Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hasmead_Guy 01-11-06, 07:12 AM	Awhile back we played an evil campaign. One guy was reluctant to go along, because he says playing evil characters usually results in OOC fighting. I think that was his experience, largely because he was a control freak and a jerk, but how do YOU guys feel about playing evil characters? It sounds fun.
Bizzlethorp_the_Tormentor 01-11-06, 07:37 AM	Being Evil is awesome, its just you have to watch your back a lot. Being a caster is well suited to being evil. I'm a 12 Sorceror/3 Ninja with Wild Elf as my race. The group i'm with have the allignments LN - CN. Is less restricting on the things you can while evil. Its easier, since i can shoot a Fire Ball or Ice Storm without having to care about the group in the short run.
Bruenor CrimsonHammer 01-11-06, 08:58 AM	it is fun being evil but remember that being evil don't mean kill everybody , it is a way to live to speak and to fight
CzarGarrett 01-11-06, 10:09 AM	I played a LE Fighter/Cleric of Bane during a FR game once. There was a CG ranger, NG druid, NG sorc/rogue, and CN barb along side of me. For the most part, I worked well with them. And when we came into conflict, I went behind their backs. For example- we captured a Cleric of Cyric. The ranger and sorc/rogue wanted to just bring him back to a temple of Lathlander. The druid didn't care much if we brought him anywhere, but thought the cleric would have answers to certain important questions. That night, I was able to drag the Cyricist off, away from the rest of the group, and question him. After I got the answers I needed, the cleric 'escaped', but only after his hands were shattered, he was partially hamstrung, and given a beating. The next morning, the rest of the party were baffled how he escaped. But he was found, dead, and half eaten by animals the next day. Being evil with a good party means you need to be extra smart.
Kyuketsukiouji 01-11-06, 10:32 AM	The problem with playing an evil character (or in an all-evil party) is that way, way too many people think that evil characters have to want to kill their allies, which often leads to IC and OOC arguments, because, let's be honest here, no one wants their characters to die, especially not that the hands of another PC. Now, I've played multiple evil PCs, and I had a ton of fun doing do, but that was simply because I didn't backstab my own teammates. Mind you, my characters have never thought of them as "teammates". "Minions", "servants", "patsies", yes, but not "teammates". Of course, the end result, though, stays the same. A party of loyal adventurers is a very valuable commodity, and sometimes, it's worth making sacrifices to keep them alive and pliable. Does that mean I acted good? Hell no. But it did mean that I wasn't going out of my way to wreck the party. So, playing evil can be lots of fun, as long as you remember everyone sitting at the table is there to enjoy themselves, not just you.
celtredleg 01-11-06, 11:06 AM	I have had fun, but every evil group I have ever played with has ended sooner or later with in-fighting. Some was the normal chaotic stupid players that have no self control. Others just cant keep from backstabbing somebody in the party. I have had people say as they are rolling up charecters, " I wonder who I shall backstab this time". If you are the recipient of this, it usually ruins the game for you. And once it has happened, it seems to become ope season on PCs.
imperialjunkie 01-11-06, 11:54 AM	I'll give an opposite view. I don't play evil PCs, and I don't allow evil PCs in the game I DM. I have a number of reasons for this. Low on the list is the danger of in party fighting and stealing. This can happen, but it can be avoided with maturity and self-control on the players' part. Highest on the list is my respect for the 'sanctity' of roleplaying and my opinion that roleplaying evil behavior is not healthy for the player. I will grant that mature adults can probably roleplay evil without it being a reflection on their own psyche, but it takes some doing. For the most part, I have seen both in experience and on these boards a juvenile fascination with acting out socially unacceptable behavior through an evil PC. It seems to me to sometimes be a passive aggressive expression of antisocial behavior (the desire to have no limits or boundaries on one's behavior). In other words, frustrated teenage boys who would like to rape and steal and blow off authority figures but don't have the power to do so in real life. I choose to make my gaming an expression of my desires to do good in the world. In a lot of ways that can be borne out of frustration with not being able to do all the good things I'd like to do in real life. I'd rather my gaming be a frustrated expression of real life good desires than the opposite.
Dragen White 01-11-06, 12:16 PM	I have freinds who love to play Evil characters, and yes they like to be the i am the strongest grab ever treasure before anyone else can and try to take it from them by killing them type players, this can be frustraiting alot of times for me. I like to generally play a chaotic nuetral charater myself, however i find i have to consult often with the DM behind my allies backs about things im doing, so that my allies don;t rebutle with a metta game comment. It sad, but i did some thinking, i really beleive its not the players fault, not mine nor the others. But the DM. The story, should reflect WHY evil characters are working together. Does a mage higher a theif for a job needed to be done, and so forth, thus creating a political structure within the group. A unspoken, i would kill you but i need you to complete my task, sort of agreement. Because more often than naught, you will read about evil characters in storys only working togethher for a commen goal then disbanding, ecspeacily if their vile. Also if their remains no reason to stay as a group characters sit there wondering why they cant just kill this loud mouthed annoyance. It truly is, to me anyways, in a evil campaign, up to the quality of play given by the DM, and honestly i think the only reason why some DM's dont allow evil campaings, are because they dont want to have to create speacilized storys or babysit the PC's. It does take a rare breed of DM for such campaigns...
