Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Dark_One 12-22-04, 06:15 AM	Not all the time, mind you. Its just that, sometimes, I feel the need to let loose and do the things I never get to do in real life, like try to take over the world. I really hate that its almost always assumed that, in order for the game to work properly, I have to be the kind off goody two shoes who would never lie, attack from ambush, or take hostages (sometimes, the evil necromancer who is using souls to power a dark ritual that will bring his dearly departed wife back from the dead can be stopped in his tracks if you threaten to disintegrate the corpse). I'm sick of not being allowed to be vengeful (The villain framed me for smuggling drugs and I got thrown into a life or death battle in the arena. Why is it wrong for me to burn his house down?). And just once, I'd like to play a game where I'm trying to detroy the world (it would have to be a short lived game). All right, whose with me?
was_fired 12-22-04, 06:53 AM	Never had the urge myself. Then again I tend not to play good. As a DM most evil monsters in my world have the neutral alignment, and when I say evil I don't mean stupid.
Joe Khol 12-22-04, 07:40 AM	Well, I think you are exaggerating the problem. There is nothing fundamental to the game stopped the 'traditional' party from lying, ambushing or even taking hostages. In fact, there are skills and feats specifically designed for such actions. There isn't even anything in the game preventing vengeance, though any reasonable DM would treat it in a realistic way (just as you would expect in the real world). There is an assumption about the style of play and the nature of a PC party because that is the way the game was designed to be played but the only thing stopping you from doing something different is you. Plenty of people play morally questionable characters or even all-out evil campaigns. The latter does require a different style of play though (more different than many people appreciate).
Telperion 12-22-04, 08:09 AM	The easiest answer to your question is: it's easier to introduce new players to the game through "goody two shoes" campaigns. Currently I'm running a campaign where the paladin Core Class in the central class and everyone follows the party Paladin on his Quest to save his home town. Well, a city state, but that's not important. In order to play in an Evil campaign one needs experienced players. I haven't seen all that many of those around, so that's my excuse for not running Evil campaigns. In the meanwhile I'm happy to move along the Good - Neutral zone and present problems, quests and adventures that have more in common with various shades of grey than black & white and are, indeed, sometimes morally ambiguous. Nothing too dramatic, of course, or I might shock my players into thinking that my campaign is something besides a traditional adventure of Good vs. Evil with a big fight at the end.
Azual 12-22-04, 08:34 AM	Well, I think you are exaggerating the problem. There is nothing fundamental to the game stopped the 'traditional' party from lying, ambushing or even taking hostages. unless, of course, you have a paladin iin your group, trhen it all goes down the sheite-er
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-22-04, 08:45 AM	Evil campaigns don't work well in my experience. While it's possible to have groups of party members who play neutrals or something similar, evil only works in a very structured environment where the PCs can't simply kill each other. The problem with evil is you typically have a master villain and a bunch of lackeys, but nobody really wants to play a lackey, so unless it's a solo quest, it's pointless. Sooner or later some power struggle in the group will leave half or more of them lying in a ditch. Also it's far too easy in D&D to be evil, and this makes it boring. There's only so many times one can burn down a defenseless village of 1st and 2nd level commoners before it gets old. Yeah raping and pillaging can be ok for one session, but then you might as well just get back to playing more interesting hero characters.
CzarGarrett 12-22-04, 09:55 AM	I enjoy occasionally playing a LE character. I have my standards and personal ethics- I won't kill children, I try not to kill government officials, and so on, but I'm still evil. In one campaign when I was LE, we were against a cartel of drug dealers, and I had it in my backstory before knowing the campaign that my younger sister was addicted to drugs and currently catonic. So when I was up against drug dealers, I tortured, burnt, and killed EVERYTHING. We would capture several thugs, and after the NG Rogue and CG Mage tried interrogation, that night I would. They'd be dead quickly, but I got my answers. The issue is always if you can control yourself as evil. Evil does not mean kill everyone you see- but it does mean not having mercy during battle. It does not mean you can do whatever you'd like- there's always consequences, but when you kill another evil person, brutally, you're often a hero anyway.
