Not every evil character is trying to bring about the end of the world in the name of their evil gods, not every evil character kills everyone they meet, and not all evil characters only care about themselves.
Then why be evil? I'm just not a fan of the "grey area" stuff.
For player characters, if you're evil, you're doin' what evil things do. Eat stuff. Crush. Ruin. Destroy. All the time. Because you can. Because you want to. There isn't a "grey area" evil that's mostly evil. A grey area evil that's evil when it's convenient or when they'll win. A grey area evil that's evil when no one is looking. Evil is evil. It's evil all the time. It's the bad stuff. Whether NPC or PC, evil is evil. There is no separation.
Now, good folk do bad things. Sometimes you have to. At their core, they are still good. Neutral and chaotic folk (not evil) also do bad things. They might even do so more than doing good things. Evil folk never do good things. That's why they're evil.
Keeping the grey out of evil makes things easy in gameplay. It creates dividing lines between the good and bad. It also highlights those standing on the line. Sometimes the good folk need to stand on the line to get things done. Evil never steps on that line and certainly never crosses it. As you mention, things can be narratively complex. They can be, but they have no place in my D&D. Narratively complex characters that lean towards evil and call it "narratively complex" fly directly in the face of a few simple truths (again, in my games)
You fight the good fight because you can.
You're the heroes. Go out and do heroic things.
When all else fails, play nice.
What you want to do is always secondary to what's best for the group.
Watching Vader, Joker, and Sauron is fascinating and often more interesting than watching almost any hero, but not only would I not want to play, but wouldn't allow anyone to play those characters in a cooperative game.
But..I appreciate the discussion and thanks for your insights. I'll leave it all there.
You don't care about anything at all other than yourself.
You're quick to kill just about anything.
You worship and aim to advance the agenda's of the worlds horribad gods.
These bullet points aren't necessarily evil.
Not caring about anything other then yourself is narcissism which can be a flaw of any character, very frequently heroes.
Being quick to kill just about anything also sounds like something that heroes do. Oh, does this thing not fit in with what I perceive to be correct? Lets kill it. How often have groups of adventuring heroes indiscriminately killed goblin encampments, or the bear that attacked the campsite? 'When something gets in my way it must die' is a mindset common for heroes even outside of DND. How many videogames have this exact thing happen?
Worshiping and advancing the agenda of a god is also something that heroes do. Admittingly you added a qualifier of 'horribad' but if you remove that stipulation it is the same thing as what a lot of heroes do. Any divine champion. Anyone with a godly cause. Anyone that uses religion as a justification for killing does this exact thing, evil or not.
What you are describing there is Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil is very different, think Joker, Penguin, HQ etc.That said, there are 'less experienced' players who think that CE means Chaotic stupid and will wreck the game. I have no problem with letting evil characters in my game. I also have no problem with other PC's or even myself as DM killing off evil characters that go the Chaotic Stupid route.
penguin would be lawful evil. he's a business man and always holds his words. havign a code like this means you cannot be chaotic. you have to be lawful. at best penguin would be neutral evil. the joker, zsaz are great exemples of chaotic evil in the DC universe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You don't care about anything at all other than yourself.
You're quick to kill just about anything.
You worship and aim to advance the agenda's of the worlds horribad gods.
These bullet points aren't necessarily evil.
Not caring about anything other then yourself is narcissism which can be a flaw of any character, very frequently heroes.
Being quick to kill just about anything also sounds like something that heroes do. Oh, does this thing not fit in with what I perceive to be correct? Lets kill it. How often have groups of adventuring heroes indiscriminately killed goblin encampments, or the bear that attacked the campsite? 'When something gets in my way it must die' is a mindset common for heroes even outside of DND. How many videogames have this exact thing happen?
