreakers and got to hang the odd person. Tracking down and killing the 'good' people who killed the law abiding necromancer leaving his now uncontrolled undead to wander about and cause problems. Hanging the thieves <starving peasants> who looted the wharehouse of food during the famine. Collecting the oppressive taxes for the lord. Etc.
Tytalus 03-16-04, 04:48 AM	Originally posted by beavis123 Evil characters can have honor, can have friends, and can have companions. Never heard "There is no honor among thieves" Sure, but what's your point? That your quote is always true? Hardly. It's a saying, not a rule or law. Might be true in some or even many cases, but not necessarily: - Not all evil guys are necessarily thieves (after all, we do have Lawful Evil) - Good guys can be thieves (take Robin Hood for example), and can have honor. Seriously, just because you can't play an evil character well does not mean nobody can. From my expericence, I can say that it is more challenging, but can be very rewarding. Back on topic: If you plan to play an evil campaign, make sure the characters do have their own motivations and are not just Stupid Evil. First, make sure everyone is aware that you are playing in an evil/neutral game or campaign. Otherwise you just invite tension within the party, which is not much fun, IMHO. Second, inter-party conflicts can be a problem, but not if you address that at the beginning. Find reasons why the party is together and why they trust each other. A common goal, respect in each other capabilities & ruthlessness - maybe even fear, etc. will all work. Talk to all the players OOC and make sure everyone agrees to abstain from working against each other. Third, make it realistic. the PCs have their goals and need to be clever about them. If they don't watch out, they'll get in trouble - the town guard, a paladin, or even a goodly aligned party can try to stop them. In fact, most people are not very fond of evil deeds... Personally, I like to play low-level evil campaigns (i.e., start at low level, and earn your way to power). This has the advantage that the PC can not just kill everyone they don't like without having to have ridiculously high level peasants or townguards. I'd try to avoid hack&slash - there are so many rewarding role-playing opportunities as an evil character if you have to be clever to achieve your goals. My favorite (as a DM) is to challenge the (evil) players morally. Sure, they might raise the dead, run a slaver ring, attempt to corrupt a friendly king, or enjoy burning a temple of Torm into the ground - but most evil people are not evil through-and-though. If they can save a child from a burning building, would they do it? Would they spare a copper for a blind old man? The most important thing to remember when playing an evil character is to stay away from a one-dimensional "total evil" mentality. Unless you are playing a demon or devil (which are entirely evil by nature), you might have certain not-so-evil aspects - or even do a rare deed once in a while that can be interpreted as "good" (although you probably wouldn't). For me, this is what makes playing evil characters interesting.
Cynosure 03-16-04, 09:11 AM	I have played one, Beavis123... It was quite a lot of fun, as a matter of fact and it did not 'fall apart' by any means. The characters grew to know each other and became friends. Of course there was distrust at first, but the characters were completely right to be weary of others. However, like I said, most of the characters became friends as we united to defeat a common enemy. After we had defeated that particular enemy, our characters walked off into the sunset, wiping the blood from their blades. :devil: Just because your evil campaigns fall apart doesn't mean every evil campaign or adventure falls apart.