Telperion 12-22-04, 10:17 AM	Evil campaigns don't work well in my experience. While it's possible to have groups of party members who play neutrals or something similar, evil only works in a very structured environment where the PCs can't simply kill each other. Being Evil doesn't force you to kill people. Being Evil means more than just doing what the Good Guys can't do, because they are Good. Being Evil requires a great deal of effort from any player, because they have to walk the fine line of being selfish and still getting along with their friends / associates / underlings / etc. If you don't have any of the afore mentioned frequently hanging around you then you are basically playing a solo game, but an Evil campaign can be run as a group game. One of the most important things is to present a common interest that keeps the Evil party together. Good campaigns need this as well, but being Good generally means that you can just "hang along" with your friends while they do their own Quests. This usually doesn't work for Evil characters since they have their own goals, plots and so forth, and are usually not interested in putting them on hold to advance the plots and goals of their fellow Evil characters. A second, and also very important, thing to do is to present the group a target that they can all work against as a group. The target also needs to be strong enough that no single Evil character can hope to win without the support and help of his friends / associates / underlings / etc. Without such a target any Evil party is likely to self-destruct, but if there is something bigger and nastier out there that keeps bugging the party, then they aren't likely to start killing each other before taking care of more urgent business. This doesn't mean that the GM needs to constantly pester the Evil party with threats and attacks from their Antagonist. Instead the Antagonist can be a looming shadow that never really goes away, but instead is always there even if not in a very concrete fashion. When the Evil party is presented with an Antagonist, as explained above, they will most likely realize that working together is a necessity. They don't have to like it, but they will do it. The problem with evil is you typically have a master villain and a bunch of lackeys, but nobody really wants to play a lackey, so unless it's a solo quest, it's pointless. Sooner or later some power struggle in the group will leave half or more of them lying in a ditch. I have noticed that a party, no matter the alignment, should stand on fairly even ground. Individual characters should have fields of expertise, but they shouldn't be clearly powerful than the rest of the party. When everyone starts from a fairly even playingfield there is a good chance that the first few sessions will be spent in creating useful and satisfactory alliances between Evil party members. Once this phase is over the DM can introduce the Antagonist and disrupt the Evil party's attempts at fulfilling their Grand Plots. Such Grand Plots can, BTW, create some very interesting roleplaying, background information and goals for the players as they try and beat each other without killing each other. And if they do kill each other the DM simply needs to remind them about the existence of the Antagonist in a slightly stronger fashion. After that the Evil party will most likely behave well for at least a little while. Also it's far too easy in D&D to be evil, and this makes it boring. There's only so many times one can burn down a defenseless village of 1st and 2nd level commoners before it gets old. Yeah raping and pillaging can be ok for one session, but then you might as well just get back to playing more interesting hero characters. Ah, such simple goals. How about ruling nations? Creating a cult, which will shape the very face of a religion? Playing the puppeteer over a powerful Wizard? Forming far-reaching webs of contacts and spies to further your own goals? Contacting and making deals with higher echelon devils, so that one day you may strike them down and become the Next Big Thing?
Sulaco 12-22-04, 10:32 AM	I am sick of not being a hero. I've played way too many games full of backstabbing, double-delaing, party-killing thugs and scum for more than 20 years. Just once I want to play with a party of good guys for Bog's sake! :mad:
Roxlimn 12-22-04, 10:36 AM	I DM Evil characters all the time. Sometimes the player disagrees with the Evil appellation, but that just makes it more realistic. Few interesting Evil characters ever think of themselves as Evil. Ranger: styled himself Chaotic Good. Championed the masses and all that; into the "freedom for all" thing. Ultimately, was working to perform genocide on all Orcs as a lifetime goal, because Orcs killed his family. Chaotic Evil. Wizard: styled himself Lawful Neutral. Killed enemies without mercy or remorse, sometimes when helpless, often in cold blood; treated allies and friends very well, kept his word, upstanding citizen. Just don't make him mad. Lawful Evil. Fighter: styled himself True Neutral. Only fought and worked "to survive". Put himself above others. Honorable as far as it was convenient. Killed enemies in cold blood. Conditionally "neutral". Neutral Evil. So you see, not everyone in D&D really plays heroic characters. Quite a few play anti-heroes, even when they mistakenly think of themselves as "goody-two-shoes." You just have to apply the alignment descriptors as they are and the Evil comes out of the woodwork. Most of these characters were decent team mates and party mates. They're Evil, not psychotic.
Androlphas 12-22-04, 11:02 AM	Being good doesn't mean you have to be goody-two-shoes or even nice. The paladin I'm playing in a friend's game is an example. He's not your typical white knight in shining armor (his scale mail is slightly rusty and has burn marks). He's mean, tough, and doesn't take flak from low-life scum. Much like a medieval, non-gadgeteering, non-costumed Batman. His high Charisma score doesn't mean he gets along with everybody, but it denotes a strong personal presence and leadership ability. In the end, however, he believes in good and justice so that does put a downer on things like hostage taking and other "means" that are justified at the end. He's fun to play, and nobody realized he was a paladin until he used smite evil on the demonic cult's leader :fight!: *thwack* If your DM doesn't allow evil alignments and you want to play somebody a little darker, try one of the neutral alignments. You can always DM yourself if you really want to play someone evil. Then you can be as villainous as you want :devil: To be honest, villains only look glamorous in fiction. Think of the "bad guys" in our world today. Would you really want to be like one of those? Even pretending? :uh-huh:
Rodak_the_Dim 12-22-04, 11:16 AM	I have never made the connection in my mind that an evil party must always be trying to kill each other. Alignment and being evil concerns motivation and a view on life. Just because someone has an evil motive doesn't mean he/she has to kill everyone in sight. I have played in evil parties and and we have not tried to kill each other off. We do look at each other closely and there many times is little trust but it has rarely come to combat. We just worked toward a common goal that was ... well.... evil.
IceFractal 12-22-04, 03:51 PM	Ah, now here's where many people make a mistake. You are an evil necromancer travelling with a party of good two-shoes. Do you: A) Kill them in their sleep and turn them into zombie minions. B) Ditch them and find some evil cohorts. C) Keep them in the dark about your true nature and keep travelling with them even if this means sometimes acting good or missing an opportunity for evil. If you answered A or B ... Bzzzt! Wrong! Unless you really can't keep your evil nature hidden, go with option C. Why? Do Gooders vs Zombies vs Evil Cohorts Protection: Do Gooders will watch your back, zombies will too - but they're pretty stupid, and evil cohorts may well stab you in the back if you give them the chance. Combat Ability: Zombies aren't so hot at combat, especially against airborn opponents, and the only evil cohorts you could keep control of would be weaker than you. Plus, do gooders will do things you don't want to, like staying behind to battle the dragon while everyone else escapes. Vouching for You: If you can fool a Paladin, you've got it made, nobodies going to doubt a Paladin on questions of good/evil if they can help it. By comparison, zombies make bad character witnesses. So while you may eventually have to fireball the party and run away, don't do it until there's no other choice; the treasure you give up in an even split is worth it for what you can think of as really good minions.
