Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fatal error 09-11-04, 03:17 AM	Ok, in most campaign i've played in its sort of the unspoken rule that everyone is good or neutral. Except of course, in campaigns disigned to be all evil, but these are the exceptions. So, after reading ever so many posts about whether something is evil (most recently the is stealing evil thread) And so I got to thinknig. If you have a NE rogue, who say; just is a greedy theif, or something else classified as evil, yet not especially so (I.E. not a sadistic interrogation specialist). Would it be possible to play such a character and have him fit in to a mostly good/neutral campaign?
Seraph of Babel 09-11-04, 04:16 AM	Not necessarily. It really depends on how the player plays the evil PC. The problem with evil PC is when players play them with a chaotic stupid alignment and/or extremely antisocial personality.
Big__Chops 09-11-04, 04:46 AM	I would say that during the time of troubles in theForgotten Realms Cyric would be a PERFECT example of an unprincipled character fitting well into a good group. The rest of the party may not have been ENTIRELY lawful but they were good(for the most part).Any way you get the point im trying to make here its all about the way you cooperate. Evil people may do good deeds to gain favor of powerful people that they may have a later use for. Thats the hardest part about being evil is you gotta be 3 steps ahead of every one else
Lina_Inverse 09-11-04, 05:05 AM	id say evil isnt a party breaker,but NE/CE are.some of the best charecters ive run where LE in good partys.then again id say CN is as much a party breaker as NE,even if played properly,wait no ESPILLY if played properly. a NE has no restraint,if he will benefit from an action in the long run he should do it.this means on the first adventure he should kill the rest of the PCs and take there loot.so that kind of makes you not playable.
Seraph of Babel 09-11-04, 05:26 AM	A NE/CE PC can still co-operate in a party. With a bit of wisdom, he should realize that being in a party increases his survivability than making out alone. I'd say that such characters normally would not simply kill their party members simply for loot (barring some extremely potent artifacts) because in the long run, he'd probably get more loot with the party's help. If he's going to keep killing and joining new parties, he's going to get a really bad reputation and eventually nobody would let him join them. Even evil and CN characters recognizes the importance of having allies and the most potentially useful/helpful allies are your party members. This however changes when the party repeatedly demonstrates their extreme incompetence even with good equipment. Then the evil PC may feel obliged to recover the items for someone more worthy, i.e. himself.
Ellanon 09-11-04, 05:53 AM	Not necessarily. It really depends on how the player plays the evil PC. The problem with evil PC is when players play them with a chaotic stupid alignment and/or extremely antisocial personality.Chaotic Stupid! :rofl: Now my keyboard is soaked; you owe me a new one!
Luminous Crayon 09-11-04, 12:19 PM	Evil characters aren't a party-breaker. Poorly-played evil characters, on the other hand, often are. If those players would learn to differentiate self-serving, pitiless, and manipulative from spoiled, rampaging, clowns, there wouldn't be a problem. But I usually see evil characters played like axe-wielding two-year-olds on a terminal sugar high. Don't get me wrong; it can be done, and done well. A mixed good-and-evil party can be a whole lot of fun. But that relies on all the players-- the ones with the Good characters, and the ones with the Evil characters-- not being ridiculous.
Ranthanas 09-11-04, 08:03 PM	Firstly, it isn't if you have good players (particularly for the evil guys). Secondly, one of my pet NPC Counts is evil, but has done more good for his (and other) people than an entire chapter of Paladins. He won't allow the assassins guild, consorting with demons (he doesn't want the competition for the two above) or people to cheat on weights and measures and he does ensure people get treated well enough to be productive and hence make him more money/be better soldiers. (He also encourages temples of healing to encourage a healthy populace, although he's been known to raze paladin strongholds and slaughter every man, woman and child). (For a good fictional evil guy working on the side of good, see Lord Vetinari in the discworld books- he's a cold blooded killer, ruthless, manipulative and is mostly interested in power- but probably the best ruler Ankh Morpork could have)
Daelomiel 09-11-04, 09:07 PM	You can sucessfully mix an evil character with a predomantly good or neutral party, or a good character with a predominantly evil or neutral party... generally, what will break your party is a combination of several characters of strongly opposed alingments, as they are unlikly to ever agree on what to do and may eventually refuse to work together, or even plot to kill other party members. At this point, someone will need to create a new character. On the other hand, circumstances are relavant. Do the characters have a strong motivation to work together for a common goal or end? Is one or more concealing their true nature or intentions? I have played a tyfling mage-thief in a party which included two palidins - and had a lot of fun doing it. [One of them was constantly trying to reform me] Another example is my sister-in-law whose first Dnd experience was as a good aligned fighter decieved by an otherwise evil party into helping them "recover" a holy artifact. Naturally, they sacrificed her at the conclusion of the campaign. She still prefers to play good aligned characters, while her husband usually opts for evil or ocassionly neutral alignments.
Thorak 09-12-04, 12:40 AM	As everyone else has said; it's not evil alignments in general that's the problem. It's that 88.2% of all people who play an evil character play, instead of a real alignment, Psychotic Evil. This is right up there with the other idiot-alignments, like Chaotic Stupid "I'm chaotic, a cliff, I'm jumping! Wheee!!", and Lawful-Zealot "You disagree with my incredibly narrow views, therefore you're evil and I'm cutting off your head!" Evil means the self comes before others. This does not mean they can't have friends, allies, be kind, even generous. It just means that every penny that goes out is expected to come back in some way; if they're paying your way at the bars, you better back their scrawny mage hide up when the bruisers come along. Or they'll rip your throat out when they come out of the coma. Etc. Evil is not psychosis. It is not needing to eat babies just because they're soft. It is not stealing from the party just because you're nasty. Those are marks of sociopathy and insanity, not morality. Stop playing mental illnesses, and start playing characters.
Glak 09-12-04, 01:09 AM	If there are Good characters in the party, evil characters will fit in as long as they hide their Evil natures. If there are Neutral (but no Good) characters in the party, evil characters will fit in as long as they hide their Evil actions.