Fara 01-11-06, 12:22 PM	For me (and my party), it worked out fine. Brought some nice roleplaying perspectives to the game. I played a character who was evil in some perspectives but still remained loyal to her friends (and morals, in her own morally ambiguous way of thinking) When it's played moronically (players killing others over small slights, basically your chaotic stupid type of behaviour) it can seriously ruin a campaign, if not the gaming group in itself.
lesliweird 01-11-06, 12:36 PM	I got bored with playing evil pretty quickly, because there was never a very good reason for my character to put her neck out on the line. So it was either serious metagaming, or watching my friends' characters get creamed. I'm currently DMing an evil campaign and the same sort of problem arises. I've thrown my players a lot of incentives (treasure, power, fame, prestige classes, revenge, people trying to kill them, the fact that other members of their family will kill them if they don't do things) and there's still a lot of "yes, but what do I get out of it?" With good characters its easy. A building full of orphans is in jeopardy and you have to go because you're a good person. Sure you know the temple of elemental evil is a bad idea, but you go with Roderick because he's your friend and you don't want him to die. You get stretched farther because you have to do things against your better judgement. Evil characters, even when they're not backstabbing people, tend to cut their losses a lot more quickly. As has been said, don't do it unless your players are mature and your DM is willing to put more work in. Unless you're doing pure hack and slash, evil harder for everybody.
jasper 01-11-06, 01:54 PM	work out okay for me. Except I had to pick up the litter and sit on the group W bench... :D It is okay for one or two shot adventures but too many times I have seen break down into stupid evil. Read that to be most bad guys in most tv, movies etc. The best played evil pc I heard about was one mage who was always nice. He let the rest of group over rule on numberous stuff, always played fair even when the group could not know he discovered stuff, etc. Until one day when the party was getting the sharp end of the stick. He fireball the group and bad guys, and then teleported away. Leaving the last two pcs to deal with the rest of monsters. And since he had be so nice and fair the party was allowing him to hold the portable hole and bag of holding.
celtredleg 01-11-06, 02:46 PM	You can get anything you want....... Is that a way of dating ones self??? That sounds like a cool play for an evil charecter. But that would be the exception in my experience. And it has also been my experience that most of the people who want to play evil are late teens, early twentys guys with some wierd bents to thier personalitys. I am sure there are mature evil players out there somewhere, I just have never found any.
Andrew_980 01-11-06, 02:47 PM	A single well played evil pc is ok but an evil party is horrable, they have no motivation beyond power and money. If that was how i wanted to play i would get on Diablo2.
Steel91101 01-11-06, 03:38 PM	I think there is a general deep misunderstanding about the evil allignments -- especially among the younger players. It doesn't mean you get to do anything at all and have no fear of consequences. A quick read of the allignments descriptions in the PH can be enlightening (yeah, I know, it's boring cause it doesn't deal with killin' stuff). But not only that. A PC behaving in an unbridled evil manner will trigger several things: 1) The inhabitants of the universe he lives in are going to come get him. He still has to live in that universe, and if he is known for wacking everything in sight and stealing from the poor box at the local monastery, the people will do something about it -- like hire some muscle to protect them. 2) Related to the above, companies of good alligned hero types are going to come looking for him. Some will take vows to never rest until that PC is dead. 3) Evil iself might betray the PC. Lawful-evil deities may decide that he is upsetting the "balance" too much with his chaotic behavior, and cause their minions to come down on him. There is nothing to prevent this, since evil doesn't automatically ally with evil (nor good with good, for that matter). 4) Finally, reputation. With the reputation the unbridled PC would develop (yes, there is gossip in DnD), no one would ever ever adventure with him ever again. With problems and enemies to the front, who would want a back stabber like that in the rear? No one. This kind of reasoning provides a DM with tools to help a player understand the evil allignments at greater depth. Evil is still evil, and if an evil PC isnt careful, he's going to get hunted down by the forces of good (those goofs), and fellow PCs will not trust you as far as they can zap you. As an aside, my Lawful Evil character in an ongoing campaign draws no attention to himself, has never comitted a crime or atrocity that could be proven in court, is nice to his neighbors, steadfastly loyal to his adventuring companions (except maybe to the treacherous Rogue we picked up a while back), is a member of the local Neighborhood Watch and buys Elf Scout cookies every year. It's all about timing. He doesnt worry about ethical issues in general, he just knows when to pick the right time to act, and then only for a darn good reason. :D Steelie
Bruunwald 01-11-06, 03:51 PM	Awhile back we played an evil campaign. One guy was reluctant to go along, because he says playing evil characters usually results in OOC fighting. I think that was his experience, largely because he was a control freak and a jerk, but how do YOU guys feel about playing evil characters? It sounds fun. Interesting. Are you saying he was a control freak and a jerk because he didn't agree with you that playing evil was fun? Or are you saying that he must not have had any fun because he was too uptight? Because even though it looks like you're saying the latter, it feels like you're saying the former. Which means it's really hard to see him as the bad guy and you as the good guy here. So maybe you should play Evil. Evil people, after all, revel in implying that those who don't agree with them are jerks. Anyway, 99% of any campaign I or any of my friends who play were in, wherein a PC was, or turned Evil, resulted in OOC fighting, total resentment, damaged friendships, or at least the end of the campaign. The 1% where it didn't is from a female friend, now in my game, who used to play this gonzo game a long time ago where everybody was like some big lizard and they all went around eating wizards' hearts to gain power. Since there was no plot, and no real direction, not to mention plenty of wizards around, waiting for surgery, there was no real reason for fighting amongst themselves. Fortunately, that's not the type of campaign most people play. Unfortunately, most people play campaigns wherein an Evil PC is a burden and a nuisance (not unfortunately for me, since I dont allow evil PCs in my campaign). If it works for you, great. But I don't think anybody I know is a jerk because they disagree or don't like Evil PCs in the game. I'm not a jerk. I'm just a wise old man who long ago learned that it's not my style and not the style of most.