Darion Fenix 12-22-04, 04:15 PM	I've tried playing an evil character before but somehow I always feel guilty afterwards. I just can't be mean! Not even in D&D... I have no problem playing a Dark Hero though. My true alignment lies between NG and CG so I've got no qualms about using extortion, deception, threats or even sheer violence to get my way...as long as it's against an evil character. My girlfriend/DM on the other hand is so evil it's unsettling.
Rallaster 12-22-04, 05:09 PM	Vouching for You: If you can fool a Paladin, you've got it made, nobodies going to doubt a Paladin on questions of good/evil if they can help it. By comparison, zombies make bad character witnesses. Yea.. but zombies don't have that little annoying aura that lets Paladin's sense good / evil.. :)
Death Unlimited 12-22-04, 07:42 PM	One thing I always mention to people who wish to try to run an evil campaign, and actually try to make it work, is A. Get some mature players who can handle it. And B. Read Eve Forward's 'Villians by Necessity' for some ideas. That book had an 'evil' party in it, but i don't want to ruin it by saying anymore.
75RD Drum Clip 12-22-04, 08:01 PM	All right, whose with me? Perhaps you need to find a DM who is not so close minded about the actions of a "living" being. Even a hero has bad days and make mistakes, sometimes evil ones. The difference is, the Hero will try to make amends for misdeeds, while evil would probably careless--though such is not always the case.
Tevish Szat 12-22-04, 08:12 PM	I like playing heroic campagins and DMing for them... most of the time. then again, sometimes i think it would be fun to break out my BoVD as a player and laugh manically as i spread terror and destruction throughout the lands. My very first D&D character was a CN pyromaniac wizard, and he soon went evil and got a taste for Necromancy. Ah, good times. It was really fun, and i wouldn't mind doing it again. I guess part of the reason I DM is because i like being the villian sometimes. Its fun, i'll admit.
SammasterT 12-22-04, 08:47 PM	I prefer a good non-lawful and neutral game, where players aren't locked into either one mentality or the other. Selfish and greedy types, whose only great golas are to grow rich, powerful, and live in the lap of luxury, are easier to motivate, and are up for pretty well anything from plundering the graves of dead folk to foiling the plots of child-murdering demon cults to slitting the throats of paladins and plundering monasteries. They continue to have goals long after the "classic" good vs. evil, chaos vs. law scenario has been played out and resolved. Or at least during the ebb tides, if one is considering the bigger picture. As a DM I've particularly enjoyed witnessing the misadventures of various "neutral" types. These types, the Han Solos of the multiverse, always make the more convincing and enviable heroes anyway. The Luke Skywalkers are just wannabe glory-hounds, who invariably start crusading against "perceived threats", ie. good people, once the real threat is taken care of.
CzarGarrett 12-22-04, 10:47 PM	These types, the Han Solos of the multiverse, always make the more convincing and enviable heroes anyway. The Luke Skywalkers are just wannabe glory-hounds, who invariably start crusading against "perceived threats", ie. good people, once the real threat is taken care of. Plus Luke didn't have a Wookie sidekick
The_Dark_One 12-22-04, 11:05 PM	I'm not neccesaarily wanting to play an evil game, just a non-heroic one. I like playing characters that aren't paragons of virtue. Relmar the Red, a dwarf wizard I once played had the goal of travelling back to Antaire, to the home of the Baron and burning down his house. He wanted revenge for being framed for the crime of drug smuggling. Relmar wasn't evil (I believe his alignment was NG), but he was also a chain smoking racist pyromaniac (when I say racist, I mean that he hated halflings. He thought of them all as sneaky little thieves). On the evil side, I played S'n L'ck (Shen Lock). He was an undead creature known as a Spirit Mantle. He was basically a cloak that possesed its wearer. The soul was forced out of the body and the mantle took over. Without its soul, the body fell apart over the coarse of a few days. S'n L'ck had no problems with killing innocent people to achieve his goals. He also took great pleasure in killing. To be honest, I think I creeped so many of the other players out with that character that the evil campaign ended. I loved that character and long to play him again. As for evil turning on itself, this was not true with S'n L'ck. He was a devoted servant to one of the other PCs, who he saw as the Chosen One of his God (a Mysterious comet that S'n L'ck also believed was his father). He would never have betrayed the party, since helping the Chosen One was his goal.
Kulthos 12-23-04, 12:16 AM	I have a problem with supposed "Goody two shoes" characters who massacre orcs in their homes and loot their bodies without thinking about what they have done. I also get a kick out of "Goody two shoes" chars who fireball, power attack, or flamestrike hoards of villians, but who then get bent out of shape if you poison your weapon. In D&D you typically slaughter a lot of people and take their possessions, and I find that mean, evil chars are better suited to that kind of activity than good ones. My Lawful good knight kills to defend his home nation, but doesn't kill and loot people unless he has a really "good" reason. My Assassin kills anything that he can get away with that looks profitable. Inexperienced evil parties turn on each other, but experienced professional ones do not.