Worshiping and advancing the agenda of a god is also something that heroes do. Admittingly you added a qualifier of 'horribad' but if you remove that stipulation it is the same thing as what a lot of heroes do. Any divine champion. Anyone with a godly cause. Anyone that uses religion as a justification for killing does this exact thing, evil or not.
most of what you gave exemple wise are not good characters to begin with. i have seen tons of players cheating at games for gain. thats not good !
heres the basic ropes for alignment. horizontal Left (Lawful), is ordered in his life <-----------> Right (Chaotic) doesn'T care about order Vertical top (Good) is altruistic, think of others first, himself second <-----------> bottom (evil) will always think of himself first then others. following that alignment square, one has a lot of room to act.
exemple of evil, even the joker... would make contact to either batman, or any other enemies or friends in order to save himself. but a good character will always ignore the danger to himself if he can save someone else. exemple of batman or superman.
now flaws have no correlation to your allignment. exemple of superman who thinks he's indestructible thus do not hesitate to jump into danger. that has nothing to do with his alignment, if anything it wouldn't change his way of wanting to help people even if he didn't have any powers. its just that because of indestructability, he has no remorse jumping into very dangerous situations. the same for batman, he feels compelled to hurt people, but thats because he was trained like that, not because he hates evil. being trained doesn't give you a sense of altruism.
the problem is how lawful good and chaotic evil were ever described... they are both very extreme. killing goblin encampment isn't necessarily evil. lawful good paladins might have an order bent on destroying the goblins and now the paladin has to either follow the rules blindly and destroy the encampment or ignore his bosses and save it. thats a moral choice. that has nothing to do with good or evil. racism is as much a thing in good people then it is in evil people.
but how players used to play paladins back in the old days... lawful stupid was how they called it... you give him gold, he gives it to the first beggar he sees. you give him a sword, he sells it and give the gold to the first beggar he sees. sees a bbeg, do not kill him, give him back his weapon and let him recover. saying i'll always be there to stop you later on without any reasons whatsoever. those people never ever looked at the stupidity they made, their character couldn'T even live by themselves, always leeching off the other players. altruism first start by yourself, if you are fine yourself then you can help others. but there is a minimum you shouldn't go below.
the same with chaotic evil being called chaotic stupid. reason being that players do whatever they want, without thinking of consequences and how much trouble that will get them in. exemple of a player shoooting a guard because the guard stopped him. now he has to kill the second guard, now the alarm sounded and he's still waiting there for others to come and kill them too. that is a stupid way of doing things, and even thejoker wouldn't stay there. that person isn't stupid, but it forgot the first rule of being evil... YOUR PERSON MATTER MOST !!!! if you stay there you will die, if you stay there very bad things will happen to you and thats a no no. that's playing chaotic stupid.
if you ask me, most players are either good or evil but on the other side, they are almost always neutral. human beings in general aren't able to be in the extremes, we are a neutral type of creatures. most players follow that too, they are neutral good or evil. but rarely are they playing lawful or chaotic.
best exemple...
Ironman, lawful or chaotic ? Lawful, the law is more important then his life, freedom is chaos to him you have to be ordered to live a peaceful life !
Captain america, Lawful or chaotic ? Freedom is more important then his life ! laws are too bindings, needs them yes, but they often breaks your freedom of doing what you want. do not hesitate to break the laws if they binds you too much. thats chaotic behaviors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Those bullet points listed apply to both good and evil. Not one group or the other.
You an I have very different definitions of Good and Evil as well as Chaotic and Lawful even within DND.
The way you are describing it, makes it seem like individuals are definitively one of these things and can not change between them. You are also saying that morality is separate from good and evil. You are essentially saying that characters and thusly people are made up immutable things that don't effect each other. This is something that I disagree with to an extreme level.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, apologies if I did. I feel like my continued participation in this conversation is going to become a class of personal definitions and that seems highly unproductive to the thread.
All of that said, you can play the game however you want to as long as everyone at the table is having fun. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun.
2 pages of replies should indicate that evil characters in a campaign are more trouble than it's worth. Now, if the entire campaign goes that route, and everyone is evil - like a full House Dimir storyline where you're all out to deceive and...well, do House Dimir stuff, that might be different. If you're all part of a drow house doing drow house stuff, it might work.
What doesn't work is evil in the sense of (again..unless all are this way, but even then):
You don't care about anything at all other than yourself.
You're quick to kill just about anything.
You worship and aim to advance the agenda's of the worlds horribad gods.
Playing characters that lean into any of the 3 bullet points almost forbids other players from playing really good paladins. The holiest of healing, help all clerics. Fighters willing to die for those that can't fight for themselves, etc. Folk can obviously still play those but you can guarantee that it will all circle back to my 1st sentence. It'll be more trouble than it's worth.