Big__Chops 09-12-04, 01:10 AM	This may be the mental illness talking but HERE HERE!!!! I think that any one age 20 and up should think of Classic 80s cartoon villans.The leader of each evil organization was EXACLTY that...EVIL. but they all had allies and didnt run around commiting random acts of evil...they ALWAYS planed (although ususally poorly) things out...there was a POINT to what they did/do.
Tanuki, the Bewildered 09-12-04, 03:24 PM	Like has been said - Evil - not even Chaotic Evil - isn't the problem. It's people who play Evil as stupid, anti-social, mindlessly destructive, and impervious to reason, that are the problem. Now, while that is a valid way to play Evil, it's not a valid way to play an Evil PC, unless it's a solo game. PCs in a party must be able to get along - not that they can't have conflict in the party when their philosophies clash (which I've seen MORE of in parties that don't have Evil characters than ones that do), but they need to be able to put that aside and work together when it comes down to it. A lot of people don't know how to play Evil properly, and think that's impossible, and they mess things up for reasonable people. Of course, there are also people who think that the same goes for Chaotic. It's believed less with Lawful, Neutral, and Good, but there are as many ways to play those alignments that ruin party harmony and cohesion.
Dex The King 09-12-04, 04:02 PM	I would suggest looking at the "Evil PC in a Good Group" thread in Regdar's Repository. It has a lot of good things to say about this.
Aerlhun 09-12-04, 04:13 PM	I'm a level 6 fighter that is NE. I just recently became that way because I was drunk and killed 5 guards lol. My DM gave me a choice to go from Neutral to NE because I was drunk, but being NE is more fun because I get to do stuff for myself, which, in a way, is alot like what I am in reallife lol. But playing NE means I cannot be as greedy or simply kill the gaurds that have a potentially good artifact in a group. If I did, I might, say, get my group thrown in the dungeon, or lose my allies. It might even result in them trying to kill me for what I have done, which, when I was playing with nonpeople on my group, has actually happened to me. Lol.
True Archon 09-12-04, 06:26 PM	The best way to have an evil member or group to work well with others is to realize that "the ends justify the means." You may not be moral, but you're not stupid either. For example, an evil character knows that killing the paladin that is keeping you from your wealth and power may make it easier in reaching that same wealth and power now, but knowing that the paladin's companions and religious order will want justice against you is going to make things more difficult on you in the long run. Hence, find a more discreet method in obtaining that wealth and power. I think a perfect example of an evil group working well together for a common cause would be to watch the movie "Heat" and see how the professional thieves work to make their money by not killing indiscriminately without a cause. Even DeNiro's character can have love and have friends, but still be evil. On the other hand, I find it very unlikely that an evil character can remain in an group of good companions without having some type of emotional attachment between them (like blood relatives or significant others). Without this, it is more than likely that the group's relationship will disintegrate if no one conforms to the other's idealogy.
bjorntfh 09-12-04, 09:12 PM	Heck, I'm a LE in a group of goods and neutrals in the game I'm in, and I'm the party's face. Evil played smart is often more useful for things like neogotiating and dealing with the rest of the world than good is (simply because Evil will press its advantages.) As long as you treat the other people you're working with with respect, you're golden.
Kash Darreder 09-13-04, 08:25 AM	I would say that during the time of troubles in theForgotten Realms Cyric would be a PERFECT example of an unprincipled character fitting well into a good group. Oh yes, alfterall, he lied to them, drew them into lifethreatening situations, betrayed them, kidnapped and killed partymembers. Yes I can see how that party worked well together and how the (theoretical) players would find it great teamwork. KD Ps. sarcasm might be used.
Pfisiar 09-13-04, 09:42 AM	The only evil alignment that I have issues with is Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil characters want to hurt people due to their lust for chaos and destruction. So, Chaotic Evil doesn't work in a party of Good and Nuetrals, due to the fact that everybody who isn't Chaotic Evil, likely won't want to see arbitrary destruction. Nuetral Evil is not as problematic as it may seem. Nuetral Evilcharacters can be kept in line, and they may be "inspired" to behave for the hope of reward. Nuetral Evil should be played as entirely motivated for selfish reasons. A desire for power, status, or money. What problems does the Nuetral Evil member of a party bring? Their loyalty can be bought essentially, and such characters can turn if the price is right. So, a party of Good/Nuetral characters should be able to do ok with a Nuetral Evil character if they keep their eye on them. Lawful Evil is probably the evil alignment that works best with Nuetral/Good characters. Ruthless lawyers, pityless politicians and most CEO's fit within this group. Essentialy, Lawful Evil characters may be intensely disliked by the party, but it is going to be rare that they do something to seriously endanger the party of Nuetral/Good characters At least, that's how I view this. Chaotic Evil is unplayable in a group of nuetral or good characters, at least that is, if it is played correctly.
