I agree with the last sentence completely. And it’s been a long time since I read the books or watched the show. I remember it being romantic but unrequited, but you could be right.
I'm playing an NE character right now. He's mainly cooperating with the party because he wants to get out of Barovia. His main thing is that he likes to manipulate people into getting their stuff, mostly using hypnotism because he's an enchantment Wizard. He also is prone to suggesting the least moral actions to a situation. When it was just him and the fighter left when conscious after a fight, we found some treasure and my wizard convinced the fighter to keep the gold to ourselves and not mention it to the rest of the party.
I agree with the last sentence completely. And it’s been a long time since I read the books or watched the show. I remember it being romantic but unrequited, but you could be right.
It came across as more “obsessive” than “romantic but unrequited” to me.
Okay. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we just saw it thru different lenses.
It’s art, there is no right or wrong. Just different opinions.
True. I saw Littlefinger as a bad guy who was inspired to help his (one-sided) beloved’s daughter because of his feelings for her mother (though it was kind of creepy when he transferred his feelings to Sansa).
I know they're not really "goth" but do have some goth appeal to them, but Robert Smith strikes me as probably a nice guy. Morissey, Neutral Evil. Especially the persona he makes up in Last of the Famous International Playboys (a love letter to a real life British gangster) ... yeah I know it's stage persona or in this case a song persona, but I think it's a good take on Neutral Evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
And Morgan Darkdawn. The first adventurer ever to escape from Ravenloft. After he escapes he builds a retirement world for other neutral evil adventurers called Morgan’s World.
I know they're not really "goth" but do have some goth appeal to them, but Robert Smith strikes me as probably a nice guy. Morissey, Neutral Evil. Especially the persona he makes up in Last of the Famous International Playboys (a love letter to a real life British gangster) ... yeah I know it's stage persona or in this case a song persona, but I think it's a good take on Neutral Evil.
There might be some fictional characters who were neutral evil and had a goth aesthetic, but saying that "goth" is a good representation of being neutral evil is like saying that D&D players are a good representation of devil-worshiping child killers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I know they're not really "goth" but do have some goth appeal to them, but Robert Smith strikes me as probably a nice guy. Morissey, Neutral Evil. Especially the persona he makes up in Last of the Famous International Playboys (a love letter to a real life British gangster) ... yeah I know it's stage persona or in this case a song persona, but I think it's a good take on Neutral Evil.
There might be some fictional characters who were neutral evil and had a goth aesthetic, but saying that "goth" is a good representation of being neutral evil is like saying that D&D players are a good representation of devil-worshiping child killers.
Like I said, Robert Smith (who keeps more of a goth aesthetic), probably nice guy. Morrissey's persona is basically performance art and a good model for non "kill em all" Neutral Evil.
I'd agree in most of the popularly accessible appropriations of goth (i.e. anything Tim Burton / Neil Gaiman) those embodying the goth aesthetic are usually the good guys. It's the "suits" who are the bad guys.
I think when someone threw goth in as inspiration for neutral evil ... I think they meant grimdark edgelords :) I mean you _could_ play Neutral Evil that way.... I don't know if you'd be invited back to the third or fourth session, but you could do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
And there’s a female neutral evil NPC in the Book of Erotic Fantasy for 3e.
Nothing in that book is a good representation of anything beyond how not to write a game book.
Okay. I never read it, just skimmed the section on alignments. But my friend loves it and he told me he paid like $50 for his copy on eBay.
The neutral evil character was not a pleasant person (a sexually manipulative golddigger, basically), but she was defo evil and she was at least “sort of” subtle about being evil.
Why do you hate it so much? Like I said, I never actually read it except for the short section on alignments and even there the only character I remember clearly is the Neutral Evil one (and a kind of caricature of a BDSM master for Lawful Evil).
Let's see... the book was poorly written- they added a new stat (Appearance or Beauty) and then tried to tie all their new rules to it despite it making no sense. Their new rules were mostly vague, self-contradictory, or simply didn't work (like a prestige class who's central ability took ten minutes to activate in order to cure conditions that lasted far less than ten minutes). Their rules regarding sex were stereotypical to the point of being offensive, by trying to conflate sexual preferences with race and alignment. It was also horribly heterocentric aside from a token lesbian couple and a few words about how gnomes and elves are universally bi. They also mostly read like they were written by someone with only the vaguest of ideas as to what sex actually was. And the artwork in the book was terrible; instead of actually paying an artist to draw anything, they'd hired nude models to pose while wearing extremely unconvincing prosthetic ears with equally fake looking props and badly done photoshopping and greenscreens to make it look like they were in a fantasy setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Let's see... the book was poorly written- they added a new stat (Appearance or Beauty) and then tried to tie all their new rules to it despite it making no sense. Their new rules were mostly vague, self-contradictory, or simply didn't work (like a prestige class who's central ability took ten minutes to activate in order to cure conditions that lasted far less than ten minutes). Their rules regarding sex were stereotypical to the point of being offensive, by trying to conflate sexual preferences with race and alignment. It was also horribly heterocentric aside from a token lesbian couple and a few words about how gnomes and elves are universally bi. They also mostly read like they were written by someone with only the vaguest of ideas as to what sex actually was. And the artwork in the book was terrible; instead of actually paying an artist to draw anything, they'd hired nude models to pose while wearing extremely unconvincing prosthetic ears with equally fake looking props and badly done photoshopping and greenscreens to make it look like they were in a fantasy setting.