You only have to look at real world atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion to see this isn't true. The Spanish Inquisition, Conquistadors, The Crusades are just some examples of things committed by men who believed wholeheartedly that their actions were right and Holy.
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self-image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where a young man named Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water
I wouldn't even remotely say that Narcissism is inherently evil. Sure it isn't an ideal characteristic, but it is entirely different from someone going out and murdering people.
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self-image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where a young man named Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water
I wouldn't even remotely say that Narcissism is inherently evil. Sure it isn't an ideal characteristic, but it is entirely different from someone going out and murdering people.
The character the very term is based on either (depending on version) starves to death because he cannot even leave his reflection long enough to eat, or kills himself because he realizes that he can never truly have himself as a lover. Yes, it is a different evil than murdering others, but it is still a form of evil.
Not so sure that qualifies as a form of evil, more likely a form of stupid. His narcissisms led him to either starve or suicide, both of which prompt more of a "what a poor fellow" response rather than a "the world's a safer place now he's gone".
The difference between fiction and the real world is that in the real world almost nobody actually thinks that they're the bad guys.
That is not actually true either. It is actually one of the tests of sanity for purposes of criminal law, whether the person actually is able to distinguish right from wrong generally. The far more common rationalization is 'Sure I am a bad guy, but everyone does this'
I'm not saying that they can't distinguish right from wrong, but in the real world such people tend to have all sorts of rationalizations for why it's acceptable for them to behave in such ways- everybody does it, scripture says god wants them to, they really deserve it because of some slight (real or imagined). Even when if they're willing to say that it's wrong to do such things it's very common for them to immediately turn around and give reasons for why it was okay in that specific instance.
In fiction, there's a lot more of doing evil, knowing that it's evil, just for the sake of being evil, muahaha.
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.
Evil in DnD is mostly about selfishness. Selfish character can absolutely save the world or fight against the evil tyrant, be it for fame, money, power, desire to get rid of the competitor or simply out of self-preservation. Hell, the very fist hero in recorded fiction was motivated by greed and vanity and would be NE by DnD standards, yet he was a hero no question about it.
I currently run an evil character in our campaign and he's with the group simply because robbing dungeons, dismembering rare high-level undead and selling their parts to wizards and artificers who make magic items out of them is astonishingly profitable. Just last session we tracked a vampire to his hideout and killed him and his remains netted me 20 000 gold, not to mention all his minions we killed on the way. And if he can make a few useful puppets loyal allies and grow a reputation with authorities for saving towns from the hordes of evil abominations while doing so that's even better.
Another evil character in our party only joined us to grow in fame and power, as going on quests to slay powerful unread is the go-to way of raising in rank in his (very militant) church and his motive is to become the new high priest when the previous one dies or grows too old or maybe dies fighting thins too strong for him to tackle.
In fiction, there's a lot more of doing evil, knowing that it's evil, just for the sake of being evil, muahaha.
Maybe in very bad fiction. But en in DnD your classical evil monsters don't do it for the sake of evil. Lich kills people to further his arcane experiments and power his phylactery to prolong his life, vampire kills people to feed, beholder plots and schemes out of fear, seeing conspiracies and threats to his life in every shadow, Mind Flayer colony enslaves and eats people for survival and safety, Drow or Fire Giants raid for slaves, Chromatic dragon burns and robs cities to grow his hoard, which is instrumental in dragon mating rites. Everyone have sensible if messed up reasons to do evil.
It's still the players, not the alignment. It's how players are interpreting the alignment.
I find it tedious to think of evil as selfish lone wolves who simply oppose good. If that's all someone thinks evil is, that person's evil character shouldn't be in a party.
The same goes for good. A player who thinks that good means everyone should do what the person's good character says shouldn't be in a party.
All of these bad examples stem from players imposing themselves upon others which has zip to do with alignment.
I keep bringing up a campaign where there's a decidedly evil character and there's also a good Paladin in the same group. The two characters started with stereotypical views of each other when they met but became friends by the end of the first session. She loves to see suffering and carnage of those who oppose them or are simply in their way, and he likes to explode things and doesn't think things through. It's a match made somewhere between the Seven and Nine - a weird and highly entertaining balance of the Heavens and Hells. The whole party is involved in it, too.
I can't make it more plain. It's the players, not the alignment.
I've seen Evil characters working great with Good characters several times.