LiXinjian 03-16-04, 09:23 AM	Well, I DMed an evil campaign less than a year ago, and I can tell you it was a blast. We all had a wonderful time. Sure, there were a few "stupid evil" moments, when two players imagined they could kill anyone with impunity, but they soon discovered things didn't go that way when the law came after them. Just so you know, the players were all Zhents. One player came up with an interesting masterplan to create his own army (and later conquer some land, but always legitimately). Another played a somewhat misguided cleric of Bane who was into herbs and stuff. The other two, well, they did a few dumb things and didn't give too much thoughts about how their character should be or what would become of them, but that wasn't unexpected: after all, it was everyone's first evil campaign. After a month or two, they were much better. I can tell you everyone enjoyed seeing the other side of the story. They never knew whether they could tackle the pesky adventurers or not, and it was fun (for me) to see them hesitate so. The only constant problem was the "treasure stealing". If they found it alone, they all tried to keep it to themselves. It takes a bit of getting-used too. Oh, and I must say handling the Appraise checks myself (and handling out the results on tiny bits of paper to each player) proved to be oh so funny, as none knew who was right, and each tried to rip the others off as to the value of the gem they had found. Oh, the fun we had. Now (to get back on topic), would I say evil offers more flavour? Yes, but only because of our backgrounds. Most of us think of ourselves as "good". The society we live in is mostly based on good values. We are more exposed to good than we are to evil. We all met people who donate to the church, collect for the poors, the sick, the whatnot. But how many of us ever met a killer? A rapist? An arsonist? Evil is less known, more mysterious, therefore it stands out against the well-known and worn out goodness. But from an unbiased point of view, both are equaly interesting. It's the environment that makes one or the other different (and thus more exciting) than the other. In fact, I suspect a bunch of Red Wizards of Thay playing D&D would probably wonder: "Do good characters offer more flavor?"
Sisyfos 03-17-04, 04:30 PM	We once played an evil campaign with ADD 2e system. The characters were a bunch of anti-paladins (we practically just made a custom class, where we changed many of the aspects of paladin to their opposite: healing touch became harming touch, etc.). The campaign lasted for around 2 years if I recall correctly and was loads of fun. Tavern brawls turned deadly, we collected bounty from two headed troll heads (chained one up and just cut up one of his heads and waited for it to regrow), burned churches... that sort of thing. Co-operation went nicely as we had similar goals there and all knew we were better of together than alone. Sisyfos
BlackFlame 03-17-04, 06:08 PM	I played in an evil campain about a year ago. We all had a good time. The DM challenged us, and gave us reasons to go on adventures...really selfish reasons since we were evil. All the characters worked together toward a common goal, and the only time that a party memeber was killed by another was when I did it so I could raise the guy as an free willed Wight, cuz he wanted to be one. This game lasted about a year, and after we'd all gotten fairly high level we all mutually decided to move on to new characters.....just like if we were good or neutral. So, in closing I've played and DMed evil games, and I wouldn't say that evil characters offer more flavor. On the other hand they don't offer less. And they're always a fun way to let out some furstation at the very least. Happy (evil) gaming.
Cynosure 03-18-04, 08:06 AM	Bye!!! You said this two posts ago, Beavis123. Why are you still here? You've made your opinion quite clear, and even though it's wrong, you're still entitled to it. There's no indication that they or the game fell apart. Cynosure? You are correct... The campaign came to a cohesive ending. To be honest, I don't think Beavis123 has ever had a campaign end the way it was supposed to, thus he has no idea what the difference is between 'falling apart' and 'ending.' Besides, isn't the point of RPG's to have fun? It doesn't matter if it fell apart, as long as the people involved had fun while it lasted. Now, as far as Evil offering more flavor; I personally enjoy playing evil more than playing good. My reason for that is a small expectation for reprimand from the NPC community around my character. It kinda adds suspense the whole time because every time I commit an evil act I'm thinking 'Wonder if anyone's going to notice' or something along those lines. To be completely honest, though... I can see a good character being just as fun to play as an evil character. That is, of course, assuming that the character in question is not supposed to be perfect when it comes to being good. Inner conflict and imperfection are what make good characters (in my humble opinion) really memorable.
WizO_Autumn 03-18-04, 07:29 PM	Closed for cleaning! Way innappropriate... after the warns have been sent and this gets cleaned up, I'll reopen it.
grapedog 04-05-04, 01:28 PM	i think switching to an evil group after playing a good group for a while, is a great relief to the players...to kind of finally run a little wild. I would definately recommend at least every once in a while running a fun evil campaign for your players so they do get to play boths sides. Once the group has gone through a good and evil campaign, maybe try a mixxed campaign if you feel they can play the alignments correctly and intelligently...flavor is always good and an evil character can always add flavor.