First time on the board but a frequent watcher these days around. My friends and I have always been intop table top, but i really got into dungeon and dragon with the 4 edition.
Now, my friends and i being long time players wanted to start an evil group since we never went that way. So far, things are cool, we pillage and steal and make slaves and it's fun.
But i am really into roleplaying and right now, it seems that there is very little to no content on evil deities and beings.
Our group is made of a human rogue, dwarf fighter, Tiefling wizard, an half-elf star warlock and me, tiefling priest of Bane
Now, i try to really promote and live by the code of bane, using fear against the weak, being ruthless, promoting the law of strength above all. But i don't know if i am going in the right direction
Since i am sure some of you are more experienced than me with deities, i was wondering if some poeple could give me some tips are to how play and react as a true priest (and almost warpriest) of Bane (especially since the fighter wants to multiclass avenger of Bane and i will make the ceremony in roleplay)
So, any tips on how such a character would play as. So far, i play him as very one minded, bent on war and blood. I don't care much about personal wealth other that what is need to fund our troops.
What i am missing, is how to really show my faith, and maybe to prayers for the in game encounters our dailies that would spice up the fight
Any suggestions is appreciated, thx alot
Keep them coming if you guys can, the more the badder we will get ;)
:D Just kidding! One thing I'd do is have the character walk through crowds heedless of others. Let them get out of your way! You yield to no one!
A PC following Bane might be fearless; an evil PC might even strive to instill fear in others. He or she might find insubordination (of any kind) intolerable. A follower of Bane would no doubt be a skilled combatant (a strong warrior or a warlord tactics whiz).
That's how I tend to play my PC Banite. Tyr isn't so much blood-thirsty as he is disciplined. He is sure of himself, almost to a fault, certain he knows what is best.
1) Evil is not the same as criminally insane. Players roll up an evil character and the first thing they want to do is commit random mass murders. Walk into a bar and the bartender is rude? They kill him and everyone else in the room. Is this evil? Sure. Is it smart? Of course not.
Have your players think of evil as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Being evil means that you probably want to achieve something that is good for you and bad for other people, and you're prepared to do bad things to achieve that end. It doesn't mean that you have an overwhelming compulsion to **** and murder everyone you meet.
Being a psychopathic serial killer is evil. Being evil is not necessarily being a psychopathic serial killer.
2) Run your campaign realistically. Its all well and good to be a party of evil characters, but it is important for the DM to remember that in the game world, most civilizations frown on evil behaviour. Remember walking into that bar and slaughtering everyone? The King does. And he and all his knights, paladins, wizards, and priests are on the lookout for the band of sadists that did it.
What I am trying to say is that evil behaviour has consequences in most societies, especially overtly evil behaviour and especially especially overt evil behaviour by low level people.
Again, a lot of players think of being evil as a license act like Jeffrey Dahmer on Spring Break. But ask yourself this, who is the successful evil person: the guy who randomly hacks up a bar full of people and then gets hanged, or the guy who spends the rest of his life living comfortably while subtly subverting the church to the worship of Asmodeus?
3) Finally, specific game advice - have the party decide ahead of time what their goal is. Okay, they are evil - so what? What do they want? Are they agents of some evil deity or demon that wants to take over the country? Are they greedy bastards who want as much loot as they can get and don't care who they take it from? Are they political schemers who want to overthrow the King and make themselves the overlords?
Evil is a means to an end. What do they hope to achieve by being evil?
Hope that helps!
I have very strong opinions on how badly most people play evil characters, so I apologize in advance for the rant. Now, onto my pet peeve :D .
1) Evil is not the same as criminally insane. Players roll up an evil character and the first thing they want to do is commit random mass murders. Walk into a bar and the bartender is rude? They kill him and everyone else in the room. Is this evil? Sure. Is it smart? Of course not.
Have your players think of evil as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Being evil means that you probably want to achieve something that is good for you and bad for other people, and you're prepared to do bad things to achieve that end. It doesn't mean that you have an overwhelming compulsion to **** and murder everyone you meet.
Being a psychopathic serial killer is evil. Being evil is not necessarily being a psychopathic serial killer.
2) Run your campaign realistically. Its all well and good to be a party of evil characters, but it is important for the DM to remember that in the game world, most civilizations frown on evil behaviour. Remember walking into that bar and slaughtering everyone? The King does. And he and all his knights, paladins, wizards, and priests are on the lookout for the band of sadists that did it.