I've also seen boring Good and Evil stereotypes clashing with their parties... but I've also seen people with creative characters of uncertain alignment who try to monopolize the story.
That tells me that it's the players, not the alignment.
If one thinks that Evil = drama with the party, that person should probably play another alignment or play solo.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Not every evil character is trying to bring about the end of the world in the name of their evil gods, not every evil character kills everyone they meet, and not all evil characters only care about themselves.
Then why be evil? I'm just not a fan of the "grey area" stuff.
For player characters, if you're evil, you're doin' what evil things do. Eat stuff. Crush. Ruin. Destroy. All the time. Because you can. Because you want to. There isn't a "grey area" evil that's mostly evil. A grey area evil that's evil when it's convenient or when they'll win. A grey area evil that's evil when no one is looking. Evil is evil. It's evil all the time. It's the bad stuff. Whether NPC or PC, evil is evil. There is no separation.
To answer "why be evil?"; because engaging in a fantasy of fictional evil can be just that; a fantasy. There have always been evil characters as far back as the hobby goes, so clearly it's a fantasy that people find engaging.
In response to "Eat Crush All the time", I think the character you have in mind that's always doing evil all the time is a fairly 1 dimensional one. Think about it; when was the last time you wanted to be doing one thing always and forever? Evil characters have moods and motivations, and sometimes those conflict. That's like saying good students always do their homework as soon as it is assigned, no exceptions. It sounds fine if you've never been or met a student, but as we all know it doesn't always work like that and more often than they should, videogames get played before that homework is done. Likewise, sometimes an evil character just wants to get paid, sometimes they're hungry, sometimes they just want to kick back and have a drink, sometimes they're after the thrill of adventure. Nobody's every just one thing always.
Even if they were, just because you want to do something doesn't mean you'll do it. I'd love to go out to a restaurant and sit down at the bar, but that doesn't mean I'll do that during the pandemic.
Imagine a scene here. I'll use my pirate character from before for simplicity sake (I should really give him a name at this point). The party's meeting with a Thieves Guild operative in a back alley, because this operative has information on some missing townsfolk that might trace back to the main bad guy. The operative throws some shade the pirate's way, and in typical evil fashion, he reaches for his blades to teach them a lesson. One of the party members raises a hand and is like "woah hey! Calm down, we need them alive". The pirate simmers down, let's go of his blades and growls something like "you're lucky my friends were here."
Do you see how that played out? We have an evil character that likes to fight and hurt people feel insulted and feel like hurting them, but get reminded that they have other interests that fighting and hurting this person doesn't advance.
It seems to me that for a lot of people I've seen play the game, the fantasy they're chasing seems to be the fantasy of never backing down and always having the last word, so naturally when they think of playing an evil character they imagine an evil character that never backs down from the murder and sacrilege and will never allow the words or actions of anyone to influence them. Really, what I've just described there is either a very strong-willed villian whose sheer resolve keeps them from ever questioning themselves who has the might back up their villainy, or a very stupid animal with no concept of self-preservation who acts purely on every single impulse they ever get.
I will say, if your fantasy is to be Rorschach and never compromise even in the face of Armageddon, then yeah, don't play an evil character, that will suck. But then again those kinds of characters often suck when they're good too, because they tend to never let the other players ever have anything narratively and generally position themselves in the middle of the spotlight all the time.
If you want to play an evil character, be ready to play a character who can still recognize the wisdom in other characters' words. Be ready to occasionally talk a big game but know you're friends will hold you back if they think you need to be, and be prepared to let them as a player.
Exactly. If "grey areas" put one off, that person may be hard-pressed to find a party to enjoy because moral ambiguity among alignments is a very common theme among PCs and campaigns these days.
Why be evil if it's not simply "bad person"? Because "creativity" can be very rewarding for everyone if done cooperatively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It seems to me that for a lot of people I've seen play the game, the fantasy they're chasing seems to be the fantasy of never backing down and always having the last word, so naturally when they think of playing an evil character they imagine an evil character that never backs down from the murder and sacrilege and will never allow the words or actions of anyone to influence them. Really, what I've just described there is either a very strong-willed villian whose sheer resolve keeps them from ever questioning themselves who has the might back up their villainy, or a very stupid animal with no concept of self-preservation who acts purely on every single impulse they ever get.
