Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HIDragonstar 04-28-06, 01:24 AM	What would you do with a DM that constantly likes to screw 'Good Characters' over? I know that most DMs like to do that anyway, but still one of the DMs I play with has a thing for 'Good Characters'. He prefers to have his players be Neutral or Evil. When playing a Paladin, or having any of the Vows in 'Book of Exaulted Deeds'. He constantly 'Charm Person's or 'Dominate's a good character into losing their abilities. You find Intelligent swords with Egos that are 20+ and have you do 'evil things'. (I still don't know how I failed with a will save of 24 at 7th level.) I know DMs (being one myself) do their best to make it 'difficult' for players. Yet he doesn't do the same for those who chose feats that are more 'Dark'. Those who play evil and neutral, don't have to worry about getting 'messed up'. Book of Vile Darkness feats that are chosen by neutral characters don't have the 'repercussions' that chosing 'exaulted' does. A 'Dirgesinger', and a 'Assasin' entered the party without problems. The 'Vassal of Bahamut' just lost his armor, had an ancestral weapon broken, and ended up with a ego 24+ sword that controls him. I'm trying to find a way to not be confrontational about it. But this is getting quite annoying.
thesymbolicfrog 04-28-06, 02:04 AM	I know DMs (being one myself) do their best to make it 'difficult' for players. Yet he doesn't do the same for those who chose feats that are more 'Dark'. Those who play evil and neutral, don't have to worry about getting 'messed up'. It sounds to me that you and your DM have differing views about the campaign. Unless he is merely attempting to give you a hard time for some sort of personal grudge, I would say that he is attempting to make the adventure more of a noir environment. His motivation may be either to create a specific style of roleplaying or to explore darker venues, but in my opinion he is going about it wrongfully. If he wanted 'darker' PCs, he should give more feats/options/etc. to evil-related characters instead of merely punishing characters that choose to be good. If he had used positive reinforcement, then players would be able to play whatever type of character they wanted without a sense of being limited. Talk to him about loosening the restrictions and the reasons why he seems to favor evil in this particular campaign.
Gedrin 04-28-06, 02:42 AM	Usually this works the other way around. Someone desides they want to be a bad guy in a party full of Paladins and Rangers. However, if you're trying to play the one good character, an exalted character at that, in the evil party...you're the guy ice skating up hill. I'd have to agree that you've got an idea about the campaign that doesn't mesh with the DM's or the rest of the group. Unfortunately, you're the odd man out. If I were your DM, I would't have allowed that character in the game. It may just be bad judgement on your DM's part to have done so, and that happens on occasion. I don't think I'd be pounding on any character in the way your describe. Still, it may just be the DM's clumsy way of trying to give you a hint. I'd recomend making a new character that is more compatable with the game. Talk over the kind of character that you'll make with the DM. If you can't make a character that you think will be fun to play, it's just not the campaign for you, which is fine.
Mitchell 04-28-06, 03:28 AM	You could always try and break them of this habit. They want evil? Give them evil. The worst kind of evil. Stupid evil. Kill the other players in their sleep. Turn on them in the middle of a fight. Leak info to the authorities of any illegalities about to take place. After you ruin a couple hundred games, somethings going to give... Either you won't be invited back, the DM will give up and let someone else have the job, or the other players will follow your lead and do unto each other first, allowing you to relax and let them destroy the game once in a while. :) Seriously, if they say evil only, it's their call. But as I've said before, eventually you come to a point that the game you are playing isn't the game that you want to play, and at that time, you may want to look around and see what else is out there. Personally, I look at an evil game as a fun little escape, but usually by putting the shoe on the other foot, playing as intrepid orcs, goblins, and/or kobolds defending their dungeon home from marauding adventurers. When I am expected to be evil game after game, it wearies me. Evil is easy, and all to common. I want to be the hero.