green_yawgmoth 09-13-04, 10:18 AM	I would say that no it isn't, so long as the evil PC's player is mature enough to realize two things: 1: My friends are going to be very ****** if I ass up this campaign because I feel like being a blatant retard. 2: My character isn't going to want to foul things up because that would mean 2a: These people are helping me do what I want to do, and 2b: If I make them hate me, I now have 3 very strong enemies, and I really don't need that right now. http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Thorak 09-13-04, 11:16 AM	The only evil alignment that I have issues with is Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil characters want to hurt people due to their lust for chaos and destruction. So, Chaotic Evil doesn't work in a party of Good and Nuetrals, due to the fact that everybody who isn't Chaotic Evil, likely won't want to see arbitrary destruction. Nuetral Evil is not as problematic as it may seem. Nuetral Evilcharacters can be kept in line, and they may be "inspired" to behave for the hope of reward. Nuetral Evil should be played as entirely motivated for selfish reasons. A desire for power, status, or money. What problems does the Nuetral Evil member of a party bring? Their loyalty can be bought essentially, and such characters can turn if the price is right. So, a party of Good/Nuetral characters should be able to do ok with a Nuetral Evil character if they keep their eye on them. Lawful Evil is probably the evil alignment that works best with Nuetral/Good characters. Ruthless lawyers, pityless politicians and most CEO's fit within this group. Essentialy, Lawful Evil characters may be intensely disliked by the party, but it is going to be rare that they do something to seriously endanger the party of Nuetral/Good characters At least, that's how I view this. Chaotic Evil is unplayable in a group of nuetral or good characters, at least that is, if it is played correctly. I disagree. Chaotic Evil is, admittedly, the most prone to being a gibbering sod, but it's not entirely party-unfriendly, necessarily. Picture the guy who absolutely hates people telling him what to do. He spat in the teacher's face as a kid, he shivved his boss for getting mouthy with him. He's nasty, and horrible, and will do anything to pull himself upwards. However, he also gets lonely, and realizes that if he's a gibbering sod to everyone, nobody will want to be around him. So he's only a (really) nasty beast to those who he's decided don't 'matter'; namely, non-party members. He might try and knife the kindly king for the crown jewels in the night, just for a lark, but if you screw with his friends he'll go back and get his dull knives, just to make you regret the decision to muck with his buddies that much more. Again; the erroneous belief is that evil is ubiquitious; if you're a nasty person, you're nasty to everyone. This isn't true. Evil people can have friends, and while they may not be considered to be worth more to the evil guy than his own hide, they come a close second. He won't jump into a raging river to save their lives, necessarily, but he will find the guy who pushed them and kill his entire family. Even if it was an accident. The "I'm nasty to everyone equally" is entirely asocial, and IMHO as closely linked to insanity as anything else about the 'Psychotic Evil' alignment. It's not an Evil characteristic, it's an unbalanced psyche. And evil isn't insanity. They can be awfully close, and can occur together, but neither necessitates the other.
Kronk LaSworda 09-13-04, 01:32 PM	Not necessarily. It really depends on how the player plays the evil PC. The problem with evil PC is when players play them with a chaotic stupid alignment and/or extremely antisocial personality. True dat. My only problem with evil characters in a good campaign is that the guy wanting to play it is doing so to disrupt the party. As GM, that's my job. Creating a character that is trying to kill/hinder/or just annoy the rest of the party is one way to get booted from my table. I have limited free time for gaming and don't want to spend it being backstabbed by an anti-social jackass who's parents didn't love him. That said, if the player is mature and can be counted on not to be disruptive or otherwise antisocial, it can work. But that's a BIG IF. Best of luck.
danielinthewolvesden 09-13-04, 02:39 PM	There is one problem with being an Evil in a party of Good's. It breaks one of the unspoken Metagaming rules. That being- "We're all here to have fun, so sure, you can play". A party would- in the "real" world- cheack out prospective members. Detect Evil, Divination, Zone of truth, and other spells- not to mention a high Sense motive- will reveal your Evil nature. IMHO, it is assumed a party does this- or actually- doesn't need to. If they need to- they they should know that and do it. The only reason why they don't is because it isn't fun to not be allowed to play. D&D is a game, folsk play it to have fun. Now, Evil- esp a LE- can have the same party goals, and work well and cooperate with the party. A mature group would KNOW you're LE, but you're going to "be part of the party" evil or no, thus joining is fine. Even real Evils- even CE- folk generally don't screw over their freinds & companions. Only Sociopaths do that. The Assassins didn't kill each other, and the olden days Romany/Gypsies didn't steal or con each other- altho everyone else was fair game. Some things- such as stealing from the party- can be disruptive OOC. It can destory a game and ruin freindships. Best thing to do is discuss disruptive behavior with the other players in advance, OOC.
Skikka 09-13-04, 05:58 PM	Evil charactes can be mindlessly destructive and stupid. Not all evil characters are smart. That said, evil can be as intelligent as good. So an evil character can get along with good characters fine if they have similar goals. The evil character won't betray the party at the first possible chance because that would not benefit them (especially in the long run). And even evil people can be nice to their families and friends (although they do put themselves first, they don't nececeraily entirely lack concern for all other people). An evil character could be just as loyal to a party as a good one (at least in deed), although they might prefer different methods than the rest of the group at achieving a given objective. If you think your group is mature enough for it, allowing players to include characters of all alignments could be interesting and enjoyable (if it is handled well IC as well as OOC (note that not all parties will be doing a background check, as not all parties are necessarily that suspicious of potential allies, and a good party will often ally with an evil person if necessity demands it)). If not, however, it is an extremely bad idea.
TheDoomBringer 09-14-04, 12:59 AM	No. Vast differences between party member is. A LG Paladin will not like a CN rogue much. A LG Paladin will be ok for the most of the time with a LN fighter. Again, its the difference between the two.
Lincoln Hills 09-14-04, 04:03 PM	Take this simple multiple-choice test! I wish to play a character of Evil alignment because A) I'll be the center of attention, whee, [CENSORED] the rest of the players! B) Evil plArz get MORE phat l33t! C) My perception of the personality I have for this guy matches one of the Evil alignment descriptions far more closely than a non-Evil one. D) Evil characters have all the options! Good characters are so LIMITED. If you answered A, you are liable to ruin the fun for everybody: also, you sicken me. If you answered B, I hope all the OTHER players also see the campaign as an exercise in treasure gathering, or you will ruin the fun for everybody. If you answered C, the odds are that an interesting story - or twists on the DM's planned stories - are in your future, but you must exercise caution not to ruin the fun for everybody. If you answered D, I pity you. (Where you = foo', and my mental state toward foo's = pity.) An evil character buys his "freedom of action" at a price, y'know. Oh - and watch out or you'll ruin the fun for everybody. (I guess I'm saying it CAN be done, and even work smoothly for a while, but it'll all end in tears. Unless the campaign ends before the big betrayal comes around.)