I will say, if your fantasy is to be Rorschach and never compromise even in the face of Armageddon, then yeah, don't play an evil character, that will suck. But then again those kinds of characters often suck when they're good too, because they tend to never let the other players ever have anything narratively and generally position themselves in the middle of the spotlight all the time.
If you want to play an evil character, be ready to play a character who can still recognize the wisdom in other characters' words. Be ready to occasionally talk a big game but know you're friends will hold you back if they think you need to be, and be prepared to let them as a player.
These 3 paragraphs said it best and I agree 100%. This goes back to the 1st sentence in my 1st post. It can be more trouble than it's worth. Evil characters are and can be compelling, worthwhile and full of depth. As someone else said, it's about the player though.
Your last paragraph drives this home. The amount of players that can do what you said there is the minority from what I've seen. My experiences are different, among characters I've played and among my group, but that's that's just one table. I know it can be done and done well, but..
especially for new players, it's not worth it to allow evil characters. I'm not a fan of the grey area stuff because many players don't know how to do that. Evil has a strong component of selfishness built in. To be that way, yet back off when your friends say so is a delicate balance - and one not done easily (hence the minority). When it goes well, its elegant and provides a selling point for "playing evil". When it goes bad, its horribly bad. Players are pissed, PVP becomes a thing, flow and story go off the rails, etc. Playing neutral or good with a few "angry buttons" is a better solution because the good parts are good and the bad parts.. just aren't as bad.
That's why no grey. Be evil or don't. I don't have faith that most can juggle the nuances of it well enough to provide more fun and more story.
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Those bullet points listed apply to both good and evil. Not one group or the other.
You an I have very different definitions of Good and Evil as well as Chaotic and Lawful even within DND.
The way you are describing it, makes it seem like individuals are definitively one of these things and can not change between them. You are also saying that morality is separate from good and evil. You are essentially saying that characters and thusly people are made up immutable things that don't effect each other. This is something that I disagree with to an extreme level.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, apologies if I did. I feel like my continued participation in this conversation is going to become a class of personal definitions and that seems highly unproductive to the thread.
All of that said, you can play the game however you want to as long as everyone at the table is having fun. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun.
we actually have the same views, its just that for some reasons you go into details about it, while i am keeping it broad for the sake of ambiguity. the more broad you keep it, the less problem will arise about it in your game. while the more detailed you get the more ambiguious it will be.
never have i ever said that one cannot change, change is a whole other thing to begin with. change is not something that is evil or good. nor is it ordered or chaotic. it is just that change. every changes views, everone changes sides all the times. what you are describing to me is the definition of neutral. so you mean to tell me the alignment do not exists and that everyone is neutral and can just change from side to side as they pleae ! that's what i get from your perspective and i completely agree to that... IF, IF we were in our real world ! the number of truly lawful good people in our world can be counted on 1 hand. the number of chaotic evil people cannot be counted on a single hand. you'd need thousands of hands. which is why games are tending more toward evil in games. because human beings are neutral at best and evil at worse.
the best way to describe alignment is to take on wizard of the coast alignment test. they actually gave a test to people to do to determine their alignment. they don't literally tell you, you are lawful good or chaotic evil... they are saying... you are overall chaotic evil or lawful good. meaning that you can act differently with certain people. akja goblins that you hate for a good reason. after all, you don'T act the same with your boss then you would with your best friend ! so its possible that one acts completely evil toward one perso he hates the most. but act good toward pretty much every others. would that makes the person evil because the person hates 1 other ? nope. the OVERALL alignment is what you most of the time obey to.
can one change from side to side... its been seen quite often. a paladin of good who gets subjugated by a succubus or demon and starts muredering people, find s a love for it and eventually just denounce his own belief and change drastically. more closer to home for people who understand.. frank castle, the punisher, wants to help people the right way, changes completely and starts killing bad guys for the sake of saving people by doing the job nobody wants. from lawful good directly to chaotic neutral ! but reality is... the alignmeent system isn't linear ! its a square with a point, you... that changes depending on numerous factors of your life. but for all intent and purposes... that point is "OVERALL" not definitive.
i'm definitely not lawful good toward a person i hate. but in general i am a good person. i care for others, i care to follow the laws. i care to think of what happens to others if i do the wrong thing. thats definitely not what an evil person do !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then why be evil? I'm just not a fan of the "grey area" stuff.