OctoberRaven 04-28-06, 04:36 AM	I don't like the OP's DMing style. Okay, Evil campaigns are fine. I don't like them any more or less than Good campaigns. Sure, it's the DMs game, but what if nobody wants to play? It's great for a DM to have an idea, but if the group would rather do something else, it's best to compromise, or at least hold your idea for when they want to try something else.
nyysjan 04-28-06, 05:10 AM	Evil is easy, and all to common. I want to be the hero. Wrong, evil isn't easy nor is it common. Stupid is easy and stupid is common. Anyone can be a hero, but to be a smart villain takes forethought and planning.
Wargamer 04-28-06, 05:15 AM	Wrong, evil isn't easy nor is it common. Stupid is easy and stupid is common. Anyone can be a hero, but to be a smart villain takes forethought and planning. Agreed, strongly so. I was going to run an Evil campaign a while back, until I learned that the PCs though "Evil" meant "rape, kill, burn and pillage!" Evil, to me, is very different. Evil is not "the generic barbarian hoard!" or "look out! Generic Mummy!" Evil is deep and complex, often moreso than Good. After all, anyone can be some disillusioned brat who's set out to right the wrongs of the world... but it really takes a special kind of character to abandon everything they know and go it alone, with foreknowledge of the darkness and danger that awaits them, and no falsehoods as to what their motives are...
kelvinaw273 04-28-06, 05:36 AM	Wrong, evil isn't easy nor is it common. Stupid is easy and stupid is common. Anyone can be a hero, but to be a smart villain takes forethought and planning. To be a villain, yes. To be evil, no. Anyone can be evil, all we have to do is give in to our baser instincts. Somebody hacks you off? slip back and kill him in his sleep. The wench in the bar wouldn't sleep with you? follow her home, rape her and burn her house down. Easy, and evil. Yes, you can create complex evil characters, yes, real arch-villains take a lot of thought and energy to create, but no, generic evil is very, very easy even if it is stupid. It is the commonest evil there is. As for anyone can be a hero? No, being a hero takes a lot more than grabbing a sword and yelling 'charge'. To be a real hero is as hard as to be a real villain. Real heroes face complex moral and spiritual dillemas all the time. They have difficult people to deal with who do not see thw world the same way that they do, or who seek to pervert the heroes deeds and motives to their own selfish ends. Being a hero is not easy!
TheOneWhoWanders 04-28-06, 07:04 AM	kelvinaw273, I couldn't have said it better, but to OP, You might have some tough choices down the line if you're going to continue to play the game. This might sound a little far-fetched to some but you could work with it, if you like the type of character. Nature could have its way of keeping the good guy down-so to speak. You could play the dark hero, who picks and chooses his fights with forethought and watches the others gain the spoils of war. It could be a chance to find a good niche inside the game, the beaten hero that keeps going for his own sake. If you don't the only way I could think of changing it would be to be blantant with the DM, sometimes people need the slap to the face to realize what they're doing and change it.
Pfisiar 04-28-06, 08:24 AM	Don't play a campaign in which the DM has a habbit of railroading players. Charm person is one of the worst railroading tools a DM has. And it seems to me that your DM has been fudging rolls to get what he wants. stop playing with this guy. Players and DMs do not compete against each other. Anyone that behaves in such a way shouldn't be in your playgroup.