What I am trying to say is that evil behaviour has consequences in most societies, especially overtly evil behaviour and especially especially overt evil behaviour by low level people.
Again, a lot of players think of being evil as a license act like Jeffrey Dahmer on Spring Break. But ask yourself this, who is the successful evil person: the guy who randomly hacks up a bar full of people and then gets hanged, or the guy who spends the rest of his life living comfortably while subtly subverting the church to the worship of Asmodeus?
3) Finally, specific game advice - have the party decide ahead of time what their goal is. Okay, they are evil - so what? What do they want? Are they agents of some evil deity or demon that wants to take over the country? Are they greedy bastards who want as much loot as they can get and don't care who they take it from? Are they political schemers who want to overthrow the King and make themselves the overlords?
Evil is a means to an end. What do they hope to achieve by being evil?
Hope that helps!
i aagree on every point. my experience with players who have evil characters is that they have a really narrow vision of evil which to me is not really evil but just shallow and mischievous. they always play chaotic evil mass murderers. i once attempted to run an evil campaign which got nowhere because of the players' inability to be evil and productive at the same time. this is why i told them to restrict their characters to a lawful evil alignment. they never listened
Just make sure everybody understands you aren't a looney-toons villain. Lawful Evil is best.
1. Be callous. We think of people as evil because they don't care what their actions do to others. These people will look at a slave purely from an economic point of view, is this worth my money and will it help me? They don't care about the person and what their life will be like. They don't think about the child they orphan when they kill the guard instead of sneaking by. View anyone not close to you as objects for you to use.
2. Be ruthless. But isn't this just killing everyone who crosses me you ask? Nope. Ruthless means that when someone doesn't do what you want you inflict pain, not death. Find out what they value, what is important to them and take it away. You might hold it ransom until they do what you want or you might just destroy it and explain you will do the same with everything else they hold dear until they do what you've asked. This could be as simple as just inflicting a bit of discrete physical pain or just threatening to do so.
My advice for playing an evil character is just remember you are a callous, selfish bastard who doesn't care who they step on or hurt to get what they want. The ends always justify the means your ends are all that matter. ;D
Buy and obey.
Anyway, to each his own I guess but there are reasons why you don't see a lot of people playing evil-aligned parties.
The most interesting evil characters all have a reason, a big one, for being what they are. I'm in an evil campaign now and so far, the most interesting character of the lot of us is the one who's backstory contains the reason for his turn.
And it's personal tragedy, in this case great loss, the loss of his people.
Mine is far less fleshed out, but his tragedy is ignorance, in his change to evil and resurrection as undead (possibly the other way around), his memories were removed, he has always been evil in his mind. But has in fact left behind centuries of dwarf-dom.
Given how much this other player in our group pwned me with his backstory, I might consider writing one, rather than leaving it in DM's hands in good ol "amnesia" fashion.
Might also go check out everyone elses backstory...hmm...we got a demon summoner who's prolly got a nice one.
And just in case there is a problem with the link it's in: what's a player to do>a guidebook of evil
The issue with playing an evil party isn't so much how to get them together and how to motivate them the first time, it's how to make a believable narrative that has them staying together and not taking each other out the first chance they get. It's like playing a DnD version of "Survivor" only there isn't a network television to keep you from dropping more than one party member per episode.
No, see, this is exactly the attitude I'm talking about above. Evil characters have no more trouble working together than good characters unless they are some variant of chaotic evil.
Evil does not necessarily mean you have a compulsion to murder or backstab your friends. Evil people have relationships - they have families. They are just like everyone else.
Yes, an evil character COULD be a weasly backstabber. But those evil characters have very short lives. Successful evil characters are also smart.
I guess that as long as they're all underpowered enough to sense that they need each other to accomplish their needs, but while DnD evil isn't necessarily psychopathic serial murderer, it is very, very selfish.
Not necessarily. You could certainly play it that way, but I would suggest that you are taking a very narrow view of what constitutes evil.
Anyway, to each his own I guess but there are reasons why you don't see a lot of people playing evil-aligned parties.
The main reason is that people insist, as you have, on defining evil as stupid. They insist on thinking that an evil mage with an 18 intelligence is dumb enough not to realize that he can get away with way more evil with the help of other evil characters than he ever could on his own.
Evil characters can be just as brave, loyal, dedicated, and committed to a cause as good characters. It is the nature of the cause and the means they use to attain it that makes them evil, not some personality flaw that makes them incapable of sustaining relationships.