Now you’re making me want to find it just to see how bad it really was. 😂
Let's see... the book was poorly written- they added a new stat (Appearance or Beauty) and then tried to tie all their new rules to it despite it making no sense. Their new rules were mostly vague, self-contradictory, or simply didn't work (like a prestige class who's central ability took ten minutes to activate in order to cure conditions that lasted far less than ten minutes). Their rules regarding sex were stereotypical to the point of being offensive, by trying to conflate sexual preferences with race and alignment. It was also horribly heterocentric aside from a token lesbian couple and a few words about how gnomes and elves are universally bi. They also mostly read like they were written by someone with only the vaguest of ideas as to what sex actually was. And the artwork in the book was terrible; instead of actually paying an artist to draw anything, they'd hired nude models to pose while wearing extremely unconvincing prosthetic ears with equally fake looking props and badly done photoshopping and greenscreens to make it look like they were in a fantasy setting.
Not sure we're talking about the same book, but it's the same title and seems to speak to your summary:
Thought the book may worth a look for a laugh, not $50 eBay though, and not ~$20 DriveThruRPG pdf either for me, though I vaguely remember hearing about this book and cleared up some of my curiosity through DriveThruRPG.
Alas, the book's item page only had the original marketing blurb and customer reviews and comments, not the sort of textual history breakdown I've come to appreciate from the notes on some of DriveThru's D&D 2E reprints, but I've determined this was as I suspected a White Wolf product. I don't know if it was specifically on its "Black Dog" imprint which White Wolf used for some erotica driven products (I think) as well as wider spectrum of taboo themes and topics not appropriate for juvenile or sensitive audiences. If I remember right, they were even wrapped in opaque plastic bags and encourage to be a sort of "ask for it at the counter" kind of product. On second thought, I think Black Dog was actually just used for products of that orientation but designed for its World of Darkness line. Regardless, the Black Dog line seems part of the same business strategy White Wolf had in trying to be the game press for "sophisticated," "mature" and "edgy" that would lead them to produce something like the Book of Erotic Fantasy under the OGL. CORRECTION: Having written all that I did find a fairly thorough review and it looks like this was something originally produced by The Valar Project under the d20 license, though lost said license after publishing a preview and instead had to produce it under the OGL license. I can see down the line White Wolf picking it up to maintain a digital version since it speaks WW's positions on the place for mature themes in TTRPGs as well as its position on "censorship" (thought this isn't so much censorship so much as intellectual property being demoted from one level of brand affinity (d20 license) to a broader less "endorsed" brand of OGL).
Anyway, the beauty/attractiveness stat sounds like an possibly conscious possibly not conscious effort to resurrect "comeliness" a stat that was introduced to AD&D via its Unearthed Arcana book (which functioned a lot like Xanthar's in the current edition). For some reason I remember the AD&D cavalier class (introduced in the UA book) needing a comeliness stat, but I"m not sure if that's actually fact or just haze. Most groups treated the stat, if they used it, as a dump stat. This was before online "debate" but I remember the stat being criticized in print, maybe even Dragon, because of the universal beauty assumptions being made by the stat. Anyway comeliness worked something like physical charisma.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Let's see... the book was poorly written- they added a new stat (Appearance or Beauty) and then tried to tie all their new rules to it despite it making no sense. Their new rules were mostly vague, self-contradictory, or simply didn't work (like a prestige class who's central ability took ten minutes to activate in order to cure conditions that lasted far less than ten minutes). Their rules regarding sex were stereotypical to the point of being offensive, by trying to conflate sexual preferences with race and alignment. It was also horribly heterocentric aside from a token lesbian couple and a few words about how gnomes and elves are universally bi. They also mostly read like they were written by someone with only the vaguest of ideas as to what sex actually was. And the artwork in the book was terrible; instead of actually paying an artist to draw anything, they'd hired nude models to pose while wearing extremely unconvincing prosthetic ears with equally fake looking props and badly done photoshopping and greenscreens to make it look like they were in a fantasy setting.