aotrscommander 04-28-06, 08:29 AM	First, let me address the OP's problem. We had a DM run a campaign. He didn't at the start make it especially clear it was to be an evil campaign, so about two sessions in most of the party's alignment shifted over to evil once we realised what the game world was like (evil was the majority, not even neutral, good was vanishingly remote). One player kept his lawful good cleric until eventually the character left the group to become a recurring ba- ah, good guy (whom the DM let the origonal player control when he showed up). the player picked a more 'harmonious' evil character. This campaign, in the end, while entertaining, we did not enjoy as much as some others because the campaign the DM wanted to run was not the same as the ones we usually play; it was more free-from than really as a group we were comfortable with. About halfway through I ened up ditching my chaotic- evil utterly loopy rogue the Black Dagger because I found I was getting all to close (by getting to far into character) to cuasing friction in the group. So I changed and had an anti-paladin, who was at least motivated to try and keep the party together. This DM, while his overall plots were excellent (though we suffered because they were almost too convoluted) had a problem in that if we didn't approach a solution in exact right way tended to kill characters. One player in the end basically gave up after his second character was killed in a fashion he couldn't really do anything about, and decided to sit out the remaining portion of the adventure. We never finished the campaign, because the DM was struggling with what we (the ex-DM) included discovered afterwards that he suffered from aspurges syndrome, and as such struggled in social conditions. I have since told him that when and if he chooses to come back, we can make allowances for this. The point I'm getting at is that you should look at your DM and decide whether he's really just being a jerk or whether you're not playing the game 'his' way and he doesn't know how to tell you. I would take an evil character, or at best a neutral character and see how you go. If he still treats you the same way, then you need to talk to your DM on a personal level and tell him you are unhappy. If you really don't want to play with the evil party, do what we do in such circumastances; sit out the campaign (assuming it's relatively short) and go back when you do something else. Depending of course what the RPG density in your area, that may not be an option, so you'll have to decide whether you want to play a bad game or play no game at all. On the subject of evil parties in general, I have run and played with more than one, but I always tend to use evil organisations (like our Galatic Empire party, TIE Fighter squadron 666) as the basis. If you let too many chaotic evil characters in, you are going to struggle much more to get them to work together, and not backstab each other all the time. It's all too easy even for a normally good and party-friendly player (like myself) to get too immersed in CE at the expense of the game. I consider the Black Dagger to be a lesson learned. If your group is not consisting entirely of 'mature' 'pure' roleplayers (in which catergory I most certainly don't fit it, thank you!) then you might try it; even then I'd be careful, I would avoid CE alignments period in a group, regardless of overall leanings. Like Frenzied berserkers, they can cause out-of-character problems between players. Chaotic Evil PCs (and their closely related CN friends who are often but not always just as bad) usually mean 'I can be a jerk to everyone else!'
Pfisiar 04-28-06, 08:33 AM	In our playgroup, we have a motto: Chaotic Evil is an NPC alignment, not a PC alignment. Chaotic Evil does not work in D&D campaigns except as the BBEG or something similar. It's just too damn destructive.
nyysjan 04-28-06, 10:11 AM	To be a villain, yes. To be evil, no. Anyone can be evil, all we have to do is give in to our baser instincts. Somebody hacks you off? slip back and kill him in his sleep. The wench in the bar wouldn't sleep with you? follow her home, rape her and burn her house down. Easy, and evil. And so incredibly stupid. Yes, the guy described here is evil, no argument about that, but that seems to take a second place to his mindblowing stupidity. As for anyone can be a hero? No, being a hero takes a lot more than grabbing a sword and yelling 'charge'. To be a real hero is as hard as to be a real villain. Real heroes face complex moral and spiritual dillemas all the time. They have difficult people to deal with who do not see thw world the same way that they do, or who seek to pervert the heroes deeds and motives to their own selfish ends. Being a hero is not easy! So you are sayng that risking your life for someone, and trying to do the best you can in all possible situations, or that working from sunrise to sunset so that others might be safe, warm and well fed, is not being a hero. It's easy to be a hero, just because your not a succesfull hero doesn't mean that you aren't a hero.
kelvinaw273 04-28-06, 12:26 PM	And so incredibly stupid. Yes, the guy described here is evil, no argument about that, but that seems to take a second place to his mindblowing stupidity. Yes, and I have seen many players play this as evil - and anybody can do it. Most evil characters are not geniuses, evil is a moral option, not an intelligent option. So you are sayng that risking your life for someone, and trying to do the best you can in all possible situations, or that working from sunrise to sunset so that others might be safe, warm and well fed, is not being a hero. It's easy to be a hero, just because your not a succesfull hero doesn't mean that you aren't a hero. Yes, you can regard that as heroic - you can also call it being a right mug, being taken advantage of, busting your gut for no reason ... If my example was being dumb and evil, then you could call this being dumb and good. Why don't we agree that playing a character with moral choices (villainous or heroic) is the easy step, and doing it well, with an intelligent, wise, motivated character is the hard part? That said, I still feel that evil has the advantage, because evil can always take the easy, convenient path without regard to consequences for others. Good has the harder job, if it is to stay good. There is an old saying: "Doing evil is never so easy as when it is convenient." Good is almost never convenient.