Bruunwald 01-11-06, 04:08 PM	I choose to make my gaming an expression of my desires to do good in the world. In a lot of ways that can be borne out of frustration with not being able to do all the good things I'd like to do in real life. I'd rather my gaming be a frustrated expression of real life good desires than the opposite. Though the game does draw people frustrated with loss of a sense of control or power (and thus, teenage boys and young men bent on evil characters, which I totally agree with you on), I think most of us do play, or started playing just for the reason you gave here. I think most players - most I've known, anyway - want to be the good guys, on some level. Sure, they like magic swords and bags of gold, too. But they can't resist running into burning houses or diving into rivers to save people, either. Most fantasy is an extention of myth, or a reflection of religion: the best of it centers around the struggle for and redemption of the soul, if even on a subtle, basic level. And those aspects draw out a great deal of good in many of us. At worst, the game allows a venue for dark issues of personality (which has its own uses, if only therapeutic). At best, it is a tribute to our better angels. So... I think that's the good news. Maybe I'm an optimist.
Templetroll 01-11-06, 06:13 PM	If you are Dming an evil group and they don't deal with situations then let something bigger, more evil take over and not like them! It doesn't matter why the Big Bad doesn't like them, just make it that the only way to get to be happily evil is to overthrow the BB and make the world safe for whatever survives. ;)
imperialjunkie 01-11-06, 06:55 PM	Though the game does draw people frustrated with loss of a sense of control or power (and thus, teenage boys and young men bent on evil characters, which I totally agree with you on), I think most of us do play, or started playing just for the reason you gave here. I think most players - most I've known, anyway - want to be the good guys, on some level. Sure, they like magic swords and bags of gold, too. But they can't resist running into burning houses or diving into rivers to save people, either. Most fantasy is an extention of myth, or a reflection of religion: the best of it centers around the struggle for and redemption of the soul, if even on a subtle, basic level. And those aspects draw out a great deal of good in many of us. At worst, the game allows a venue for dark issues of personality (which has its own uses, if only therapeutic). At best, it is a tribute to our better angels. So... I think that's the good news. Maybe I'm an optimist. You are an optimist, and I'm right there with you for the most part. The guys and gal that I play with are in it to have fun and express their good hearts at the same time. They want to be the heroes who either save the day or save the world, and hopefully both. But I post on these "What do you think about evil" threads now because I feel strongly about the issue. I am of a segment of the population that traditionally thinks D&D is a bad thing. I purposefully go against the flow of my peers because I like the game and I think they are being overly judgmental. In fact, I think that this game can be used to express good motivations, and as such it should not be branded as inately evil or wrong. But some of that judgment is rightly generated by players of D&D who think that playing evil is fun- more fun in fact then playing good. As I said above, I take roleplaying very seriously, and I therefore agree with my peers that playing evil can be detrimental. This in essence is the whole ethical issue in gaming and entertainment. Why do we like horror movies like Saw and Hostel? Why do we like to get scared and fascinated by watching a movie about torture or playing a video game that encourages killing cops and innocents on the street? That is a genuine question that any viewer or consumer of entertainment should ask. I pass no judgment. I just offer the question. Something that brought this up to me a number of years ago was the possibility of virtual reality breaking into the entertainment industry. In the late 90's it seemed imminent. At that time I pondered: What are the ethical issues surrounding someone who uses virtual reality to simulate raping their hottie coworker, or murdering their pain-in-the-ass boss, or torturing their ex-husband? Should such a thing be encouraged? Should such a thing even be legal? This is a tough question that should be pondered in our entertainment saturated culture. And it should be pondered by roleplayers. Granted this is not virtual reality, but there is a large measure of acting out fantasy in fantasy roleplaying. The potential good in that is tremendous as we express our desires to save the helpless and do good in the world. But what does it say about us when we act out darker desires through a make-believe character? I don't know. But it is worth pondering. And that question I offer all of you players and DMs- especially the young ones.
Bruunwald 01-11-06, 07:49 PM	You are an optimist, and I'm right there with you for the most part. The guys and gal that I play with are in it to have fun and express their good hearts at the same time. They want to be the heroes who either save the day or save the world, and hopefully both. But I post on these "What do you think about evil" threads now because I feel strongly about the issue. I am of a segment of the population that traditionally thinks D&D is a bad thing. I purposefully go against the flow of my peers because I like the game and I think they are being overly judgmental. In fact, I think that this game can be used to express good motivations, and as such it should not be branded as inately evil or wrong. But some of that judgment is rightly generated by players of D&D who think that playing evil is fun- more fun in fact then playing good. As I said above, I take roleplaying very seriously, and I therefore agree with my peers that playing evil can be detrimental. This in essence is the whole ethical issue in gaming and entertainment. Why do we like horror movies like Saw and Hostel? Why do we like to get scared and fascinated by watching a movie about torture or playing a video game that encourages killing cops and innocents on the street? That is a genuine question that any viewer or consumer of entertainment should ask. I pass no judgment. I just offer the question. Something that brought this up to me a number of years ago was the possibility of virtual reality breaking into the entertainment industry. In the late 90's it seemed imminent. At that time I pondered: What are the ethical issues surrounding someone who uses virtual reality to simulate raping their hottie coworker, or murdering their pain-in-the-ass boss, or torturing their ex-husband? Should such a thing be encouraged? Should such a thing even be legal? This is a tough question that should be pondered in our entertainment saturated culture. And it should be pondered by roleplayers. Granted this is not virtual reality, but there is a large measure of acting out fantasy in fantasy roleplaying. The potential good in that is tremendous as we express our desires to save the helpless and do good in the world. But what does it say about us when we act out darker desires through a make-believe character? I don't know. But it is worth pondering. And that question I offer all of you players and DMs- especially the young ones. I have to get offline in a moment, so I'll just respond sort of meat-and-potatoes. One of the more difficult aspects of these questions is that they deal with the issue of individuality; both the rights of the individual and the reactions of the individual. Myself, for instance: I'm the DM, and I sometimes throw in