philopharynx 09-15-04, 01:23 AM	***Spoiler alert. This post gives away secrets about the adventure Black Ice Well. In one adventure, the party ran into an evil drow sorceror who had been abandoned by the group the PC's were chasing. The drow was found in an exhausted state and they were in a swamp that was very difficult to cross because of the encounters and magical effects. The drow realized that escaping would be hard, defeating the party would also be hard, and by aiding the party he could get revenge. The party saw that they could get good information, get help in a very difficult place, and possibly show the drow an example of a different way of life. Later they found a group of slaad in the place they were fighting. They realized the slaad were also fighting some of the inhabitants of the area. Eventually they negotiated an uneasy truce with the slaad. Finally, they had the choice to make a deal with an imprisoned marilith to help fight the bad guys. The evil they were facing was serious enough that they took the deal. Unfortunately, one of the character was a paladin. By the end of the adventure he was stripped of his abilities and facing the need to atone. Interestingly, the character found that he could not regret his actions because they served the higher good, and so chose not to reclaim his paladin status. He's now starting to look to the holy liberator path.
danielinthewolvesden 09-15-04, 04:08 AM	Take this simple multiple-choice test! I wish to play a character of Evil alignment because A) I'll be the center of attention, whee, [CENSORED] the rest of the players! B) Evil plArz get MORE phat l33t! C) My perception of the personality I have for this guy matches one of the Evil alignment descriptions far more closely than a non-Evil one. D) Evil characters have all the options! Good characters are so LIMITED. If you answered A, you are liable to ruin the fun for everybody: also, you sicken me. If you answered B, I hope all the OTHER players also see the campaign as an exercise in treasure gathering, or you will ruin the fun for everybody. If you answered C, the odds are that an interesting story - or twists on the DM's planned stories - are in your future, but you must exercise caution not to ruin the fun for everybody. If you answered D, I pity you. (Where you = foo', and my mental state toward foo's = pity.) An evil character buys his "freedom of action" at a price, y'know. Oh - and watch out or you'll ruin the fun for everybody. Very good post. :thumbsup: :ayyyy!:
The Man from Uncle 09-15-04, 10:31 AM	Theres a lot of very decent points in the above. I don't think anyone has really got it wrong. There is a place for evil characters as long as you and your party have agreed a style to cope with it. I think the only real thing i can add is that we all play and conceive of the Evil alignments in our own way. There are a few descriptions people have posted that sound closer to Neutrality to me than Evil. But the entire endeavour of defining our character by a catagory is pretty subjective. I guess that the true nature of a man (players and characters included) is simply how they define themselves. Some people genuinly think that there is something morally good about the aquasition of personal wealth, some think it is morally good to enlighten people, some think it good to let people make their own mind up and some think it morally good to kill people in punishment and to deter others. Whatever ones definition of good or evil, alignment is how close one sticks to what one beleives of as good or evil, not how closely one stick to someone elses definition. NB: I know. I may have strayed from the topic a bit. I am new at this.
Malawain 09-15-04, 12:30 PM	I like the idea that an evil person can be filled with hate and that can lead to a hatred of other evil beings. Good people will seek to convert or punish evil men; an evil character (like lawful evil) will pursue the same end just in a different fashion. He may focus his "evil" on creatures that threaten life, but he won't do it in a way that is acceptable to society. As for an evil character, well, Lawful Evil would fit nicely because they will have a code of conduct that they live by, they will have friends and loved ones, although if something does not fall under their code, they act in a truly heinous way. Neutral Evil is in it for themselves (money, equipment, power), but they may see a benifit of sharing if it grants them more of what they crave. Even evil people need love. :love:
Steelwill 09-15-04, 01:47 PM	I believe the only time its a problem is when an Evil character starts playing any evil alignment (NE, LE, CE) like its Chaotic Evil. Per the description of the Chaotic Evil alignment, its the most reckless and unpredictable, and those with the chaotic evil descriptor border on, if not completely are, insane psychopaths. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil just describe that they are either absolutely without mercy and ruthless, but within a methodology(LE) or evil when its more convenient to be so (NE). Chaotic Evil describes a creature that will kill something just to see it bleed, and this alignment most accurately represents the idea of Stupid Evil coined on these boards. As a DM I would be hard pressed to allow a chaotic evil character into a party, even an evil party, because he will earn enmity, and likely get him/herself killed. LE and NE can work better in a group structure and at least use more savvy and deception to hide their true natures when necessary. My 2 cents.
The Man from Uncle 09-15-04, 02:37 PM	During some quest or other involving a large Vampiric Dragon called Shae Mora, or something very much like that. We were at the top tower in a round room. DM : There is a massive stake like object in the centre of the room, coming through the ceiling and through a hole in the floor. Where it pierces the floor there is a gap around the circumferance, you can see slightly down to the floor below. There is a mechanism with the amulet you've been searching for in the centre. Vex : I'll go over and inspect the amulet. DM : It is fixed into the mechanism. Though it does appear to be part of a wheel. Vex : Turn it. DM : The large chonical pillar sinks into the floor, sealing the gap so you can no longer glimpse anything below. Vex : Hmm......that won't do. That won't do at all. I can't even see the floor below now. (the rest of the party is going through the gear of a couple of dead Vampire adventurers, ignoring the rather curious Ranger) Vex : Turn it the other way DM : What? Vex : The wheel. Turn it the other way. I want to get a better view of where we came from. DM : (In a loud voice) You want to turn the wheel.......so that the large stake-like thing moves up and perhaps out of whatever is below? (Party still comparing swag) Vex : Yep. As far it goes. DM : As far as it goes it is then. At this point a couple of really angry people (a 4-armed snake bird and a Vampire) turn up, one trying to kill Vex because he has just realesed a Vampiric Dragon and the other because Vex is starting to put 2 and 2 together and is looking to turn the wheel back the other way. The rest of the party aren't too sympathetic and decide that it would be best to leave Vex to get himself out of this mess. The party didn't fair so well after that. The Dragon escaped, Vex got horribly killed and the other memebers of the party reverse gravitied themselves up through the now large hole in the ceiling. The suriving members were not to well liked after that.
The Man from Uncle 09-15-04, 02:39 PM	I may have put that last remark on the wrong board........