Pfisiar 04-28-06, 01:00 PM	I have to agree with good being the hard path. I mean, charity is not an easy thing to do. Neither is loving your enemy or what have you. It's sort of like in Star Wars when the Jedi refer to the Dark Side as the quick and easy path.
Ryuu_Tenshi 04-28-06, 01:23 PM	I'm sorry, I feel that being good is as hard as being evil. Anyone can run around and say, "IM LAWFUL GOOD! LOL" But to actually ADHERE to that alignment... ESPECIALY LG. This is incredibly difficult. The best example I have is of a player currently in my Eberron group who is a lawful good monk. This is a guy who normally plays chaotic evil characters of the worst sort - almost exclusivly. Even in real life I'd say he's somewhat evil by nature. He's exalted, vow of poverty, and trying desperatly for sainthood. And it's very hard for him. He WANTS to go and slaughter people left and right, but he has to refrain from it. And he has to stop the rest of the party - N, LN, and CG - from either doing morally ambiguous things - the N and LN members like to tie people up and interrogate them rather harshly, and the N character tends to steal stuff and look out for number one - or chaotic things. And yet, he's doing a great job. Often, rather than killing the Emerald Claw agents sent after us, he captures them and converts them to good, or at least neutrality. He and I (the N bard) have converted at least three warrior-types to good or neutrality, causing them to re-think their worship of Vol and follow the way back to light. In most games, those flunkies would be teh dedzor. But we go the extra mile. Heck, my character is almost NG now becuase of his efforts! In fact, we even went so far as to Subdue Garrow, rather than kill him, and through a series of the luckiest rolls we've ever made, convert him to the worship of Aureon. He's still obsessed with immortality... but he's on our side now. HE EVEN RAISED ONE OF OUR PARTY MEMBERS FROM THE DEAD. Most people just kill him and are done with it - sparing his life doesn't even occur to them. And an evil character can be just as stupid. You cna have a fellow who just revels in wanton destruction... or you can have the subtly evil type who twists and twists until things break. Or myself. I AM playing three good characters and a neutral character - two LG, one NG. One of the LG characters is in a very silly game and I don't play her as LG at all - because i don't feel like it. The other... I haven't had a chance to have a LG dilemma yet, becuause we're running Tomb of Horrors, so his biggest problem has been the fact that he's an undead slayer and we've not met any undead yet (Funniest moment for him was encountering a bone golem and trying to turn it, "DAMMIT! ITS NOT WORKI... it's not an undead? Oh bloody... *smash*) But the NG character is constantly faced with huge moral dillemas. Try to save the innocent Knights of the Sacred Seal, even though the Seropanians just threatened her hometown? Leave her hometown and join the conflict when she'd rather just sit in her library and read? Get the Truename of Michael Ambrose, even though she knows they'll harm her own family if she does? Don't get the truename and let them slaughter hundreds of innocent Sacred Seal binders? Wheras my neutral character never has an issue with anything. She's neutral. She cares about only two things: herself and her younger brother. You who say that evil is so much more interesting and difficult: try playing a truly good character sometime. Take teh Vow of Nonviolence, and then tell me that being a hero is easy.