The_Dark_One 12-23-04, 12:27 AM	Ranger: styled himself Chaotic Good. Championed the masses and all that; into the "freedom for all" thing. Ultimately, was working to perform genocide on all Orcs as a lifetime goal, because Orcs killed his family. Chaotic Evil. Not to derail my own thread, but I had to comment on this one. In quite a few campaigns, orcs are degenerate spawn of an evil race who genuinely deserve to die. Killing any orc you see is a survival trait. Most of them will kill you without guilt and don't rate any better treatmeant. All life is not created equal and those who do not respect the rights of others have none of their own.
Tevish Szat 12-23-04, 12:49 AM	Not to derail my own thread, but I had to comment on this one. In quite a few campaigns, orcs are degenerate spawn of an evil race who genuinely deserve to die. Killing any orc you see is a survival trait. Most of them will kill you without guilt and don't rate any better treatmeant. All life is not created equal and those who do not respect the rights of others have none of their own. it depends. does he go dropping rocks on orc babies? would he kill an orc cleric of pelor just because orc = mustkill? there are always circumstances to consider.
The_Dark_One 12-23-04, 01:25 AM	Well, obviously, if the orc is obviously good, it would be an act of corrupt and evil racism to kill it. I'm just saying that you should be able to crush the skulls of orcs without getting them to fill out a twenty page morality questionaire. And killing orc babies is just wrong. I don't know why, but it is.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-23-04, 06:51 AM	Evil characters done right have to be middle of the road types, more like extreme neutrals than true "evil". Pure evil tends to be the most boring type of character, you've got all the single mindedness of a paladin, except you don't have any of the interesting moral quandries that come with playing a paladin. In fact everything about your character is simple. Playing the blackguard type I find to be one of the dullest characters there. He has no conscience, no real depth, just mindless evil for the sake of it. The best evils are the heroic evil types, who end up performing evil acts in the name of some good goal. And they're still heroes in many regards, they're just not good heroes. When they perform an act of evil, they often take a lot of time to justify their actions, both to others and to themselves. I think an evil PC needs to have some kind of internal conflict going on morally. If it's just one of those "I'm evil and loving it" characters, that's good for one session then it gets old very fast.
strcpy 12-23-04, 08:10 AM	I love playing evil characters. My last one was a Lawful Evil fighter halfing, and devout follower of Hextor. He was part of a group of eight, mostly good characters. Remember that if you are a good guy, you cannot do evil. But if you're an evil guy, you can still do good. My evil character often portrayed himself as the good type and never killed unless it was "wroth it" or for revenge. So someone in my party has a cool sword, so what. I never think of my character as being evil and thus I have to act evil. I think of my character, and then determine his alignment aftewards. Of course being in a good party, he never did anything "evil" in their presence and kept his religion a secret. He was reliable, dependable and honest. He never stole anything, but anyone that crossed him died. Period. And it was usually in their sleep. Being evil does not mean you cannot be kind, paitent, honest, smart, good occasionally to win over someone's turst. It does not mean you have steal, or kill everyone that gives you lip. That's stupid, not evil.
Seeker95 12-23-04, 10:14 AM	I have the opposite complaint. I'm sick of all the angst-filled half-vampires fighting the good and evil within them. I'm sick of the chaotic neutral and lawful evil "walk the line" characters. I'm sick of the "I want to play the anti-hero". What the world needs is a few more heroes. A few more "No evil PCs in my campaign" DMs. More "vampires are evil -- period" core rule supporters.
SammasterT 12-23-04, 01:29 PM	Well, obviously, if the orc is obviously good, it would be an act of corrupt and evil racism to kill it. I'm just saying that you should be able to crush the skulls of orcs without getting them to fill out a twenty page morality questionaire. And killing orc babies is just wrong. I don't know why, but it is. Well, saying that orcii are a corrupt and degenerate race is an act of, ahem, "racism". Saying the are such helps facilitate the, ummmm, self-righteous destruction of their species. Not that I disagree that, well, orcs have to go, even as neanderthal man had to go. We are competeing for the same resources, the same territory, and obviously neither us humans or those orcii are just going to sit back and die. So, we fight it out. Mutual agreement. Mutual spite. Nothing evil about it. Its just what happens when to "alpha" predators, errr, meet ... up, meet up. As for their young; what? THey are a hopelessly degenerate race, but we are going to let them grow up so they can raid us, and kill our young, rape our women, and lead them off into slavery. That would be wrong. Drawing it out would be wrong. So, seems to me that, as tough as the matter might be, orcii just gotta go. That means that their young, in particular, have to go.
The White Sorcerer 12-23-04, 02:15 PM	And killing orc babies is just wrong. I don't know why, but it is. It's wrong because orc babies are so cute and cuddly! :bigeyes:
Phre_Marz 12-23-04, 07:15 PM	If your really want to play the bad guy, either DM or ask your DM to play the adversay for a session.
75RD Drum Clip 12-23-04, 11:06 PM	A few more "No evil PCs in my campaign" DMs. More "vampires are evil -- period" core rule supporters. :rolleyes: Perhaps Santa could impart the ability in some DMs to run a campaign for anyone and not be so closed mined. Also if Santa were feeling a lil buzzed it would be nice if he imparted the ability in some players to actually play alignments. First snow would fall in Hades, but this is D&D, so anything is possible. :cool:
Tevish Szat 12-23-04, 11:23 PM	:rolleyes: Perhaps Santa could impart the ability in some DMs to run a campaign for anyone and not be so closed mined. Also if Santa were feeling a lil buzzed it would be nice if he imparted the ability in some players to actually play alignments. First snow would fall in Hades, but this is D&D, so anything is possible. :cool: Nifflheim is prety cold around this time of year, so i hear.