Okay, this sounds horrible (and the prestige class sounds really stupid). I can’t imagine why my friend spent so much money on it.
I do remember thinking that the alignment character for neutral evil was a pretty good example of the alignment (didn’t like the lawful evil example, thought he was like a cartoon version of the Marquis de Sade, don’t remember the rest). Like I said, I think she was basically a sexually manipulative golddigger, and not terribly nuanced, but she seemed like a good example of a relatively subtle evil character who manipulates others to get what she wants.
So: I've been in a group where players have evil characters, and for the sake of the other player's sanity, know that there are good and bad ways to do this!
The first thing to remember is what NOT to do: bullying the other player's characters to the point of harm ("What can I say? I'm evil, aren't I? Just playing my character" kind of attitude--not a valid answer when you're making everyone else's experience miserable), or doing unspeakable things to NPC's that make other players uncomfortable; the (hopefully) obvious stuff like that. However, there can be a "good" way to play an evil character.
The best evil characters are those who are wicked, but with limits. They usually take it out on the adventurer's world, but basically leave the other players alone. A good example of this is a character that someone I knew played, who had an evil alignment. Their Warlock was hell-bent on collecting spell scrolls to raise an undead army, with which he planned to dominate his home region. So everyone in the party knew that his character would: (a) steal things, (b) cheat the local town government by taking bounty for one job but doing something else, (c) always have a trick up his sleeve to ensure his agenda was being fulfilled, though not at the party's expense. This character was truly evil, but with the limits that the player had to ensure that the game remained fun for all, it was actually a good fit.
Oh, btw--evil genius humor helps. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
💙🤍~*Ravenclaw*~ 🔮
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It’s art, there is no right or wrong. Just different opinions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm playing an NE character right now. He's mainly cooperating with the party because he wants to get out of Barovia. His main thing is that he likes to manipulate people into getting their stuff, mostly using hypnotism because he's an enchantment Wizard. He also is prone to suggesting the least moral actions to a situation. When it was just him and the fighter left when conscious after a fight, we found some treasure and my wizard convinced the fighter to keep the gold to ourselves and not mention it to the rest of the party.
Hombrew: Way of Wresting, Circle of Sacrifice
True. I saw Littlefinger as a bad guy who was inspired to help his (one-sided) beloved’s daughter because of his feelings for her mother (though it was kind of creepy when he transferred his feelings to Sansa).
I know they're not really "goth" but do have some goth appeal to them, but Robert Smith strikes me as probably a nice guy. Morissey, Neutral Evil. Especially the persona he makes up in Last of the Famous International Playboys (a love letter to a real life British gangster) ... yeah I know it's stage persona or in this case a song persona, but I think it's a good take on Neutral Evil.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ohhhhh
And Morgan Darkdawn. The first adventurer ever to escape from Ravenloft. After he escapes he builds a retirement world for other neutral evil adventurers called Morgan’s World.
And there’s a female neutral evil NPC in the Book of Erotic Fantasy for 3e.
Nothing in that book is a good representation of anything beyond how not to write a game book.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There might be some fictional characters who were neutral evil and had a goth aesthetic, but saying that "goth" is a good representation of being neutral evil is like saying that D&D players are a good representation of devil-worshiping child killers.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Like I said, Robert Smith (who keeps more of a goth aesthetic), probably nice guy. Morrissey's persona is basically performance art and a good model for non "kill em all" Neutral Evil.
I'd agree in most of the popularly accessible appropriations of goth (i.e. anything Tim Burton / Neil Gaiman) those embodying the goth aesthetic are usually the good guys. It's the "suits" who are the bad guys.
I think when someone threw goth in as inspiration for neutral evil ... I think they meant grimdark edgelords :) I mean you _could_ play Neutral Evil that way.... I don't know if you'd be invited back to the third or fourth session, but you could do it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Okay. I never read it, just skimmed the section on alignments. But my friend loves it and he told me he paid like $50 for his copy on eBay.
The neutral evil character was not a pleasant person (a sexually manipulative golddigger, basically), but she was defo evil and she was at least “sort of” subtle about being evil.
Why do you hate it so much? Like I said, I never actually read it except for the short section on alignments and even there the only character I remember clearly is the Neutral Evil one (and a kind of caricature of a BDSM master for Lawful Evil).