The issue with playing an evil party isn't so much how to get them together and how to motivate them the first time, it's how to make a believable narrative that has them staying together and not taking each other out the first chance they get. It's like playing a DnD version of "Survivor" only there isn't a network television to keep you from dropping more than one party member per episode.
No, see, this is exactly the attitude I'm talking about above. Evil characters have no more trouble working together than good characters unless they are some variant of chaotic evil.
Evil does not necessarily mean you have a compulsion to murder or backstab your friends. Evil people have relationships - they have families. They are just like everyone else.
Johnny didn't say they had a compulsion to murder - I think he was extrapolating the likely behavior of evil characters based on their self-serving motivations. And I don't think his comment in any way opposes your viewpoint. If EVERY evil person in a party is serving a single cause - then, yes, they could work together well. But the OP's party seems to be composed evil characters with differing backgrounds and motivations. In that case, since the core game value of 'evil' characters is selfishness or serving their own interests... I don't think it is a stretch to think that each character in the party would be concerned with getting themselves ahead and be willing to do it at the expense of the other party members - evil is a means to an end, as you said. That makes Johnny's 'Survivor' comment spot on. IF there is one uber-powerful artifact and three evil characters (motivated by their own causes) that could strongly benefit from it... I think the players are failing to play their evil characters correctly if they don't each try to figure out how to get the item - whether by killing, subterfuge, theft, or whatever. They don't have to act NOW... but they should be thinking about what to do to get the item for themselves and when it would be best to strike. They might reasonably say "Well, I'm pretty weak by myself, so I'll stick with this group for awhile and look for the right moment to grab xxxxxx at a later point."
You see the same dynamic in good and neutral groups when you have one or more greedy characters (whether thieves or not). I can't count the number of groups I've seen where the battle isn't over and some character is already looking for choice magic items or the largest bauble in the treasure trove.
Yes, an evil character COULD be a weasly backstabber. But those evil characters have very short lives.
Not if their backstabs are successful.
Successful evil characters are also smart.
Successful characters (evil or not) are smart. And success for evil characters also means weighing the odds of success and knowing that there is a time for patience, a time for subterfuge, and a time to backstab an ersatz ally when he is weakened so you can grab his enchanted weapon and thereby further your own ends.
The main reason is that people insist, as you have, on defining evil as stupid. They insist on thinking that an evil mage with an 18 intelligence is dumb enough not to realize that he can get away with way more evil with the help of other evil characters than he ever could on his own.
I'm not going to speculate on what the majority of other player's think. But I would say this about evil characters. Smart evil characters realise that they can't fully trust other evil characters... because evil characters are more dedicated to serving their own interests than anything else and that concern has to be balanced against what the main character is trying to accomplish.
If EVERY evil person in a party is serving a single cause - then, yes, they could work together well. But the OP's party seems to be composed evil characters with differing backgrounds and motivations. In that case, since the core game value of 'evil' characters is selfishness or serving their own interests... I don't think it is a stretch to think that each character in the party would be concerned with getting themselves ahead and be willing to do it at the expense of the other party members - evil is a means to an end, as you said.
I would just like to say that every evil person in the party doesn't necessarily have to be serving the same cause - rather, they simply must not have opposing causes. A travelling sorceror looking for knowledge on more powerful magics, an amoral assassin who's in it for the blood and money, and a cleric of Tharizdun looking to resurrect his god do not all have the same goal - but as long as their goals do not conflict, there's no reason for them to go after each other.
HOWEVER: this is actually completely off-topic. The OP isn't asking for advice on how to run an evil character or an evil party - he's asking, specifically, for advice on how to Role-Play a true Cleric of Bane, and at least one other character is a follower of Bane, so there should be no problems with inter-party conflict.
I would just like to say that every evil person in the party doesn't necessarily have to be serving the same cause - rather, they simply must not have opposing causes. A travelling sorceror looking for knowledge on more powerful magics, an amoral assassin who's in it for the blood and money, and a cleric of Tharizdun looking to resurrect his god do not all have the same goal - but as long as their goals do not conflict, there's no reason for them to go after each other.