Gedrin 09-15-04, 03:26 PM	Let us suppose that an unprincipled fellow has found his way into the company of goodly people. He's a clever, reasoning sort, though on occasion a bit brash. Fairly likable, and good in a fight. What's more, he likes to win, and rarely abandons his side because it would be a personal loss. It's mostly about being "strong" to this guy. He's been looked down on, and now he's an up an coming adventurer who won't mind when he's got the chance to give a little payback. The means to the end of being strong don't really matter. This character could travel with a party of good characters. They might treat him as suspect, and even encourage him to avoid more harmful means to his ends, but just because he suggests "we could just kill them", doesn't mean they dislike him. He understands that some of the people he hangs out with are a bit "soft", but some of them can be counted on when a bit of rough work needs done. Besides, these guys may not want to admit it, but they really need him helping them out. Without morally strong characters, it's very easy to accept a "commonly evil" character into the party. Acts of theft for convenience are overlooked, particularly if the things stolen are things the party needed but couldn't afford. Willingness to kill might be curbed, but no one really makes a fuss when it's suggested. The good characters will attempt to restrain the evil one, and providing there's a relationship of respect and friendship, they will probably be successful...at least until there is an interest so powerful that it overrides the relationship. In a party of people who've shared battle and the trail for many months, that kind of loyalty is difficult to overcome. The problem comes when the evil character has no attachment to the party. Evil characters are usually self interested first, so its natural for them to make choices that benefit them at the expense of the rest of the party. When a fellow party member tries to coax them away from an action, they don't listen. These are the kinds of things that are remedied by comraderie, but could well cause major disruptions. Essentially, while good characters will band together, share, and act in each other's best interests by nature, an evil character needs a reason to do so. Friendship, respect and loyalty are good reasons to act in the interests of another, even from the point of view of an evil character. Social interactions are powerful things, and the relationships need not be based entirely on "what can I get".
green_yawgmoth 09-16-04, 10:15 PM	I may have put that last remark on the wrong board........'s okay. As long as they were evil characters (which they sound like, or just CN bastrads), it fits this thread just fine. :D http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
UltimateReality 09-16-04, 10:22 PM	If you have a NE rogue, who say; just is a greedy theif, or something else classified as evil, yet not especially so (I.E. not a sadistic interrogation specialist). Would it be possible to play such a character and have him fit in to a mostly good/neutral campaign? If there's any exalted characters in the party, probably not (especially if they like to cast Wages of Sin :D ). If the party was mostly neutral, then likely yes, as long as he didn't overstep their personal boundaries or steal anything from them. If they're a good party, depending on their law-chaos axis he may have to work to convince them that he needs the stuff he's stealing for some reason and can't get it any other way. -UltimateReality
philopharynx 09-17-04, 01:58 AM	Chaotic Evil describes a creature that will kill something just to see it bleed, and this alignment most accurately represents the idea of Stupid Evil coined on these boards. As a DM I would be hard pressed to allow a chaotic evil character into a party, even an evil party, because he will earn enmity, and likely get him/herself killed. LE and NE can work better in a group structure and at least use more savvy and deception to hide their true natures when necessary. My 2 cents. Chaotic evil does not always mean stupid. the Drow are a good example. They are a very powerful species. Chaotic evil can mean that you don't neccesarily look to a group for strength, you look to yourself. It doesn't mean you can't function in a group as long as it makes sense, and it also doesn't mean you'll neccesarily kill everybody that crosses you. However you will always be looking out for someone to double-cross you, and often be ready to betray a group if the total benefit outweighs the total cost.
Malawain 09-17-04, 07:13 AM	I guess everyone has read the Book of Vile Darkness. In the back it has info on running evil characters and is a great source for designing characters with that disposition. You could play an anti-hero campaign, where the "evil" guys are the heroes in a distorted kinda way. It's one of my favorite supplements. :b:
Steelwill 09-24-04, 11:16 AM	Chaotic evil does not always mean stupid. the Drow are a good example. They are a very powerful species. Chaotic evil can mean that you don't neccesarily look to a group for strength, you look to yourself. It doesn't mean you can't function in a group as long as it makes sense, and it also doesn't mean you'll neccesarily kill everybody that crosses you. However you will always be looking out for someone to double-cross you, and often be ready to betray a group if the total benefit outweighs the total cost. Ok first, Drow are smart and well organized, and more imporatantly, per MM 3.5 they are Neutral Evil not Chaotic Evil. Also Read the description of Chaotic Evil in PHB 3.5, their word for it is "Destroyer" and "Demonic", they also use terms like,"...His plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can only be made to work together by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him..." Also said of Chaotic Evil,"...A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable" The emboldened word is mine for emphasis, but it sounds alot like a violent mental patient with a compulsion to me. That was all quoted from the PHB, and I don't know many other ways to interpret it than a chaotic evil character is driven by his darker desires, and compelled to act on them in spite of reason. This is like the epitome of Freud's Id, representing the carnal/bestial aspects. Chaotic Evil is Mr. Hyde. Incidently, your last line/paragragh begining with,"However..." almost exactly describes Neutral Evil behavior based on that alignments description in the PHB. My 2 cents.