Let's see... the book was poorly written- they added a new stat (Appearance or Beauty) and then tried to tie all their new rules to it despite it making no sense. Their new rules were mostly vague, self-contradictory, or simply didn't work (like a prestige class who's central ability took ten minutes to activate in order to cure conditions that lasted far less than ten minutes). Their rules regarding sex were stereotypical to the point of being offensive, by trying to conflate sexual preferences with race and alignment. It was also horribly heterocentric aside from a token lesbian couple and a few words about how gnomes and elves are universally bi. They also mostly read like they were written by someone with only the vaguest of ideas as to what sex actually was. And the artwork in the book was terrible; instead of actually paying an artist to draw anything, they'd hired nude models to pose while wearing extremely unconvincing prosthetic ears with equally fake looking props and badly done photoshopping and greenscreens to make it look like they were in a fantasy setting.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Now you’re making me want to find it just to see how bad it really was. 😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not sure we're talking about the same book, but it's the same title and seems to speak to your summary:
Thought the book may worth a look for a laugh, not $50 eBay though, and not ~$20 DriveThruRPG pdf either for me, though I vaguely remember hearing about this book and cleared up some of my curiosity through DriveThruRPG.
Alas, the book's item page only had the original marketing blurb and customer reviews and comments, not the sort of textual history breakdown I've come to appreciate from the notes on some of DriveThru's D&D 2E reprints, but I've determined this was as I suspected a White Wolf product. I don't know if it was specifically on its "Black Dog" imprint which White Wolf used for some erotica driven products (I think) as well as wider spectrum of taboo themes and topics not appropriate for juvenile or sensitive audiences. If I remember right, they were even wrapped in opaque plastic bags and encourage to be a sort of "ask for it at the counter" kind of product. On second thought, I think Black Dog was actually just used for products of that orientation but designed for its World of Darkness line. Regardless, the Black Dog line seems part of the same business strategy White Wolf had in trying to be the game press for "sophisticated," "mature" and "edgy" that would lead them to produce something like the Book of Erotic Fantasy under the OGL. CORRECTION: Having written all that I did find a fairly thorough review and it looks like this was something originally produced by The Valar Project under the d20 license, though lost said license after publishing a preview and instead had to produce it under the OGL license. I can see down the line White Wolf picking it up to maintain a digital version since it speaks WW's positions on the place for mature themes in TTRPGs as well as its position on "censorship" (thought this isn't so much censorship so much as intellectual property being demoted from one level of brand affinity (d20 license) to a broader less "endorsed" brand of OGL).
Anyway, the beauty/attractiveness stat sounds like an possibly conscious possibly not conscious effort to resurrect "comeliness" a stat that was introduced to AD&D via its Unearthed Arcana book (which functioned a lot like Xanthar's in the current edition). For some reason I remember the AD&D cavalier class (introduced in the UA book) needing a comeliness stat, but I"m not sure if that's actually fact or just haze. Most groups treated the stat, if they used it, as a dump stat. This was before online "debate" but I remember the stat being criticized in print, maybe even Dragon, because of the universal beauty assumptions being made by the stat. Anyway comeliness worked something like physical charisma.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Okay, this sounds horrible (and the prestige class sounds really stupid). I can’t imagine why my friend spent so much money on it.
I do remember thinking that the alignment character for neutral evil was a pretty good example of the alignment (didn’t like the lawful evil example, thought he was like a cartoon version of the Marquis de Sade, don’t remember the rest). Like I said, I think she was basically a sexually manipulative golddigger, and not terribly nuanced, but she seemed like a good example of a relatively subtle evil character who manipulates others to get what she wants.
So: I've been in a group where players have evil characters, and for the sake of the other player's sanity, know that there are good and bad ways to do this!
The first thing to remember is what NOT to do: bullying the other player's characters to the point of harm ("What can I say? I'm evil, aren't I? Just playing my character" kind of attitude--not a valid answer when you're making everyone else's experience miserable), or doing unspeakable things to NPC's that make other players uncomfortable; the (hopefully) obvious stuff like that. However, there can be a "good" way to play an evil character.
The best evil characters are those who are wicked, but with limits. They usually take it out on the adventurer's world, but basically leave the other players alone. A good example of this is a character that someone I knew played, who had an evil alignment. Their Warlock was hell-bent on collecting spell scrolls to raise an undead army, with which he planned to dominate his home region. So everyone in the party knew that his character would: (a) steal things, (b) cheat the local town government by taking bounty for one job but doing something else, (c) always have a trick up his sleeve to ensure his agenda was being fulfilled, though not at the party's expense. This character was truly evil, but with the limits that the player had to ensure that the game remained fun for all, it was actually a good fit.
Oh, btw--evil genius humor helps. ;)
💙🤍~*Ravenclaw*~ 🔮