For player characters, if you're evil, you're doin' what evil things do. Eat stuff. Crush. Ruin. Destroy. All the time. Because you can. Because you want to. There isn't a "grey area" evil that's mostly evil. A grey area evil that's evil when it's convenient or when they'll win. A grey area evil that's evil when no one is looking. Evil is evil. It's evil all the time. It's the bad stuff. Whether NPC or PC, evil is evil. There is no separation.
Now, good folk do bad things. Sometimes you have to. At their core, they are still good. Neutral and chaotic folk (not evil) also do bad things. They might even do so more than doing good things. Evil folk never do good things. That's why they're evil.
Keeping the grey out of evil makes things easy in gameplay. It creates dividing lines between the good and bad. It also highlights those standing on the line. Sometimes the good folk need to stand on the line to get things done. Evil never steps on that line and certainly never crosses it. As you mention, things can be narratively complex. They can be, but they have no place in my D&D. Narratively complex characters that lean towards evil and call it "narratively complex" fly directly in the face of a few simple truths (again, in my games)
Watching Vader, Joker, and Sauron is fascinating and often more interesting than watching almost any hero, but not only would I not want to play, but wouldn't allow anyone to play those characters in a cooperative game.
But..I appreciate the discussion and thanks for your insights. I'll leave it all there.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
These bullet points aren't necessarily evil.
Not caring about anything other then yourself is narcissism which can be a flaw of any character, very frequently heroes.
Being quick to kill just about anything also sounds like something that heroes do. Oh, does this thing not fit in with what I perceive to be correct? Lets kill it. How often have groups of adventuring heroes indiscriminately killed goblin encampments, or the bear that attacked the campsite? 'When something gets in my way it must die' is a mindset common for heroes even outside of DND. How many videogames have this exact thing happen?
Worshiping and advancing the agenda of a god is also something that heroes do. Admittingly you added a qualifier of 'horribad' but if you remove that stipulation it is the same thing as what a lot of heroes do. Any divine champion. Anyone with a godly cause. Anyone that uses religion as a justification for killing does this exact thing, evil or not.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
penguin would be lawful evil. he's a business man and always holds his words.
havign a code like this means you cannot be chaotic. you have to be lawful. at best penguin would be neutral evil.
the joker, zsaz are great exemples of chaotic evil in the DC universe.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
most of what you gave exemple wise are not good characters to begin with.
i have seen tons of players cheating at games for gain. thats not good !
heres the basic ropes for alignment.
horizontal Left (Lawful), is ordered in his life <-----------> Right (Chaotic) doesn'T care about order
Vertical top (Good) is altruistic, think of others first, himself second <-----------> bottom (evil) will always think of himself first then others.
following that alignment square, one has a lot of room to act.
exemple of evil, even the joker... would make contact to either batman, or any other enemies or friends in order to save himself. but a good character will always ignore the danger to himself if he can save someone else. exemple of batman or superman.
now flaws have no correlation to your allignment.
exemple of superman who thinks he's indestructible thus do not hesitate to jump into danger. that has nothing to do with his alignment, if anything it wouldn't change his way of wanting to help people even if he didn't have any powers. its just that because of indestructability, he has no remorse jumping into very dangerous situations. the same for batman, he feels compelled to hurt people, but thats because he was trained like that, not because he hates evil. being trained doesn't give you a sense of altruism.
the problem is how lawful good and chaotic evil were ever described...
they are both very extreme. killing goblin encampment isn't necessarily evil. lawful good paladins might have an order bent on destroying the goblins and now the paladin has to either follow the rules blindly and destroy the encampment or ignore his bosses and save it. thats a moral choice. that has nothing to do with good or evil. racism is as much a thing in good people then it is in evil people.
but how players used to play paladins back in the old days... lawful stupid was how they called it...
you give him gold, he gives it to the first beggar he sees. you give him a sword, he sells it and give the gold to the first beggar he sees. sees a bbeg, do not kill him, give him back his weapon and let him recover. saying i'll always be there to stop you later on without any reasons whatsoever. those people never ever looked at the stupidity they made, their character couldn'T even live by themselves, always leeching off the other players. altruism first start by yourself, if you are fine yourself then you can help others. but there is a minimum you shouldn't go below.