pretty despicable NPCs, for the purposes of generating disgust, even hostility in the PCs. I have to play those guys but I don't think I ever take those guys home. Similarly, an actor might be the nicest guy on earth (James Earl Jones, for instance), and be exceptionally good at portraying despicable people. Or there's my great love for Quentin Tarantino films. I understand what is outrageous in them, and ridiculous, and also what is alarming and awful, but I still appreciate them and a part of me understands and can identify the art in them. That doesn't mean I condone the behavior of the characters or want to rush out and perpetrate such acts: of course I don't. In real life, I'm repulsed by them. I'm a very sympathetic man. I like horror films for the thrill of escape: I think that's actually common, the same way most people like rollercoasters. On the other hand, I realize that horror films are often gratuitously violent. These things do appeal to us, but I don't think it's necessarily indicitive of some internal evil. It's that we're fascinated on a very basic, internal level. An animal level, if you will. We aren't the only species that watches its kind be devoured. So, from that point of view, I'm not worried that violence in entertainment is likely to lead to more violence, though I do think that gratuitous violence (with no service to story or drama) is pointless (my opinion). At least, I don't worry about most people. Most of us understood that an ACME anvil dropped on the Coyote's head was awful, no matter how hard we laughed. So the question of the rights of responsible people comes into play there. The right to enjoy what one does, on one's own time, with no harm done to others. On the other hand, there are an extremely few people who claim to react detrimentally to violent entertainment, and one must consider the rights of the people affected thereby. So far, most reputable studies don't show a definite isolated line of effect. More often than not, a person who commits a heinous act had some other disturbed aspect pre-existing in their character, or could be shown to just be using entertainment as the scapegoat for their crimes. But, it is encumbant upon responsible people to consider any possible source for real-life violence, because morality means protecting even the very few from the possibility of danger. Another line of thought shows that pretend violence can even be therapeutic for some people. Or that viewing such can even eleviate tension and anxiety: the face-your-fears method. It does work for some people. Then again, some people find that it "desensitizes" them to the feelings of others. I don't know anybody for whom that is true, personally, so I tend to think it's a PC catchphrase, but as I said, one has to consider these things. So pretend violence is a tool. It's challenging, it's good for drama, it can be therapeutic, but it can also possibly be used to train a mind not to care. And it can be used as a scapegoat to get somebody genuinely disturbed off the hook for his crimes. Like any tool, you need a parent or guardian to show you how to use it, and how not to. To explain to you how it works in the real world and to make sure you know where the line is. As a father, I'm pretty liberal: my kid has seen some stuff (mostly in video games or sci-fi flicks) that maybe many parents wouldn't show kids his age. But the thing is, I know him. He's gentle, he's smart, and he's extremely sympathetic. He has a great imagination, but knows when to use it and when to set it aside. I know his limits and what he can be trusted with, and when he seems worried, I take the time to help him to understand what he's seeing. Nothing we do as adults will ever be as important as knowing our children well, and instructing them. A kid whose parents take time with him can shoot down the aliens and still be a decent, civil student at school the next day.
lesliweird 01-11-06, 07:51 PM	Just to be a devil's advocate (and because I dig zombie movies) there is the competing theory that violent entertainment acts as a release valve for all that tension we built up based on our real life relationships with said hottie, boss, or ex-husband, and that if we can express it in a safe, fictional context we can resolve that tension and be better able to interact in the real world. This of course assumes that we are not tragically confused about what is real and what is not, which I agree in some cases is not true. It also assumes a set of morals that we carry in the real world but feel free not to apply to fantasy. While I much prefer to play a good character in D&D, I have to admit a half hour of Halo makes me feel better about my job.
imperialjunkie 01-11-06, 08:12 PM	Bruunwald and lesliweird, I hear you. Good points. And I'm not trying to ram this down anyone's throat. It's more of me thinking out loud. I am 33, and even in my short life span I have seen a rather drastic increase in the importance of entertainment in the Western world. I think this is just hunky dory in many ways, and as you both noted, violent or tense entertainment can be a release of real life tensions. But I feel that it is always important to think through the ethical implications of the things that we do both as individuals and as a culture. I do not think at all that morality needs to be legislated. Individual freedom is important within the limitations of respect for the rights of others. But morality can be encouraged I believe. D&D is a great game. It provides a wonderful forum for considering ethics as well as just plain having fun. When the game allows for the taking on of an evil persona, I would encourage players of the game to think through why they are doing so. I have done that, and for me I have decided that I don't want to do it. Edit: And again, these are all just questions to ponder. I'm not passing judgment at all. I'm just sharing things I've thought through myself in regards to entertainment.
Hamelin 01-11-06, 09:06 PM	I'm currently playing my first evil character, but the way I like to look at my evil guy is that, although he's bad, he's not the worst. He ends up doing good, and he's trying to achieve what he believes is right. Its just that he doesn't care too much HOW he does this. He's out to stop the Big Bad guy, but he's not opposed to killing the innocent guy standing in the way. He'll use evil tactics, such as the usage of the undead, to stop the other guy. Stopping the other guy has the beneficial side-effect of making for less competition in the power department. Especially if I can turn him to my will.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-11-06, 10:12 PM	Hey, Tyler Do'Urden, look at this! "No, I got it. Evil." "Yeah." "So how's that working out for you?" "What?" "Being evil." "Great." ;)
Gworraent 01-11-06, 10:28 PM	LOL^ Anywho, I'm in an evil campaign. There's a paladin of slaughter, a commoner/devil ( it's funky but by the rules. too hard to explain) and a surface elf who is a cleric of lolth. female. I am a female drow warmage. The other cleric and I are planning on waiting till the BBEG battle is over, the cleric will heal us ( cure and bears endurance). Then we unleash our devastating repetoire of spell casting power, that wand of scorching ray will be oh so fun to use. Of course I have to make sure that the cleric gets pwned more than me, once he's out of spells, which he will be before I do, cos I can cast a ton of spells not including scrolls etc that I have. Then once he's weakened, I'll destroy him. He'll never see it coming, he said, since we both worship lolth, we're less likely to turn on each other. I smiled and noded, encouraged and concured with his statement. He knows nothing about how lolthian society works, teeheheheheh yay!