Roxlimn 12-24-04, 02:09 PM	The_Dark_One: In core D&D, orcs are a race who can spawn good creatures. That means that they are redeemable. Wanting to exterminate every last Orc on the face of the game world for vengeance certainly counts in the Evil alignment descriptor in my book. Saying that you should be able to kill creatures for a certain cause (like good) is PHB Evil. Good by PHB characters strive not to kill people and sentients because they respect them, whatever they may be. They may use lethal force when necessary, but they do not make a habit of resorting to such first chance they get. You should be able to use lethal force to defend yourself from like attack, but initiating a hostile exchange with some Orcs you're not familiar with with intent to murder and kill does not count as anything less than Evil in my book. You're no better than Evil Orcs who think that they must kill Humans in order to make their place in the world, "to survive." There would be no 20 page moral questionaire. if you make a habit of such, your alignment will simply switch to Evil and that's that.
Seeker95 12-24-04, 05:39 PM	Perhaps Santa could impart the ability in some DMs to run a campaign for anyone and not be so closed mined. Also if Santa were feeling a lil buzzed it would be nice if he imparted the ability in some players to actually play alignments.Feeling rather threatened, are you? Also, people don't "play" alignments. People play. The alignment is based on their actions.
The Shaman 12-24-04, 06:49 PM	I have the opposite complaint. I'm sick of all the angst-filled half-vampires fighting the good and evil within them. I'm sick of the chaotic neutral and lawful evil "walk the line" characters. I'm sick of the "I want to play the anti-hero". What the world needs is a few more heroes. A few more "No evil PCs in my campaign" DMs. More "vampires are evil -- period" core rule supporters. :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: I honestly don't object to evil PCs as long as the player understands that there are consequences, some of them quite severe, for the actions their characters take. I do demur at hackneyed character concepts - please, for the love of all that is interesting and original, take the scimitars our of your half-vampire fiendish draconic drow paladin of destruction's hands and create a character that doesn't require LA and ECL, a character who's backstory isn't filled with pain and loss, a character with goals for the future that don't include killing anything or anyone. Be evil if you want to, but please, don't be trite or silly. It's wrong because orc babies are so cute and cuddly! :bigeyes: :rofl:
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-24-04, 09:23 PM	And killing orc babies is just wrong. I don't know why, but it is. FOOL! It is not wrong! Orc babies, indeed, all babies, are irrevocably evil, worse than even the foulest fiend! All babies must be exterminated in the name of Toastytot, the god of lighting babies on fire out of spite!
Ramius_Mordale 12-24-04, 09:37 PM	I have the opposite complaint. I'm sick of all the angst-filled half-vampires fighting the good and evil within them. I'm sick of the chaotic neutral and lawful evil "walk the line" characters. I'm sick of the "I want to play the anti-hero". What the world needs is a few more heroes. A few more "No evil PCs in my campaign" DMs. More "vampires are evil -- period" core rule supporters. Here, Here! Totally agree. Though I will incriminate myself by saying I do have a good vampire character and a dhampir. Don't hurt me? :gah: :D
75RD Drum Clip 12-25-04, 02:33 AM	Feeling rather threatened, are you? Also, people don't "play" alignments. People play. The alignment is based on their actions. Then why ban people from playing evil? Are you threatened by something?
Seeker95 12-25-04, 11:18 AM	Then why ban people from playing evil?Because the campaign I create is heroic. High fantasy good vs. evil. Star Wars good vs. evil proportions.
Seeker95 12-25-04, 03:19 PM	Oh, I see, it does not matter what the players might want, only that YOU create a heroic campaignYup. I create the world. I invite players to play around in it. If they want a different world, they can find a different DM.
Godzilla 12-25-04, 06:28 PM	I'm not always am the hero, or have the PCs be the hero. Sometimes, I'll go on a mission just because I get paid. I could care less about being the hero.
Seeker95 12-26-04, 10:16 AM	I could care less about being the hero.Couldn't. It's couldn't care less. If you could care less, you care. Chipping away at the defamation of the character of language one phrase at a time.
Veton 12-26-04, 09:02 PM	To tell you the truth, I prefer to be one of the "good guys" when I play D&D. I don't know why, but I've only played a Neutral character once, and that was because there were some new players who wanted to be Evil. They left the group after a few weeks though (it was at school.) I guess I'm just a nice guy :P If I want to be the bad guy, I play a game in the Grand Theft Auto series.