I wasn't talking about what they would or have to do, just what an evil character should consider doing. And I disagree with your example. If your assassin is out for 'blood and money' and your cleric has a fat stack of cash that he has gathered to serve the cause of resurrecting his God... why WOULDN'T the Assassin think about taking out the Cleric to get the money? Working closely with the Cleric he will have time to suss out weaknesses, get to the Cleric when his guard is down, etc... all of which makes him a soft and juicy target with a lot of ready cash. Well played evil characters, living in a moral vacuum - you described the Assassin as amoral, don't ask 'why?' they ask 'why not?'. Now, if the Cleric is 10 levels higher and is clearly keeping an eye on the Assassin, then yes the Assassin could reasonably decide that going after the Cleric is too much risk and not enough reward. But, a well role-played evil character should actively weigh the options and not 'default' to the typical player morality of working cooperatively, not backstabbing your teammates, and generally shrugging off the differences in character motivations for the sake of the team. There is an I in 'evil' but not in 'team'.
I wasn't talking about what they would or have to do, just what an evil character should consider doing.
Consider, yes; follow through, no.
And I disagree with your example. If your assassin is out for 'blood and money' and your cleric has a fat stack of cash that he has gathered to serve the cause of resurrecting his God... why WOULDN'T the Assassin think about taking out the Cleric to get the money? Working closely with the Cleric he will have time to suss out weaknesses, get to the Cleric when his guard is down, etc... all of which makes him a soft and juicy target with a lot of ready cash.
Why would the Cleric have "a lot of ready cash?" He's a humble man devoted to his deity, looking for a way to revive him and living by his strength and magic. He doesn't need much money, only enough for living expenses, and he's hardly going to pay for any relics or artifacts he's going to use to revive Tharizdun.
Well played evil characters, living in a moral vacuum - you described the Assassin as amoral, don't ask 'why?' they ask 'why not?'.
Why not? Because there's no reason to. Travelling with a fanatic searching to resurrect his dark lord gives the assassin plenty of opportunities to wade in the blood of others, he gets to keep the riches, and the sorceror gets to keep non-Lord-of-Death-related magical goodies.
Now, if the Cleric is 10 levels higher and is clearly keeping an eye on the Assassin, then yes the Assassin could reasonably decide that going after the Cleric is too much risk and not enough reward. But, a well role-played evil character should actively weigh the options and not 'default' to the typical player morality of working cooperatively, not backstabbing your teammates, and generally shrugging off the differences in character motivations for the sake of the team.
We agree here, at least - I think our interpretations merely differ in how far we take 'evil.' I really do prefer Lawful Evil just for this reason - you can trust others to an extent, so you don't have to worry about rolling over onto a dagger. Neutral Evils, in my book, tend to be the most opportunistic, however, and the poster children for your grasp of 'evil' - they're the ones most likely to gut their partners simply 'for the lulz.' Chaotics tend to be more likely to work together as long as there is a balance between strengths, or a vast gap - clever enough to know that fighting someone may end up hurting you more than is advisable.
I do think any properly played Evil character should have a plan to take out other party members - and the willingness to do so, not merely a "well, I could do this ..." but a sincere willingness to do so if it becomes necessary, and not feel any guilt over it. Actual cut-throat tactics between party members should only happen in NE parties, and the group would split in any case. Any 'group' that can't get along shouldn't be played together unless they have a reason for doing so (mass Geas by a ruler of a kingdom to work together, maybe?)
There is an "eye" in 'evil' but not in 'team'.
You've never seen Dark Angel, have you? :P
Consider, yes; follow through, no.
Why would the Cleric have "a lot of ready cash?" He's a humble man devoted to his deity, looking for a way to revive him and living by his strength and magic. He doesn't need much money, only enough for living expenses, and he's hardly going to pay for any relics or artifacts he's going to use to revive Tharizdun.
I'm not sure why you want to debate plot themes here as they don't seem relevant to the discussion, but I'll play along. I never said the cleric was using the money for himself. Perhaps part of his efforts to revive Tharizdun includes founding a secret temple, and amassing followers. I think a smart evil cleric would know there was a time when softly infiltrating a community through the judicious use of cash (for building, bribes, assuaging the locals, or hiring thugs) is a smarter tactic than 'going loud'. Further why wouldn't an evil cleric purchase a relic if the option was open to him? Seems to me, if he could buy a relic and not risk his life, that would be a smart move.
Why not? Because there's no reason to [kill the cleric].
I disagree. If he has cash, the assassin has a reason. If he has some cool items the assassin covets, he has a reason.
Travelling with a fanatic searching to resurrect his dark lord gives the assassin plenty of opportunities to wade in the blood of others, he gets to keep the riches, and the sorceror gets to keep non-Lord-of-Death-related magical goodies.