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-11-06, 10:41 PM	Highest on the list is my respect for the 'sanctity' of roleplaying and my opinion that roleplaying evil behavior is not healthy for the player. I will grant that mature adults can probably roleplay evil without it being a reflection on their own psyche, but it takes some doing. A-buh? do you feel the same way about actors? Is Chris Walken evil because he plays villans? For the most part, I have seen both in experience and on these boards a juvenile fascination with acting out socially unacceptable behavior through an evil PC. That's what the whol game is based on - murder and theft from people who don't look/believe the way we want for profit or some form of self gratification. Sure there's some world saving often involved, but you still loot the dead. It seems to me to sometimes be a passive aggressive expression of antisocial behavior (the desire to have no limits or boundaries on one's behavior). In other words, frustrated teenage boys who would like to rape and steal and blow off authority figures but don't have the power to do so in real life. That's pro-sports. I choose to make my gaming an expression of my desires to do good in the world. In a lot of ways that can be borne out of frustration with not being able to do all the good things I'd like to do in real life. I'd rather my gaming be a frustrated expression of real life good desires than the opposite. What exactly are your plots like? Non-evil, sure, but there's very little 'real life' good in the game. I mean, really the way you advance in the default game is by killing things in increasingly creative ways.
bob_the_great 01-11-06, 11:12 PM	you know, just because you're evil doesn't mean your goals have to conflict with the party's. yeah 100% of the loot is nice, but 20-25% of the loot, allies instead of enemies, and the promise of future loot you cannot achieve on your own seems like a better deal to me. evil does not mean stupid, nor does it mean greedy. it doesn't mean you have to eat babies or that you even enjoy how they taste. my current character is delving into evil and i would never consider doing anything against the party. the party keeps me alive and allows me to achieve things i could never achieve on my own. that is invaluable. i just hope that they don't get uncomfortable around me and kick me out
imperialjunkie 01-11-06, 11:30 PM	do you feel the same way about actors? Is Chris Walken evil because he plays villans? Well, after watching him in some of the movies he's done, it would surely freak me out to meet him. ;) I understand what you're saying. And I'm not making any absolute statements here by any means. As I said, mature people I think can...well... be mature about it. But I would have to say that were I an actor playing a villain I'd have a hard time with it. I've heard interviews where some actors say they have fun with it, and others say that it messes with them. That's what the whol game is based on - murder and theft from people who don't look/believe the way we want for profit or some form of self gratification. Sure there's some world saving often involved, but you still loot the dead. Blah blah blah. You forgot the part about paladins being murderers for killing red dragons. :rolleyes: That's pro-sports. lol. Can't argue too much there. Reminds me of a certain former Virginia Tech quarterback. What exactly are your plots like? Non-evil, sure, but there's very little 'real life' good in the game. I mean, really the way you advance in the default game is by killing things in increasingly creative ways. Yes, and I understand the disconnect between real life and the game. At a base level the game is fun and it is about defeating enemies in combat. What I'm trying to get at in this is that there is still some connection between who we are and the characters we play, no matter how slight. The few times that I've tried to play evil in RPGs I haven't enjoyed it at all. I feel slimed when I have to betray or harm innocents in some way in order to go along with the roleplaying of evil. In a thread a while back I mentioned how crummy I felt in Knights of the Old Republic playing the dark side of the Force. By the end of the game you had to betray and kill your teammates in order to continue in the plot. I couldn't continue. It made me feel slimy. I prefer to play good. And as I said, I think it's a healthy thing for people to think through the ethics of their entertainment. It's just part of the process of being a healthy and whole person.
Kuronue 01-11-06, 11:56 PM	Mature people I think can...well... be mature about it. But I would have to say that were I an actor playing a villain I'd have a hard time with it. I've heard interviews where some actors say they have fun with it, and others say that it messes with them. I'm an actress; I am also a teenager (albiet late teens, and considered mature for my age to the point where I don't get along with my peers at all because most of them are jouvinile and stupid and petty and mean). I have played Lady Macbeth, and it was one of the most interesting roles I've ever played. You don't get to be an actor unless you can act, put on a persona and take it off again at the end of the day, especially since when you're still learning you often play several minor characters in a small production within 10 minutes of each other and have to take on and put off completly different personas within ten minutes. If it gets to you, you need another line of work. *shrugs* someone has to play the villian. In DnD, it's usually the DM. If you can't take on and put off a persona, either don't DM, or at the least make it a very dice-heavy RP-low campaign (not you personally, I mean you as in someone in general; sorry if that above sounded harsh).
imperialjunkie 01-12-06, 12:19 AM	someone has to play the villian. In DnD, it's usually the DM. If you can't take on and put off a persona, either don't DM, or at the least make it a very dice-heavy RP-low campaign (not you personally, I mean you as in someone in general; sorry if that above sounded harsh). No offense taken at all. :) I hear that too. People have pointed out to me, "But you're the DM playing the evil guys!" Yeah I know. I'm not making absolute statements nor am I consistent throughout. I accept that accusation. I've expressed that it's good to think through the ethics of entertainment. Yet I'm not ethically consistent in every part of my life either. So I accept all my hypocrisies. This little amiable rant concerning playing evil is mainly directed towards 15 year old boys who take their chaotic evil character into the tavern and say to the DM, "I want to follow the serving wench to her house after the tavern closes and..." Or after a Sleight of Hand check fails, "I cut the old man's throat before he screams for help." Or with his perverted evil wizard, "I summon a succubus. I don't care if I die, I just want you to describe everything in detail leading up to my death." That kind of crap. One final thought...an important distinction between acting and roleplaying is that with acting you are generally following a script. In roleplaying you are making decisions in character. There is a certain depth of ownership of a character in roleplaying that doesn't necessarily have to happen while acting. Would you agree Kuronue?