Gellion 12-26-04, 11:27 PM	I like playing the good guys too. I grow sick of the PCs who will only do something if it pays money. I do not have anything against PCs that play monsters or races with templates that would normally make them evil, such as a Vampire or Lich, but play them as being good instead. Heh, I like playing good guys because I can do good things that I would normally be to shy to do in real life.
taltamir 12-27-04, 12:33 AM	I have to say, I agree with the premise of the thread... I found it in neverwinter nights CUSTOM campaigns... Evil only: Blackgaurd series (I am posting the first one, it has links to the next ones): http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/data/1074560369640.shtml Good or Evil, your choice, but rather dark and in both cases there actually ARE greater rewards for evil and a dark environment: Necromancer - Part 1, alligience: http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/data/1046208685968.shtml A hunt through the dark series: http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/data/1076417802000.shtml Bone kenning - Art of the thanaturge: http://nwvault.ign.com/Files/modules/data/1047244535793.shtml Thats about it (not including crappy modules... those are all, except the truely evil one, hall of fame, and the truely evil one is the best one there, but people thought it was too evil and voted against it, I thought it was merely mild. All are awesome, very high quality mudules) Regardless, I actually think the game kind of hinders many plots, the game is totally designed to have balanced combat. That is, balanced while playtested with a good party of various classes in mind being a bunch of heroes. Its hard to raise an army of the dead when you cannot actually control them (seen a bunch of threads by necromancers asking for that). Etc. But if creatures could do that, it would through their ECL out of whack when faced by our brave party (not that I mind, it would actually introduce strategy, as the party sneaks towards to castle to assasinate the necromancer instead of just steamrolling everything in the dungeon.. I like to call that novel concept ROLEPLAY instead of ROLLPLAY) But generally, a good DM and a mature group can make such a thing happen. Since I don't see those just popping up, you are better off with the neverwinter nights alternative. the custom modules, the core modules suck in portayal of evil, like every other video game that get subjected to rating... "I am teh evil... i rob old men while saving the world... for MONEY!". I admit the second expansion campaign actually has a secret ending you can unlock which allows you to take over... but mere conquest does not make evil... in fact, I think it can be a very GOOD thing.. you dont want power in the hands of evil if you are righteous, do you now?
Nani? 12-27-04, 12:55 AM	Well, obviously, if the orc is obviously good, it would be an act of corrupt and evil racism to kill it. I'm just saying that you should be able to crush the skulls of orcs without getting them to fill out a twenty page morality questionaire. And killing orc babies is just wrong. I don't know why, but it is. It sounds to me as if you have a problem with how the DM and perhaps your own interpetationing of what "Good" is. As far as I can see there is a long line between ambushing (perfectly legitimate) an enemy and torturing an enemy(genuinely evil). All the best, Nani?
taltamir 12-27-04, 03:06 AM	Evil and good are too real lifish things, real life ABSTRACT things more specifically. Everyone is gonna bring their opinions into it, and those will differ. Making it absolutes is a horrible terrible choice. Its just going to conflict with people ideas.. making it absolute and NOT specifing exactly what it is (which is what alignments do) is even WORSE. As now each person is under the impression that there are absolute good and absolute evil.. and must act in order with those things, as they are TANGIBLE and DETECTIBLE... you can check yourself and see "why, I am EVIL... how ODD"... This makes things absolutely bizzare and kind of interesting. Except that you have PLAYERS. and the PLAYERS will act to the best of their abilities within the system, and then they will get results that they dont think should happen.. why? cause the DM doesnt view good and evil as they do... Moral arguments ensue and there goes the house. At best (for a viable alignment system) I can see different gods preaching different messages... Where instead of detecting alignments, you could scy on their past for acts you consider evil (arcane), or commune with your deity to see if it deems them to do things against its doctorine (if devine spell is used). This can cause very interesting issues aswell... ones that will work out better IMAO in creating a solid roleplaying campaign.
Ringmereth 12-27-04, 10:06 PM	Am I the only one who just wants some variety? I've played in a number of campaigns-thievery campaigns, an Underdark game, a mercenary game, and heroic adventurer games. I liked them all. Playing a swashbuckler willing to sacrifice anything for the greater good can be just as much fun as playing a backstabbing drow assassin. I like orc genocide as much as I like tough moral questions, just as I like bash-in-the-door as much as deep roleplaying. I like games with low magic and high magic, games with LAs through the roof and games that only allow the PHB. All of them have their place, and all can be enjoyable. Even angsty half-vampire drow paladins with cliched backgrounds have their place. We don't need more or less heroic or villianous campaigns, we just need openmindedness. Any game with good players and a good DM can be a great experince, regardless of alignment, power level, or anything else.
Cantankerous 12-27-04, 11:16 PM	Variety? There is endless, infinite variety within each aspect of the good vs evil polarity. The only limiing factor is the lack of imagination of the individual. Isshia
Ice Wizard 12-27-04, 11:41 PM	In the end it all comes down to the desires of the players. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Stil, I have heard more than my fair share of whiners (and one that won't shut up about what he doesn't like about the game, if you are reading this, you know who you are) that don't want to play good alignments because they feel it limits their options. The same people feel that Alignment restrictions are also a weapon of the DM to "railroad" the characters through the campaign... This belief is something I don't get, but then again the character test showed me to naturally be Lawful Good. :angel:
75RD Drum Clip 12-28-04, 10:17 PM	Yup. I create the world. I invite players to play around in it. If they want a different world, they can find a different DM. You seem like a real friendly DM....... :rolleyes:
Seeker95 12-29-04, 09:16 AM	You seem like a real friendly DM....... :rolleyes:Quite. My players love the world I have created. I don't need to change the world because one of them gets a wild hair up their butt needing to vent some anti-social "let's-pretend-to-be-sociopaths" urge. DMs are in shorter supply than players. When you find a DM, you play in the world he has created. If the DM wants to make a world tailored to his players, that's fine, but it usually means the world is being made up on the fly. In my world, I had the world finished years ago. This particular campaign was crafted and outlined before I even approached players. I described the world. They were free to take it or leave it. They took it.
taltamir 12-30-04, 02:52 AM	Quite. My players love the world I have created. I don't need to change the world because one of them gets a wild hair up their butt needing to vent some anti-social "let's-pretend-to-be-sociopaths" urge. DMs are in shorter supply than players. When you find a DM, you play in the world he has created. If the DM wants to make a world tailored to his players, that's fine, but it usually means the world is being made up on the fly. In my world, I had the world finished years ago. This particular campaign was crafted and outlined before I even approached players. I described the world. They were free to take it or leave it. They took it. Which makes the most interesting, most thought out, well constructed worlds... Its a bad sign when the dm says "use anything in any book you find.... what world? oh.. erm... a combination of them all i guess.. donno what its called, havent thought about that yet".