Dykstra 09-25-04, 04:16 AM	I dont dm much, so this is mostly from a player angle, but ive been in the situation more than once of players becoming evil just so they can be granted access to certain prestige classes and abilities like poison use. Im sorry, but if youre going to continuously poison and torture people who are defenseless for information and other such things like being a blackguard all in front of a party that contains a paladin and a good domained cleric, you cant really expect these champions of good to leave you to your vices. wow, this turned into a rant more than anything, take a guess which side my character usually was on :)
philopharynx 09-25-04, 11:28 AM	There have been a billion books with a billion different definitions of each alignment. I don't accept that all CE are chaotic stupid any more than I accept that all lawful good cgaracters are lawful stupid. By defining things this way you are essentially cutting an alignment down to a stereotype of madmen, and denying it to anybody with high intelligence or wisdom. Chaos is about possibilities and attitude. Those possibilities include following the laws like a good little boy whenever it make sense to do so. The difference is that inside, you know that you are more important than any law. You don't follow because it's the right thing to do, you follow because it suits your mood at the time. While the actions may seem neutral evil, it's the attitude that defines your alignment. For example, Joho seems to be a kindly little shopkeeper. He usually has a jar of candies for the children of his customers. Occasionally he has the whim to follow sombody down a dark alley and stab them with a poisoned blade to watch them die, but between that he doesn't do much. While the Drow are officially NE, they have much greater inclination toward chaos. They have a lot of infighting, but they also have a racial intelligence bonus. Thus they scheme within their houses for status, but usually put that aside when the house is threatened. Also look at the church of Cyric for another chaotic group. They keep their urge to slaughter the infidel in check when it threatens exposing themselves. That's not laful, that's smart.
Malawain 09-25-04, 11:46 AM	The drow are chaotic in nature, but they also have a very rigid matriarchy that most are too afraid to change. Only when certain loopholes come into play are they allowed to change things to their "whim". War of the Spider Queen is a great series. Does anyone know when the paperback is coming to a store near me?
Daydreamer 09-30-04, 01:53 AM	With extreme difficulity especially if say the group has a paladin in it. If ppl insist on roleyplaying accurately it can become very difficult indeed. I recommend that if you want a to play a theif who "doesnt give a damn about morality and is just out for himself wherever that takes him" that you give chaotic neutral a try.
D+1 09-30-04, 02:39 AM	If you have a NE rogue, who say; just is a greedy theif, or something else classified as evil, yet not especially so (I.E. not a sadistic interrogation specialist). Would it be possible to play such a character and have him fit in to a mostly good/neutral campaign?Well theft is not evil, it's unlawful. But that's not really the point. When someone chooses to play an evil PC nine times out of ten the only real reason they have for doing so is (when it comes right down to it) disrupting the game. Contrary to what so many others are saying it isn't that the evil character is necessarily being badly played (although evil characters DON'T have to always be friend-murdering, bathing in baby's blood, kill anything on a whim sorts of characters). The problem is in the PLAYER'S motivation for choosing an evil character - which even a feebly adequate player is going to KNOW is only going to lead to discontent and disruption rather than "interesting" PC conflicts. Players do not need to be evil to make a character interesting - but that's the line of hooey they will always try to feed you to justify it. They don't need to be evil to be annoying and disruptive - but if they choose an evil alignment that's the way to bet things will turn out.
Steelwill 10-07-04, 10:48 AM	There have been a billion books with a billion different definitions of each alignment. I don't accept that all CE are chaotic stupid any more than I accept that all lawful good cgaracters are lawful stupid. By defining things this way you are essentially cutting an alignment down to a stereotype of madmen, and denying it to anybody with high intelligence or wisdom. What are alignments if not a generalization (read that as stereotype) of real moral attitudes? As far as a billion or more books, I quoted from only one...the core rule book, PHB3.5, and if you disagree with that, then you disagree with the core rules, and your argument is your opinion. I have tried to base mine on the recognized source for D&D material. As far as denying it to anyone with intelligence or wisdom, I haven't done so either, just not PC's who are typically starting at levels of power too low to keep chaotic evil alignment from getting them killed, if they are palying to it appropriately. To deviate from the norm and law in the way CE characters do and should, they need enough power to keep those that enforce the norm and law from killing them. Chaos is about possibilities and attitude. Those possibilities include following the laws like a good little boy whenever it make sense to do so. The difference is that inside, you know that you are more important than any law. You don't follow because it's the right thing to do, you follow because it suits your mood at the time. What part of the above argument rings true for the following examples of chaotic evil?: Gnolls and Trolls, choatic evil because they are driven by hunger, and prefer sentient prey, Demons and to quote MM 3.5,"Demons are a race of creatures native to the Abyss, a plane of endless evil. They are ferocity personified and will attack any creature just for the sheer fun of it-even other demons." and lastly, the god Erythnul, Lord of Slaughter, who kills things just to see how they die. In none of those examples do I sense any of them,"following the laws like a good little boy". You make a better argument for lawful or again neutral evil. While the actions may seem neutral evil, it's the attitude that defines your alignment. For example, Joho seems to be a kindly little shopkeeper. He usually has a jar of candies for the children of his customers. Occasionally he has the whim to follow sombody down a dark alley and stab them with a poisoned blade to watch them die, but between that he doesn't do much. This is inherently flawed, you character can have self delusions about what he is forever, but it will be the actions he takes in game that determine his alignment. In your above example, the character you have listed has psychopathic tendencies, and no matter how nice he is by appearences, is a crazed killer because of his actions. However as deliberate as he is, he would more likely fall under lawful evil than chaotic because his methods are premedatated and thought out. While the Drow are officially NE, they have much greater inclination toward chaos. They have a lot of infighting, but they also have a racial intelligence bonus. Thus they scheme within their houses for status, but usually put that aside when the house is threatened. Yes and as messed up as Drow society is, its alot like Klingon society. I would not call Klingons chaotic evil just because their system of authority and governing was based on the strongest or most cunning gets to rule, same with Drow. Neutral evil or even lawful evil because its done within their societal framework. Also look at the church of Cyric for another chaotic group. They keep their urge to slaughter the infidel in check when it threatens exposing themselves. That's not laful, that's smart. I am regrettably not familiar enough with the church of Cyric to argue this point with you. But on all others, I have given my argument and backed it up with what the 3.5 source material says on the subject. Thus far you have only backed up your argument with conjecture and personal interpretations. My 2 cents.