ConfoundedReptile 01-12-06, 12:33 AM	I'm currently playing in both a heroic good, and despicable campaign at the same time. In the good campaign, my character is a chaotic good arrogant swashbuckler, set in a traditional fantasy world, which is a bit removed from the other gaming group I'm in. The evil campaign is set in a messed up world that consists of gladiator blood-sports as ritual sacrifice, rampant mind-altering drug use among the populace, districts of slums pushed up against a violent port that houses brothels and slavepens, brutal teams of thugs hired to keep the peace (and round up more gladiators) so the nobility and priesthood can enjoy their sport, etc. So this isn't a really nice or happy place. My current character in this world is a mercenary/rogue who has a niche carved out as an information dealer (high ranks in gather information), but he'll cut your throat if you're a threat to him. Of course, I could say he's chaotic neutral just as easily as neutral evil, since those lines blur a little. Free spirit could be just another way to say self-centered opportunist. I agree that it takes a mature player to play evil well. My hope is that no one will try to back-stab me; but if it's done well, in character, then it isn't really any worse than getting blown to pieces by the sorceror I couldn't handle or devoured by a giant worm. Evil doesn't mean you don't care about anyone, or that you indiscriminately run around killing anything that moves. Many people we would consider normal would be completely normal if they hadn't made the choices they made along the line. Sure there's always the serial killers and cold-blooded war criminals, but throughout history people have killed, stolen, raped, pillaged. It's the story of our species. Evil people can laugh, hurt, fear, love- though their form of love may be even scarier than hate if they're psychotic. Some of the great villians in literature and film have been normal people driven to desparate evil acts by circumstances and character weaknesses and ruthless methods. I think it could be beneficial looking at someone who might be considered evil and see what got him to that point. What makes my character evil? Was it the fact that he was a pedarist? Or that he took revenge on his lover's murder by systematically hunting down the members of the thieves guild that killed him? Or by killing their families? Or poisoning the food in the guardhouse, since the townwatch accepted bribes from his murderers? Or was it that he started stealing when he was a kid without any guilt or shame? Or that he conned dying peasants out of their money selling fake remedies during an epidemic? Maybe all of those things? What made him into the type of person who could force himself to kill children, even though he didn't want to? Actors, writers, musicians all explore vile characters. Hannibal Lechter was an irresistable character because he was so shocking, and Lucifer's fall so tragic because you know that he damned the world through his ambition. The benefit of playing an evil character is that he truly is quite different from the neutral good elf ranger you played in your last campaign and also different from the chaotic neutral halfling barbarian/cleric you'll play in your next campaign. While most characters we play are heroes, or at least well-meaning but flawed antiheroes, a truly vile character can also be interesting to explore. Still, if the player wants to play an evil character all the time, and doesn't *ever* want to play a good character, that may be unhealthy. Let's hope they don't like it that their characters set the village on fire and ride away with the treasure and women. If all the player enjoys is pillaging for the fun of it, that may reflect some problems the player could look into working out in his own life. In general, I enjoy playing different characters, and of course I like hack and slash combat and amassing fictional wealth as much as the next guy. I think an evil campaign, if DMed well and played to explore characters and environment can be alot of fun; but I also think an option may be to just agree ahead of time to not be backstabbing. There are lots of reasons evil characters could be allied (minions of the same overlord, brothers in a cult, spies for the same tyrannical empire, members of the same thieves/mercenary/assasins guild, equals who respect the cunning and ruthlessness of the other, etc.), and in the end it still is fantasy and you can suspend a little disbelief if your characters are a little too friendly with each other.
Hasmead_Guy 01-12-06, 12:53 AM	Interesting. Are you saying he was a control freak and a jerk because he didn't agree with you that playing evil was fun? Or are you saying that he must not have had any fun because he was too uptight? Because even though it looks like you're saying the latter, it feels like you're saying the former. Which means it's really hard to see him as the bad guy and you as the good guy here. So maybe you should play Evil. Evil people, after all, revel in implying that those who don't agree with them are jerks. It's nothing like the former. I mean he's overbearing in many different ways, and likes to argue even after he's been proven wrong. He's not okay with somebody else being right. And he likes to heckle me and some other players, but he gets bent out of shape when we try to get him back. I mean, he tries to make it seem like he's still having fun with it all, but you can tell its just escalating, and he has to have the last word. That's his personality, and I don't think he'll ever grow up. I suspect that was the real problem, as opposed to allignment. That's why i checked here first. He's not always wrong, so how should I know?