Kalanth 12-30-04, 03:04 AM	A buddy of mine mentioned to me the other day that he, too, was growing weary of being the consumate hero. He noted that he just wanted to be an adventurer that did nothing more special than to treasure hunt and dungeon crawl, with no motives to get into the politcal and "world saving," side of things. Yeah, I played evil before, I have gone away from the hero, and as a DM, I have thrown away the "Epic plot," but as time goes on I find some things are constant: 1) I really, REALLY, like being good or neutral, and not evil. 2) I enjoy being the classic hero that saves the day, has great catch phrases, and is loved by all. 3) I LOVE the epic plot lines You see, there is a reason why these things are constant. You stick with what works. Yes, most people flirt with the idea of an evil campaign, but those don't last to long, and from the rare ones that do last a while, there is not usually many groups that end that evil campaign to start another evil campaign. So, in summation, being the hero is why I play and how I "do something I would not do in life." I ain't the bravest guy (ask the shrink that discharged me from the Air Force because of combat related stress), and I certainly don't think of myself as a hero, so by taking those steps in D&D, I have achieved my first objective.
Ramius_Mordale 12-30-04, 07:36 AM	Am I the only one who just wants some variety? I've played in a number of campaigns-thievery campaigns, an Underdark game, a mercenary game, and heroic adventurer games. I liked them all. Playing a swashbuckler willing to sacrifice anything for the greater good can be just as much fun as playing a backstabbing drow assassin. I like orc genocide as much as I like tough moral questions, just as I like bash-in-the-door as much as deep roleplaying. I like games with low magic and high magic, games with LAs through the roof and games that only allow the PHB. All of them have their place, and all can be enjoyable. Even angsty half-vampire drow paladins with cliched backgrounds have their place. We don't need more or less heroic or villianous campaigns, we just need openmindedness. Any game with good players and a good DM can be a great experince, regardless of alignment, power level, or anything else. Well it is a refreshing view I'm not the only one that is interested in that type of stuff, but most of my group prefers the safe route and standard races. Granted I understand being the good/neutral aligned standard races is what you should play the majority of the time, reason why they are standard races, but I also think you can spice things up a bit. I'm creating a fantasy world, but its not finished because until recently I was trying to appease one player so he would play in the campaign. Needless to say he screwed up my whole world and wanted to be the center piece that was always talked about in the books I was going to write about it. Well as you can image it was foolish and now that guy is kicked out all our groups because of that mentality. I find that a world is stronger when you go with your gut and DM what you want then allowing the PCs to play anything and everything to their hearts desire. I'm just lucky to have a group where mutliple people do and/or could DM. We like to spread our knowledge in order to allow our DMs a break to refresh their creativity and not get burnt out (which happens sometimes to the best of us) without having to take a break. In any case, I can see both sides issue. I've never played a successful evil campaign, mainly because the very few times we tried the idea it fell apart after somebody killed the group or someone knew they were going to die for acting like a jack*****. I find most people, at least from my personal experience, can't play evil characters much less neutral characters correctly. But hey, maybe I just don't think evil should be dumb destructive evil hanging by a thread of thin loyalty. Anyways, I say play whatever you want that your DM is willing to DM for. If the DM can fit in your character (no matter of race or alignment) then go with it, but the game does have limits and realism why not an absolute, should still be considered in a campaign. But that's just my opinion on the matter. -Ramius-
taltamir 12-30-04, 07:50 PM	see, thats the thing, people confuse evil with stupid or reckless. An evil person has to be conniving to survive. This means you dont just randomly kill people. Anyone whom might still be of use, you let live... which means, your teammates, among others.
thasis 12-30-04, 08:28 PM	Finnaly a thread I specilize in. Evil is bad. Not bad as in bad to play in the game but bad as in your character is a bad guy. Evil is something to be played only by people who are mature enough to handle evil. People automatically think that because your chaotic evil you like to rape women and kill children for no apparent reason. I disagree with this. Chaotic Evil people can be intellegent rational (to a degree) people. All Chaotic Evil means is you have no objections to doing these things and that you will do what you want if you want to do it even if it's evil. And you always won't do it. Sometimes you'll restrain yourself because of saftey ideals. Sadam Huisain is a perfect Chaotic Evil example. He killed and did whatever but he was probally insane but he didn't just do everything out of the blue for no reason. Overall I love playing Chaotic, Evil or Neutrul, Evil PC's. I don't think that I've ever played a good campaign in my life. That may not be a good thing (pun intended) but thats what I do. But like I said people have to be mature and no the diffrence between Chaotic, Evil and Stupid, Evil. That was my second rant for the day. If you want a more orginized description about evil campaigns check out my upcoming article "Playing a Evil Campaign" in Redgars Repositary. It's coming on January. Probally mid January. It might be what people need to convince them why playing a evil campaign isn't totally wrong.