One Wolf 10-07-04, 11:29 AM	Evil Characters often wish to achieve the same ends as good characters, but the means may differ. An evil character would not be afraid to kill, or let die, prisoners held by an overlord in order to obtain his treasure. Whereas a good character would attempt to save the prisoners and defeat the overlord to obtain his treasure. In my opinion, evil characters only group with good characters to either 1) get what they want or 2) avoid pain or death or other negative outcome 1) An evil guy may want to obtain a highly valued artifact guarded by a dragon. He cannot do it himself, so he tricks a group of good adventurers into helping him (telling them to save someone perhaps). Hoping that they will distract the dragon long enough for him to obtain the item, then leave them to their fate. 2) An evil guy is captured by a good group that significantly overpowers him. They order him to help them find the villagers that have been captured by Bandits as he knows their routine. He will help them to avoid death or imprisonment, but will leave at the first opportunity and will probably attempt to lure the party to their demise. These are just examples, but you get the idea. Good and evil can work together, but the evil guy can never be trusted. CE would most likely be #2 where LE and NE could be #1. Also, sometimes good an evil have a common enemy and will work together because they need each other to destroy it (actually pretty cliche). But, once again the evil guy should never be trusted. -One Wolf
The Man from Uncle 10-07-04, 11:51 AM	I think theres a gap between how people define alignment. Steelwill bases his idea on a characters actions, while other base theirs on the characters mindset. I think it is fair to generally define alignments by whatever is in the players hand book in the most current addition (but by know means is that absolute), but its not fair to presume what alignment a character falls into by simpley judging them by their actions. One persons subjective opinion as to what alignment someone else is has no bareing on what alignment they really are. I may be as evil as hell, but too stupid to properly perform evil acts. I may want to kill someone by breaking their back, but if all i do is fix their ache, that does not make me any more good. I think that evil can manifest itself in a lot of ways too. Partially that manifestation is dependant on the other axis of law and chaos, but just as above a third persons subjective opinion does not alter where on the axis someone else falls. You have to assume in a world where ones alignment has direct effects (via spells and some items) on ones person, that people have good control and knowledge of who they are. As bad as my actions may look to others, if i did them with a good heart then i would have no fear of evil smiting abilities.
Grondax 10-07-04, 06:41 PM	I've only ever had a problem with CE and LG. Chaotic Evil is the only person (if roleplayed correctly) that would do anything the group/law would have to get involved and 'fix'. Lawful Good is the only person who would get uptight about someone taking money out of a beggar's cup. So more or less only the two radical ends have problems, but even those if RPed correctly can work.
Beamup 10-07-04, 07:13 PM	Extreme good cannot coexist with Evil. A Paladin, for example, would never travel with an Evil PC - not and remain a Paladin. Neither would an Exalted PC. But with more run-of-the-mill Good it can work. It's only when you get into the brands of Good where their purpose in life is to oppose Evil in all its forms that it can't be done. (Except as a major plot element likely involving undetectable alignment. That can be very interesting if the players are sufficiently mature to handle it.)
Princeoflowlight 10-07-04, 10:12 PM	Evil doesn't necessarily screw up a party, simply because I think it's very easy to categorize a character as "evil." An officer who makes a policy torturing a prisoner to death extract in front of all the others to "encourage cooperation" is evil, no matter how impeccably moral he is otherwise. There's no reason why an evil character couldn't have similar goals and fight alongside a traditional party. They may have different motivations, though. Imagine a party of adventurers hired by a town to get rid of a maruading orc tribe. All cooperative, likeminded people who are dedicated to protecting the townsfolk. The Good ones give ample warning, kill anyone who doesn't surrender, and gives amnesty to defectors. Neutrals kill anyone with a weapon or spell components, and do some looting. The evil one just keeps repeating "LET'S DO THE VILLAGE! LET'S DO THE WHOLE &%#@ING VILLAGE!" Even "Psychotic Evil" can fit into a party. The point I'm trying to make is that someone's morality doesn't automatically determine their goals. Evil covers an extremely wide range of behaviors, many of which are completely consistent with your average adventuring party's doings. It'll cause conflicts, but provided you've got good players, it'll be the conflicts that just serve to enhance the game.
philopharynx 10-08-04, 07:42 PM	If one's alignment is determine by one's actions then somebody who saves fifty people's lives and then rapes and tortures one person is good? Total good is greater than total evil. Intent has to play into this. If Bob the Cleric only heals people for money it's not neccesarily a good act. If he only heals the wicked it's definitely not a good act. And yet someone who heals the wicked because he feels that his purpose is to care for those who suffer is good. I don't see alignment as a straightjacket where there's only one way to fit into that alignment. That leaves nine characters to play. I prefer to have nine million variations. Just because I've played evil characters who haven't betrayed their companions doesn't mean I'm not playing them chaotic evil. Even CE characters can develop friendships.
Steelpunk 10-08-04, 11:14 PM	Someone mentioned anti-heroes - these are perfect examples of how evil characters can intermingle with a good party. Someone may be horrifically racist, sexist and think of themselves as the only worthy person, but still do good acts, even if just for the sake of their own ego and to reinforce their own sense of superiority. There's a movie called King of the Ants which has a very good anti-hero as the main charatcer. He's kidnapped and tortured until his mind essentially cracks and his perception of himself becomes twisted and elevated above everyone else. When he escapes, he manipulates people, and eventually hunts down and kills his captors in ways that show a decided lack of morality. However, he's still the one people root for, because although he essentially becomes "evil", he's still combating a depper degree of evil - even though it's only for him to assert his own superiority. If he had simply killed his captors, he would be neutral - but his desire to not only kill them, but do so in especially gruesome and torturous ways clearly makes him evil in the D&D sense. One could also use Batman as a good template to go from - if he methodically captured and killed criminals to satisfy his hatred over his parents' death instead of just turning them in, he'd be essentially evil, but still doing good acts by ridding the world of crime. It's all about how the character perceives themself.
robertliguori 10-08-04, 11:45 PM	Extreme good cannot coexist with Evil. A Paladin, for example, would never travel with an Evil PC - not and remain a Paladin. Neither would an Exalted PC. This is a common misconception. A paladin is prohibited from grossly breaching their code of conduct. If a paladin is traveling with a party that includes evil people for the sole purpouse of guiding them to the path of goodness, then the COC violation would have a mitigating factor. The first appropriate definition of gross from dictionary.com is "Unmitigated in any way; utter: gross incompetence." Mitigating factor = not gross = does not result in loss of paladin abilities. No, my DM does not let me use Wish, ever. Why do you ask?