HIDragonstar 04-28-06, 06:22 PM	Strange how this Thread has evolved... Right now, as the situation stands he had us all make characters seperately and we could play anything we wanted set the level at 9. Everyone had to make their characters seperately from each other so we couldn't do a 'Metagaming' where the party was properly balanced (I have no idea WHY though... we don't have a cleric...) I've always wanted to try a 'Vassal of Bahamut', so I created it. The others created a 'Dirgesinger', 'Assassin', and vanilla Sorcerer. The railroading to having me fall and lose my exaulted feats and classes are a little irritating. This is a little 'off topic' but if you meet the preqs for a feat, gain it and then preqs for it do you lose the feat? I'm thinking of giving him EXACTLY what he wants now... he wants an 'evil' campaign. I have Sacred Vow, Vow of Obediance (Bahamut), and Ancestral Weapon as my Exaulted feats for this character. I'm probably going to lose my Vassal of Bahamut classes (although if you really look at it you don't lose the class abilities if you turn to evil not like a paladin). Nowhere does it say you have to atone for a Vassal of Bahamut if you are evil. He has me 'Charmed' and helping the other to go and steal things from a bank. I've decided to now play a Lawful Good FANATIC. One that is so fanatical that it starts to become evil. He broke my 'Ancestral Weapon' and refused to let me 'restring the bow' which was the 'conscience and heart' of my character (I can't get my Ancestral Weapon Feat Back). He will serve Bahamut, and follow his Vows but now is a Fanatic. I've tried to play the 'Exaulted' and 'Good', but if he wants to railroad me to evil, I'll give him EXACTLY what he wanted. Perhaps this will change his mind about 'Evil Campaigns'. I think he enjoys 'Evil Campaigns' cause it allows everything to be so free flowing and all and he doesn't have to think of a decent plot. The players just go out and kill people or be mercernary and it turns into a slaughterfest of gold and magic. I truthfuly enjoy playing a "Hero". I liked being the "Hero", ones that make the hard choices and try and take the 'higher path'. I actually PREFER to play a good character. This 'railroading' of my Character is really getting me angry. No where did he say that this was going to be an 'evil' campaign, and he won't let me redo my character into something that will match the rest of the group. Being the odd man out right now, I'll give him EXACTLY what he wants. I know I'm not being very 'Heroic' and all trying to take the 'right way', but what do you think? Playing a fanatic would it have this 'character' match more with the party? I don't know the sorcerer, but I think the Assasin is LE, and the Dirgesinger is CN.
Grunj 04-28-06, 06:53 PM	Find a grown-up DM. Or, if he wants evil, give him evil. An Alienist who is constantly summoning pseudonatural creatures from the Far Realm and releasing them for the entertainment value. Including while the rest of the party is sleeping. "Ooops. That one got away." True chaos. The ask the DM how it feels to have the session ruined by someone else's self-centered and childish definition of "fun."
aotrscommander 04-28-06, 07:05 PM	I know I'm not being very 'Heroic' and all trying to take the 'right way', but what do you think? I think you're right. Don't try to go against the flow of the campaign if it's causing trouble. If you can stomach playing evil, go for it! I think he enjoys 'Evil Campaigns' cause it allows everything to be so free flowing and all and he doesn't have to think of a decent plot. The players just go out and kill people or be mercernary and it turns into a slaughterfest of gold and magic. That's the problem we had in the campaign in my eariler post. The DM wanted us to be like his players when he and his young friends used to play and take in terms to DM each session. They used to get through characters like cheese. The DM had put in a very complicated plot, but because most of the party was so busy pursuing their own goals that it got lost. We did not act as a team in or out of combat, and in the end, the DM was practically dragging along by the bootstraps, and non-too-gently. I know at least one of my players would be quite happy if the campaign was just killing folk and looting, at least for a while. (What frightens me is he is with the police!) But eventually even he will get bored of plot-less criminal activity, so you'll probably find everyone will get tired of the campaign before long. Edit: Note to self, remember not to leave out key words...
nyysjan 04-29-06, 03:12 AM	That said, I still feel that evil has the advantage, because evil can always take the easy, convenient path without regard to consequences for others. Good has the harder job, if it is to stay good. There is an old saying: "Doing evil is never so easy as when it is convenient." Good is almost never convenient. In part yes, the choices may seem easy and convenient. But assuming that third of the population is Good, a Third is Neutral, and the last Third is Evil. Neutral is neither good nor evil, but has a tendency to support neutral because it is in its own best interests, the good will protect and help the neutrals, becaus that is what the good do. but Evil is, in most cases, on it's own, fighting against two thirds of the world, or even more, because evil often contends against itself. Stupid evil will get caught and punished by either good or neutral, but stupid good often has only evil to contend with, the good and neutral will not interfere (unless the good is really, really stupid). It takes wisdon, intellect, and forethought to be evil and get away with it. The thing is, that in DnD, the good has almost always an automatic support network (of warying degrees, and whether you get to use it depends on DM, but it is there), but evil is on it's own.