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-12-06, 01:35 AM	I think the effectiveness and enjoyment of playing evil characters really comes down to maturity (as several people have already said) and style. Assuming everyone at the table has their head on straight and isn't taking offense or aiming to offend over a game, things can work out fine. Over-the-top psychotics don't make great team players most of the time, but they can if they have to. In fact one of my current characters is an OTT psychotic, with plans to start an open war with followers of a religion he doesn't like, and eventually exterminate that entire religion (as well as any paladins that aren't allied with that sect) from the planet. He hates about everything, but he functions as the voice of sanity and reason in his party because he is the smartest and wisest, and he realizes that he can't achieve his goals without help that isn't destroying itself over petty squabbles. But the OTT psychotic with no cause is essentially a walking bomb, dangerous to himself and others, and nobody I'd wish to work with. Heartless mercenary types aren't even evil, sometimes, just neutral, but even those that are evil can work out fine in a group, so long as the price is right. They're unlikely to be the one to instigate in-fighting because it's too likely to disrupt the gold flow, but if another character is causing a problem with income they are likely to put a swift, bloody end to it. The evil characters that would be goodguys except for their methods and motivations (the altruistic career necromancer in an undead = evil game setting, the assassin hellbent on revenge against the BBEG that works just as hard as the heroes to save the day but in a much grimmer way and for his own motives, etc) can also fit fine into parties with little problem. Someone like me (I've taken a bunch of alignment tests and always turn out to be CE) could work out in a party. To define "someone like me": I am one of those who believe the only true emotions are greed and fear, with every other feeling being a modification or combination of those two. I trust nobody including myself, love nobody including myself, and would have no moral or ethical problem with putting a greataxe through somebody's ribcage if I found them particularly irritating. I'm very arrogant, considering any individual I encounter dumber, weaker, and a waste of time until they prove me wrong. I believe that if someone causes me extensive problems, or minor problems repeatedly, that person should be slain in order to end the problems permanently. That said, I recognize that there are consequences to every action, and being arbitrarily violent is has unpleasant consequences in most cases, so I don't do it. I steal when I need something I can't get in any other way, but do not go kleptomaniacal for the same reason I don't go arbitrarily violent. Motivating a character similar to me to go adventuring couldn't be simpler - I get get bored easily, hate being bored, and would jump at the chance to go beat the snot out of a dragon, rescue (or take) some prisoners just to show off how capable I am, infiltrate a cult to spy on it or destroy it from the inside, or any number of adventure hooks - just for something to do. It beats sitting around at home counting my gold and not spending it on anything nor acquiring more (or acquiring reputation as a total bad:censored: to make high-paying or challenging jobs open up to me more often in the future). I think the evil adventurers that are most likely to be problematic are the ones who are desperate to be king of the hill (and haven't been shown that there's ALWAYS someone bigger in the world to stomp you if you get uppity), the selfish cowards (who won't do anything unless there's a big reward, because they might get hurt), and the ones who just want to be shocking and gross (who belong in the circus, not the dungeon). I also think the first question that should be asked of any character before they're approved - before even race and class - is Why do you want to join a party and go adventuring? Even a CG human rogue straight out of the PHB can cause no end of headache and in-fighting if he's in it for the wrong reasons.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-12-06, 01:45 AM	Actually, there's another factor besides maturity. In the acting profession, it's called commiting to a role. What that translates to is... well, staying in character, but more than that. It means, essentially, if you're gonna be evil, then you'd beter be evil.
ConfoundedReptile 01-12-06, 01:53 AM	Actually, there's another factor besides maturity. In the acting profession, it's called commiting to a role. What that translates to is... well, staying in character, but more than that. It means, essentially, if you're gonna be evil, then you'd beter be evil. Excellent point. Actually, I personally find that it's more challenging to stay in character in an evil campaign. My last character was a death priest, which was cool at the beginning (domain death spell at first level and all) but after a while I wasn't too thrilled with the idea of going around killing people and doing ritualistic sacrifices. It just got a bit taxing and seemed to distract from adventures. In fact, my evilness was pretty unrelated to the general plot; I could have been neutral just as easily since we were mostly fighting undead and monsters and humans more vile than we are. So I tried to turn into more of a zen character who viewed life and death as opposing forces and wasn't prodeath so much as just ok with the death thing and happy to help people along. At that time, my priest got blown up for unwisely trying to take on an uber-magical statue, so I didn't get to develop the complete transition. Though it did give me an opportunity to research zen views on death, which was a good exercise. My current character is more of an opportunist who resorts to methods some may consider evil, but I think he's got a lot more flexibility and that makes it easier to play his roles. I'm pretty new at playing evil characters really, having never played a bad guy until a year ago. So far it's interesting, but we'll see if it loses its charm.
Shaggy_Shaggs 01-12-06, 01:59 AM	Another thing which I'm not going to edit into my original post because it's too long already. Even 100% selfish characters can and should treat their friends well, and help them. After all, if you enjoy spending time with a person, that's benefit (in the form of pleasure) for you - if you drive them off or they're imprisoned or die, you lose that benefit. And if they help you out of trouble, or have skills or more tangible resources you don't, that's another benefit for you - and another set of benefits you lose access to if you lose the other person. Greed can drive fierce loyalty and sturdy friendships, if players take a serious look at the actual benefits they get and may take for granted until they lose them.
NinjaPenguin 01-12-06, 11:54 AM	I can honestly say I have made an honest attempt at every alignment, and what I has found is this: A bad roleplayer will ruin any alignment, from LG to CE. Most players can get off-track, especially with Extreme alignments (LG and CE specifically) One of my favorite characters ever was a NE Tiefling Rogue. There was... a Paladin in the group (thank gods for Unditectibe alignment) and he neever really had any IC reason other than my race to believe I was evil. I was comfortable in seedy dealings with shifty merchants, dealt slickly with a potentially illicit horse-trader and did a few other 'questionable' acts the Paladin was uncomfortable with, but he was willing to look the other way as long as no one got hurt and the results her good (for us). The Paladin eventually lost his abilities when he tries to kill my character in her sleep, but that is neither here nor there. Evil is a seductive and powerful force for a D&D non-hero or anti-hero. It offers easy ways to do what those of tougher moral fiber are struggling valliantly to accomplish. The best thing about the roleplaying aspect of evil is that, as nice as it is to roleplay out the fall into darkness, it is evenmore satisfying to see the thoroughly corrupt character either a) redeemed by the light of Good, or b) get her just deserts for her vile ways. It seems a fitting end to either a dramatic plot or a poigniant tragedy, as you wish. End of the day: Have fun!
Ivar the terrible 01-13-06, 03:20 AM	how do YOU guys feel about playing evil characters? It sounds fun. I and my group have a ton of fun playing evil characters. The odd thing IMC is that my the evil PCs have actually done more damage to Evil in general than have the good PCs. I and my group are rather fond of the Anti-Hero.