If blood and mayhem are the priorities for the assassin - then, yes, that is one possible way to play his/her brand of 'evil'. But that, in no way, invalidates my argument that our fictional assassin might see a benefit in whacking the cleric.
We agree here, at least - I think our interpretations merely differ in how far we take 'evil.'
I agree... but it isn't about how 'far' I take evil. I let the players decide that based on their particular motivations. If they want to play a blood-thirsty Dahmer, OK. Personally, I find that stereotype incredibly boring to play but players can do what they like. As DM, my job is to make sure they apply their character motivations in all situations... so I am hard on players who want to be mindless CE slaughter-machines but act LG with their 'teammates'.
I really do prefer Lawful Evil just for this reason...
I agree with you. In the few cases, I've played evil characters, I've always gone LE (as has the rest of the group) so we can legitimately show a certain amount of loyalty to our teammates and not 'break character'.
What is commonly called evil actually encompases two separate behaviors. Evil, and Immorailty.
Immorality is not evil. Immorality is a means to an end. It involves selfishness and a general apathy with regard to the effects your actions will have on others. When you steal from someone who's just barely making their rent, you are acting immorally to acquire the money you want. That is certainly horrible and damaging, but it is not evil.
Evil, unlike immorailty, is actually all about its effects on others. Evil doesn't care about taking a poor man's rent money; evil cares about making him and his family homeless. Evil, just like goodness, is all about relationships. Goodness builds positive, uplifting relationships; but evil builds relationships that tear down and corrupt. That is evil's ultimate goal. Not the acquisition of wealth and power; but the corruption of that which is good.
A lot has also been made about evil not being able to work together. The truth is, we are very social creatures; even the evil among us. There is a reason why we see evil men with trusted allies they call friends. They want to be around someone else, anyone else, who is also so corrupted and black on the inside that they don't despise themself while in the other person's company. Evil seeks evil, the way good people seek each other. Evil can even trust, as long as there are no signs of betrayal. When evil is betrayed, their vengeance is the stuff of legend; with all the loathing and fear they feel unleashed in the most damaging way they can conceive.
Hopefully, that helps.
*Snip*
Actually, I have to disagree heartily, direct from the 4E PHB:
Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
Chaotic Evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn't directly contribute to their interests.
The definition of evil can actually be pretty subjective, as people differ on what they view to be perverse, immoral, etc. However, the gist of it all is that someone can be one sort of evil without being another. It can be as simple as that shady fellow in the tavern who'll rough up an old lady for a couple silverpieces, or as insidious as a certain treacherous angel overthrowing his god and accidentally dooming his compatriots to be trapped in the bowels of Baator 'til doomsday rolls around. Just because Asmodeus is super-evil doesn't mean that roughing up an old grandma has suddenly ceased to be so, even if your motivation is 5 sp and not the twisted joy you get from harassing old ladies.
I, for reasons I prefer not to go into...
We are talking about 'evil' in game terms where no distinction is made between immorality, amorality, and evil. If you want to talk about 'real life evil' - that would be another thread entirely.
Trained as a agent of the church of wee jas, he is a fallen noble the son of a very tolerant duke that was having a dispute with two other houses that was getting to the point of open warfare between then the church of palour offered him a place to “peacefully avoid a war” in short the duke was betrayed and his mother sent him a way to learn in under her old mentors the day before paladins of Palor with the help of the two houses wiping out his house and executing his mother.
He is a cleric of wee jas and does most of the time a trouble shooter for the church that has been driven underground. His main goals are to find out the truth of what happened and in a ritualised manor offer the beating harts of the ones that nearly destroyed his house to the souls of his ancestors.
There is an I in 'evil' but not in 'team'.
But there's a me in 'team'. :D
We are talking about 'evil' in game terms where no distinction is made between immorality, amorality, and evil. If you want to talk about 'real life evil' - that would be another thread entirely.
I'll certainly grant that this thread is not about real life evil. Given that we're talking about an rpg, I'm not inclined to even consider disputing that. I will say that our real life experiences certianly inform other things we do. Also, it appears to me that the evil and chaotic evil alignments do show elements of what I spoke of. In the 4e PHB, regular evil is described as using law and social structure to do its evil. If you're obeying the laws and social strictures of your culture, you are obeying its mores and behaving in a way your culture considers moral. The description for chaotic evil thows morality right out the window, as they do violate the laws and mores of their culture.
I can certainly respect your disagreement, as well as your point about in-game evil being different, but it appears to me that in-game and out-of-game evil synchs up pretty well.