Mitchell 04-29-06, 04:18 AM	In part yes, the choices may seem easy and convenient. But assuming that third of the population is Good, a Third is Neutral, and the last Third is Evil. Neutral is neither good nor evil, but has a tendency to support neutral because it is in its own best interests, the good will protect and help the neutrals, becaus that is what the good do. but Evil is, in most cases, on it's own, fighting against two thirds of the world, or even more, because evil often contends against itself... It takes wisdon, intellect, and forethought to be evil and get away with it... So it is obviously the wise and intelligent thing to do to go against 2/3rds of the worlds population? And how exactly does neutral support good? Sure, they would rather have good neighbors, as they aren't likely to rob and kill them while they sleep, but they are neutral because they evidentally decided that they weren't willing to stick their necks out for a cause. If they are more in line with a neutrality of balance, then they are just as likely to sit back and let evil do it's thing untilt they feel that said balance has been achieved. It is all too easy to turn your back to the victim, as they are being beaten, tortured, or killed. It is all too easy to "just follow orders". It is all too easy to maintain power by oppressing those without it. Now be a hero. Help the victim, though you are outnumbered, and those "neutral" allies are too fearful to assist. Stand up and say "No", make a stand on what you feel is right, though it may cost you everything. Help the oppressed find their voice and their future, though you may not be a welcome part of it. Now tell me which is easier. I get so tired of all the evil advocates talk about how they really areevil, as though it was something to be proud of. How good is stupid and evil is fun and cool. How many of your friends and family have been killed by drug dealers or muggers? Tell me they aren't evil. Tell me how they are victims and were thus justified in taking another life Tell me how freaking brilliant this scum of the earth is.
nyysjan 04-29-06, 05:30 AM	How many of your friends and family have been killed by drug dealers or muggers? Tell me they aren't evil. Tell me how they are victims and were thus justified in taking another life Tell me how freaking brilliant this scum of the earth is. This is a game discussion, about game characters and NPCs, using the game rules about alignment and the world in general. Real life issues have nothing to do with it. And the person that merely turns away from those in need is not evil, he is neutral. And now tell me how easy it is to be evil while surrounded by hundreds or good and neutral people, 1 against an army doesn't tell anything about the inherent quality of the ideology followed, and someone who tries to stop those around him from doing evil, even if he will be killed for doing so, is a good person, even heroic person, but he is also not the most intelligent person, for what did he accomplish by dying with the victim. The choice to be a hero was easy, everyone can see what the "right, good, heroic" thing to do is, now come up with a way to do something that has an actual impact on the situation, and has a lasting good effect. and i have never said that evil is cool or great or brillian, and evil is (almost) never justified. I have never said that the evil people are somehow victims. Stupid is easy and stupid is common. Anyone can be a hero, but to be a smart villain takes forethought and planning. and as you see, i said that stupid is easy and common, i didn't say that good is stupid. i did, however, say that anyone can be a hero, and that is true, all it takes is a choice to be one, and act on it. but to be a "Smart" villain takes forethought and planning, and that is also true. It is just as easy to be a stupid hero, than it is to be a stupid villain, all it takes is a decision to be one. But to be an effective one hero or villain is a lot harder.
sedqon 04-30-06, 06:45 PM	It is all too easy to turn your back to the victim, as they are being beaten, tortured, or killed. It is all too easy to "just follow orders". It is all too easy to maintain power by oppressing those without it. Now be a hero. Help the victim, though you are outnumbered, and those "neutral" allies are too fearful to assist. Stand up and say "No", make a stand on what you feel is right, though it may cost you everything. Help the oppressed find their voice and their future, though you may not be a welcome part of it. Evil would argue that, based on this argument, you'd be a fool not to pursue the easier path. That, if you are indeed a hero, you've been suckered by friends, family, and everyone around you into fighting an idea that obviously leads to greater power more quickly. What has all your good gotten you? Approval? A quiet 'conscience'? these things are just tools used by priests and kings to keep the simple folk in line, to keep the military loyal and organized, and to use to inspire their do-gooder paladins to serve them without question. Now, when you think of it that way, it doesn't make much sense at all to adhere to ridiculous ideals of 'right and wrong'. After all, what makes them better than us? They wage war, and they kill us without a second thought, patting themselves on the back and telling themselves that the 'greater good' has prevailed once again. At least, thats what Evil would argue. And you have to remember, Evil seldom considers itself Evil, and folks like tyrants and necromancers have seldom made a conscious decision to further the cause of evil -- they're simply pursuing their goals without the hindrance of the need to do good.