RedWizard 01-13-06, 03:50 PM	Playing an evil campaign can be fun IF you have both a DM who knows how to put together a good reason for the party to adventure together and a party that understands how motivations work. The motivation is most often power and how best to achieve power but to steal it from others, and more often then not the type of power that evil desires is held by other evil. None of this power of love for them, they want concrete power. Unfortunately the resident owners of said power are not in a hurry to give it up and most often are powerful enough not to have to. So the evil party must band together to get what they covet. Evil is not stupid either. They do not always devolve into mindless killing. What works works and why ruin a good thing. The mafia knows this. So long as the desires and ambitions of the party do not trip over one another then why not combine their abilities to get what each wants. I played a Lawful Evil mage who ruled a city. He was a very good ruler, his rule was strict but crime was low (he would abide noone to get in the way of his power structure, so there was one thieves guild and it obeyed his rules.) To the rest of the world he was a strict but fair ruler. In the end I don't consider D&D a place to espouse ethics or morality any more then I use monopoly to. It's a game plain and simple.
nosoupforyou 01-13-06, 05:00 PM	I find that it's easiest for me to play evil as long as my character has a code of conduct. I enjoy playing evil Monks, Rogues, and Spellcasters who have a definate uncaring way of conducting business, but take particular enjoyment in working against specific enemies and powers. When evil characters are let loose with no codes of conduct I usually find that it ruins the game. Period. - SOup
Rapidexit 01-13-06, 07:19 PM	I believe evil is just as well of a choice for alignment as good in games. However just as there are "Lawfull Stupid" paladins or exaulted characters there are "Stupid Evil" characters as well. Any player who refuses to play a dynamic character that adjusts to situations and learns is going to cause problems. "Backstabing" "Detect-Smite" "loot hoarding" and other such traits are just that. "Traits" My favorate evil character was in 2nd edition. He was a drow but knowing that drow arnt very much liked had to die his hair and use makeup to look like a darkly tanned surface elf. No he wasnt chaotic good like dritz and yes he wasnt too happy about being with a group that ran along all day and slept it night. However he origonaly started out alone and was "chased" up a tree by a pack of wild dogs. Many many long hours later the group of pc's came and saved him. It doesnt take an evil pc long to learn the joys of traveling with a "good" group. or at least one that acts good. Not only do you go around gathering gold and magic items but they help you learn more and advance in power. (good pc adventures to help others.. Evil pcs can help others because they become famous, and more powerfull). A party cleric willing to heal you and a figher willing to tank really make an evil spellcaster feel right at home. Who needs minions when your "friends" will go out of their way to protect you and raise you from the dead? All of this makes concesions on -how- you gain your power a little less relivent. Of course while you make concessions on things like going to save the village (for promised gold and the attackers items) your party can be expected to make a few concessions too. If your low on spells and the party insists you help its not your fault you come up with the solution of dropping a mount on your opponents head as a way to solve the problem(doesnt work so well in 3.5). And it problay wont take the group long to know you like Summoning Undead to keep them from being flanked in combat. A few spells like "invisiblity" can keep unsightly minions from distrubing the group too much while wandering in friendly towns. Again it kinda all comes down to what what "traits" some players think evil players must have to be evil. If evil as an alignment was as backstabbing and problematic as some people think then Good wouldnt have any work to do. Evil would defeat itself and the good people could stay home.
tridiak 01-14-06, 12:50 AM	I am a DM for one player who plays a Shade Cleric 8/Shadow Adept 1/Nightshade 10 (god that was a mistake. Way overpowered). He doesn't play a psychopath or mass murduerer, but as an intelligent BBEG with long range plans. He doesn't do incredibly stupid things or abuse his character's power IC or OOC. He does break deals, mass kill occasionally (a Selune Temple in Teziir soon) and now has probably control of the Shar network in the Moonsea area. He has overplayed himself in one encounter : he has a artefact painting of a very powerful Pit Fiend (HD 30/Wiz 15/Acm 5) who has never been to FR before. The painting can be used to Gate in and CONTROL the PF. Player asked for 25 million, PF offered 10 million and he'll leave him alone. Player also makes a deal with Dispater (indirectly) for 15 million (PF is wanted in hell for attempting to kill the Circle of 8). After a little setup, he decided he wanted to keep the painting and rip them both off. Really bad idea. Dispater gave him 15 million cp (transmuted into gold, plat, etc). He managed to rip them off. Dispater is not that really annoyed, but PF is. He managed to make 3 (#3 is PF's archnemesis) very dangerous enemies in one night. He has permanised Mindblank (Miracle), but this won't help him in the long run. He plays a decent evil being and keeps within limits.
King_Bulba 01-14-06, 07:30 AM	My group often plays evil characters. Its not an evil campaign but having evil in the party has never been an issue. Our players are smart and play with maturity and it works out well. We tend not to think about alignment and it works out well. I left mine blank because I dont want to have the alignment taint the vision I have with my character. If it needs to be decided I will let the DM decide baised how I have been playing him. Our DM gave us great motivation to group together in eberron... prevent a take over from mind flayers. Good and evil want to stop that. The funny thing is most of the characters are looking for power and that includes the non evil. The undead cleric wants to create an army of undead, blue goblin wants to create and army of golems, my charater wants to purify the silver flame because he thinks that he is the voice of the flame reincarnated. Meaning he things he is a prophet and a reincarnantion of a god and that he must take over the silver flame to stop the demon in the flame because it has control of the religion and making apperant good deed actully be evil ones. /phew and we have more colorfull characters LOL My point is our group LOVES having evil as long as it is done in a mature manor. We have some of the most creative ideas and charactars and it's because we are not forced into a box. I have never really played an "evil" campaign where its planed to be that way so I couldnt tell you about that but our mixture works.