Steelpunk 10-09-04, 01:35 AM	Extreme good cannot coexist with Evil. A Paladin, for example, would never travel with an Evil PC - not and remain a Paladin. Neither would an Exalted PC. I disagree. I would tend to think it would be the other way around - evil characters would likely be put off by the constant efforts of redemption put upon them by paladins and exalted characters ;) Paladins and Exalted characters remain such through personal conviction and application of discipline to their own lives. I would think they would welcome opportunities to associate with evil people if they thought there was a chance for redemption - look at all the holy people in the real world who do exactly that.
Kursk 10-09-04, 01:02 PM	[QUOTE=The problem with evil PC is when players play them with a chaotic stupid alignment and/or extremely antisocial personality.[/QUOTE] EVIL is an extremely antisocial personality. An evil person will murder if it helps him/her and they think they can get away with it. :banghead:
Princeoflowlight 10-10-04, 11:13 PM	[QUOTE=The problem with evil PC is when players play them with a chaotic stupid alignment and/or extremely antisocial personality. EVIL is an extremely antisocial personality. An evil person will murder if it helps him/her and they think they can get away with it. :banghead:[/QUOTE] So what's a prison guard who sadistically tortures any charges that look at him sidways? Evil comes in all kinds of flavors. Evil doesn't HAVE to screw up a party. Yes, anyone who decides to kill their comrades in the middle of the night to flee with the loot is evil, but not everyone who's evil is going to kill their friends and run off with the loot at the first oppurtunity. EDIT: "Male chicken"-eyed is blocked?
green_yawgmoth 10-12-04, 12:11 AM	Even CE characters can develop friendships. Quoted and intensified for blindingly large amounts of truth. :) http://photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Mr. Wilson 10-12-04, 03:38 AM	I'd rather have a LE party member than a NE, CN, TN, or CE party member. Sure, they may be less than pleasant, but you at least know where they are coming from and will stick to their word (unless they can get away with not). Plus sometimes a party just needs someone to get the job done, no questions asked. That said, I've played in parties of all alignments, and as mentioned prior, friendships can develop (as tense life threatening situations do tend to draw people closer). That said, I still wouldn't trust a CE party member to say, guard the treasure.
darczero 10-12-04, 04:19 AM	Evil is a party breaker when a character that is forbidden from working with evil (such as a Paladin) is involved, or when the non-Evil characters decide to use Detect Evil on other party members, or when non-Evil characters simply assume "You're Evil, therefore I must destroy you!" based solely on out of character knowledge. However, when there isn't any restriction against other party members associating with Evil (besides the vague interpretations of alignment), an Evil PC in a mostly Good party can be a lot of fun. But only as long as the Evil PC's player isn't going out of their way to ruin the lives of all the Good PC's; Working Together is the key to a "Party" of adventurers, regardless of aligment.
Sphyre 10-12-04, 05:40 AM	As of this saturday I'll be in a game that I'm playing a neutral evil character. This is kinda what his backstory looks like: Talandre lived a halfling's wonderful childhood full of happiness and dreams to come. As he matured he found he had a gift for magic he went to a human wizard guild to learn magic, although for the most part he was shunned for being slower than the rest of the other apprentices. After mastering the art of magic missile, color spray and other such formidable spells he returned to his villiage and married his childhood love, Schail. Several months down the road several hateful humans attacked the villiage and pilliaged it. During the raid Schail which was cut before his eyes. In a fit of rage he grabbed a scroll off his desk and smote the raider a magic missile. Not content with the dying man on his floor he unleashed another, and then proceeded to beat the lifeless corpse, then moved over to his beloved's corpse, sobbing and mourning her death. Hate clouded his mind and devoured him. The pain of his loss made him distrust humans even more since his time at the wizard academy. The only thing that allowed him to feel he had any control over his destiny was his study of magic. For many years he emmersed himself in his studies to keep his mind off the loss of his beloved Schail, but it would make him forget the pain of his loss for just a moment, as he would go through his scrolls. At least in his mind, every evil commited against him needs to be removed from the world. To do such purging helps him forget about that time he was forced to take another life, yet each time he's forced to do as such it gets easier and easier. Perhaps it makes him feel justified or eases his conscious, but what he doesn't see is that it drives him closer and closer to madness. :D I'd have to say, if anything, he'll be an asset to the party... but not trust the humans... Perhaps he may learn that not all humans are as uncaring as the ones he had encountered, but that's a story yet untold. The most important part of playing an evil character is exactly that... playing an evil character. Emphasis on the character, not the alignment. Talandre is probably no easier or harder to get along with than any other halfling.... with exception to his learned distrust for humans... ...I'd be more worried about people who play CN rogues that have no personality other personality traits other than being cocky, snide and the thought process of "I'm CN, which means I can do anything."
Edymnion 10-12-04, 08:45 PM	IMO, LE is the only evil alignment that is playable in a good party, because while the character will use any means at his disposal to accomplish his goals, he still has a sense of morals, he has a code of honor, and he knows how to work well with others. For the ultimate (again, IMO) example of the Lawful Evil character in a Good/Neutral party, pick up the Coldfire Trilogy by C.S. Friedmann. You've got a Lawful Good Paladin, essentially a true Neutral Shifter Ranger, and a Lawful Evil Vampire Sorcerer. Greatest danged example of how Good and Evil can coexist in the same party, and even work well together. The catch is that they must have a reason to be together, why the good can't do it without the evil, and why the Evil can't just toast the good guys. In this book series, Good needed the power of the Lawful Evil Sorcerer to win, while Evil needed the Good and Neutral members of the group to get him to where he could whoop up, and protect him during the day and all that. Great book series, and I'm not doing it justice here at all (mainly because I don't wanna ruin it for any of ya), so go out and check them out from the Library :)