King_Bulba 04-30-06, 08:08 PM	Just because you are evil doesn't mean you can't be the hero. I say this a lot but much of evil think they are good but take things beyond what a good char would do. Everyone thinks the ends justify the means up to a point, even good but how far you are willing to draw that line makes you good or evil. Willing to torcher a man to save a village? Well the village is saved but your evil in a western culture anyways and your the hero who saved the day. A good char let the village die but upheld his pricipals, so he isn't quite the hero but he isn't evil at least. Beatrix in Kill Bill is an evil hero who doesn't even think she is good. Personally I like your DM making it hard on good characters. People who are good have to sacrafice to be good. It is easier to be non good than good and the world should refect that. IMO the world today has only a small % of good people in it with the bulk netural and evil has a slightly larger % then good.
Lord Ian Stark 04-30-06, 11:22 PM	When playing a Paladin, or having any of the Vows in 'Book of Exaulted Deeds'. He constantly 'Charm Person's or 'Dominate's a good character into losing their abilities. You find Intelligent swords with Egos that are 20+ and have you do 'evil things'. As far as the Paladin... Ex-Paladins A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities... Well if your charmed and/or acting under the will of another, you won't fall according to the RAW. This used to be different but they changed the atonement spell so it no longer says anything about a Paladin falling when magically under the influence of evil. Show your immature DM that one. ;)
Whim 05-01-06, 12:30 PM	If you're trying to play a good guy in an evil scenario, I'd have to say that you're at least partly at fault. You're asking to get your ass handed to you when you do things like that. Of course, it's your choice, but just know that certain choices have certain consequences. That being said, I hate scenarios and DMs that cause players to lose control of their characters too much or force them to stray too far from the player's original concept. If I run a scenario, I very much try to avoid forcing a player into playing something they did not roll. It doesn't sound like your DM is very good at his job, but we're only hearing one side of this story, so I can't really judge. If you can't handle what the DM is throwing at you, but you do want to keep playing in his scenario, then I would suggest that you simply re-roll.
OctoberRaven 05-01-06, 01:10 PM	Just because you are evil doesn't mean you can't be the hero. Like Tommy Vercetti?
StormKnight 05-01-06, 04:42 PM	I think the claims that "evil is easier" or "evil is harder" or whatnot are all kind of offtrack, and the discussion about "smart evil" vs. "stupid evil" are equally poorly-thought. (Going to get very subjective here...you may disagree with my examples, but hopefully you can see what I'm saying and relate it to examples that work for you). In Star Wars Episode II, Count Dooko is presumably "smart evil". He's a planner and a manipulator. Does anybody get all that fired up at the idea of playing Dooko? Meh. He's about as interesting as a piece of plywood. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Spike is pretty much "dumb evil". He's occasionally got a plan, but half the time will ruin it with his own impatience or arrogance. But he's also an incredibly interesting character who is occasionally easy to empathize with even though he's a violent murderer. The important part of a game is playing interesting, deep characters. Good and Evil defines what they do, not who they are. A game with a bunch of cardboard cut-outs is going to be a boring game, whether they are good, evil, smart, dumb or anywhere in between. Personally, the idea of an evil game doesn't grab me at all. I just don't find "evil" things remotely entertaining. I don't consider mudering or stealing particularly fun or amusing, even in a fantasy context, and to be honest I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable playing a game with someone who finds that entertaining. The notable exception being that having an evil character mixed in with good characters with the possibility of eventually being redeemed makes for some really good stories.