allenchan 12-30-04, 08:39 PM	I, in all honesty, would love to play a pure LG campaign. I never have. Most of my games have been a rag-tag random group where people dont talk ooc first, and it ends up being a bunch of CN and TN characters. However, one was good because it was a rogue guild wards thing, another was a group of dragonslayers (gold, red, whatever, just get dragons for cash!) I wouldnt mind whipping out the BoED and having a bunch of paladins and vop monks and a cleric of pelor
Kalanth 12-31-04, 06:30 AM	I, in all honesty, would love to play a pure LG campaign. I never have. Most of my games have been a rag-tag random group where people dont talk ooc first, and it ends up being a bunch of CN and TN characters. However, one was good because it was a rogue guild wards thing, another was a group of dragonslayers (gold, red, whatever, just get dragons for cash!) I wouldnt mind whipping out the BoED and having a bunch of paladins and vop monks and a cleric of pelor Ironically, the mini campaign I started up today while waiting for our DM to memorize the Eberron books (bitter sarcasm) is comprised of 4 LG characters. Oddly enough, 4 LG characters seem to kill more than anything else I have encountered, but thats still just fine with me. :)
taltamir 12-31-04, 05:21 PM	Well, thats what LG do. LG = Kill anything that they consider evil. CE = Evil and lawless, does whatever they please. But isnt necessarily stupid about it.. or does everything thats bad. For example: Warrior Doug. who really enjoys hunting people for sport and skinning them alive. Has a soft spot for children so he never kills them/kills in the presence of them, and abhors the notion of rape). I mean, even evil people have differences of opinions about different so called "evil" acts. But now that I think about it, from what the original poster says he is more interested in being in a chaotic good party. or neutral. Where if the bad guy kills your family you kill his. (kinda like the punisher sort of thing)
Bluntpencil2001 12-31-04, 06:11 PM	I want to play a heroic campaign! But I'm always the DM, so I'm relegated to playing all the villains. However my players, one in particular, insist on using 'questionable' methods to achieve their most noble of goals. Like the time when the vengeful party ranger got a hold of a serial killing death cultist. I never knew so much pain could be caused by stabbing the stomach and letting the digestive acid leak through the body... and when he was near death, the ranger force fed him healing potions, and started again until he got the required information (Where his master was..). Apart from the odd vengeful outburst like that, I labeled him CG :D . He did do it for the sake of the children! (And the paladin's more reasonable methods had failed.) And then there was the time where the same player's sorcerer (different campaign) killed a bunch of troglodytes then smashed their young off the wall..... :shocked: :looloo: :evillaugh
Iyestorm 01-02-05, 09:53 PM	I never was a fan of the "Alignments must take a week to change" rule. (Did they fix that in 3.5? I wouldn't know, I use 3.0 That rhymed a little. heh.) I think alignments are more like moods. Also, I had an explanation for this, but I forgot it, and it probably sounded better in my head than in this post anyway.
Roxlimn 01-04-05, 02:50 AM	Anti-heroes don't need to be psychopathic killers. In fact, even if they are killers, they don't need to be psychopathic ones. In The Replacement Killers, Chow Yun Fat plays John Lee, and assassin who kills people for the continued survival of his family. Let's not over melodramatize here. Though the survival of his family depends on his continued obedience through his vow, the relationship goes both ways. As long as he's doing his job, the Chinese triad will keep his family alive and well. It's an understanding of sorts. In a very real sense, John Lee kills for what amounts to money. It's not like he doesn't have a choice, either. In fact, the movie shows that he does have a choice. It's difficult and it's dangerous, and he eventually had to go that way in the end, when the boss asks him to do a deed that offends even his jaded moral sensibilities. That highlights the fact that had he cared more about human life, he could've resisted assassination right from the start. He's definitely Lawful Evil. However, in the context of the story, John Lee eventually explores and develops his morality. He grows in the film, right before our eyes, even. When he's asked to kill a child, someone who's undeniably an innocent, he balks and takes the hard road. He refuses and in so doing, puts his own life and the life of his family in danger. He can protect them, but it will be harder than just killing the darned kid. He grows even further. As the movie progresses, new assassins are hired to take out the kid. Initially, John Lee does not act and if it had happened earlier in his life, perhaps he would not have. However, Mira Sorvino's character convinces him that the child has no protection from these assassins whatsoever, and his failure to intervene when he knows he can save the child is not so much better than killing the child himself. While this is fallacious, there is a certain truth to it. In D&D morality, not acting in this situation would have been Neutral. He could ignore the threat, but he does have mitigating circumstances. His own family is in danger, and while saving the child may not necessarily delay him, risking his life in such a venture runs counter to his own understandable goals. Alerting the police would not have mattered. Even if they did believe him, the child would eventually be in a position in which the assassins could get him and the result would be no less deadly. Neutralizing the assassins one way or the other is really the only option, if stopping them had been decided upon. Because he risks self-interest and his own life in a purely altruistic venture, this action counts as Good in my opinion, and John begins to perform acts that reflect a turn for the better, as far as his morality is concerned. Now that's an interesting anti-hero.
taltamir 01-04-05, 07:14 AM	Not just good. Chaotic good, as he doesnt act within the law, but outside of it, to do the right thing. So he actually made a complete shift. From lawful evil to chaotic good. But. Some people never make the switch. Kodus to Roxlimn for such a well constructed example.