the same with chaotic evil being called chaotic stupid. reason being that players do whatever they want, without thinking of consequences and how much trouble that will get them in. exemple of a player shoooting a guard because the guard stopped him. now he has to kill the second guard, now the alarm sounded and he's still waiting there for others to come and kill them too. that is a stupid way of doing things, and even thejoker wouldn't stay there. that person isn't stupid, but it forgot the first rule of being evil... YOUR PERSON MATTER MOST !!!! if you stay there you will die, if you stay there very bad things will happen to you and thats a no no. that's playing chaotic stupid.
if you ask me, most players are either good or evil but on the other side, they are almost always neutral.
human beings in general aren't able to be in the extremes, we are a neutral type of creatures. most players follow that too, they are neutral good or evil. but rarely are they playing lawful or chaotic.
best exemple...
Ironman, lawful or chaotic ? Lawful, the law is more important then his life, freedom is chaos to him you have to be ordered to live a peaceful life !
Captain america, Lawful or chaotic ? Freedom is more important then his life ! laws are too bindings, needs them yes, but they often breaks your freedom of doing what you want. do not hesitate to break the laws if they binds you too much. thats chaotic behaviors.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Those bullet points listed apply to both good and evil. Not one group or the other.
You an I have very different definitions of Good and Evil as well as Chaotic and Lawful even within DND.
The way you are describing it, makes it seem like individuals are definitively one of these things and can not change between them. You are also saying that morality is separate from good and evil. You are essentially saying that characters and thusly people are made up immutable things that don't effect each other. This is something that I disagree with to an extreme level.
Perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying, apologies if I did. I feel like my continued participation in this conversation is going to become a class of personal definitions and that seems highly unproductive to the thread.
All of that said, you can play the game however you want to as long as everyone at the table is having fun. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
You only have to look at real world atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion to see this isn't true. The Spanish Inquisition, Conquistadors, The Crusades are just some examples of things committed by men who believed wholeheartedly that their actions were right and Holy.
The difference between fiction and the real world is that in the real world almost nobody actually thinks that they're the bad guys.
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.
Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self-image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where a young man named Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water
I wouldn't even remotely say that Narcissism is inherently evil. Sure it isn't an ideal characteristic, but it is entirely different from someone going out and murdering people.
Not so sure that qualifies as a form of evil, more likely a form of stupid. His narcissisms led him to either starve or suicide, both of which prompt more of a "what a poor fellow" response rather than a "the world's a safer place now he's gone".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I'm not saying that they can't distinguish right from wrong, but in the real world such people tend to have all sorts of rationalizations for why it's acceptable for them to behave in such ways- everybody does it, scripture says god wants them to, they really deserve it because of some slight (real or imagined). Even when if they're willing to say that it's wrong to do such things it's very common for them to immediately turn around and give reasons for why it was okay in that specific instance.
In fiction, there's a lot more of doing evil, knowing that it's evil, just for the sake of being evil, muahaha.
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.
Evil in DnD is mostly about selfishness. Selfish character can absolutely save the world or fight against the evil tyrant, be it for fame, money, power, desire to get rid of the competitor or simply out of self-preservation. Hell, the very fist hero in recorded fiction was motivated by greed and vanity and would be NE by DnD standards, yet he was a hero no question about it.
I currently run an evil character in our campaign and he's with the group simply because robbing dungeons, dismembering rare high-level undead and selling their parts to wizards and artificers who make magic items out of them is astonishingly profitable. Just last session we tracked a vampire to his hideout and killed him and his remains netted me 20 000 gold, not to mention all his minions we killed on the way. And if he can make a few
useful puppetsloyal allies and grow a reputation with authorities for saving towns from the hordes of evil abominations while doing so that's even better.Another evil character in our party only joined us to grow in fame and power, as going on quests to slay powerful unread is the go-to way of raising in rank in his (very militant) church and his motive is to become the new high priest when the previous one dies or grows too old or maybe dies fighting thins too strong for him to tackle.
Maybe in very bad fiction. But en in DnD your classical evil monsters don't do it for the sake of evil. Lich kills people to further his arcane experiments and power his phylactery to prolong his life, vampire kills people to feed, beholder plots and schemes out of fear, seeing conspiracies and threats to his life in every shadow, Mind Flayer colony enslaves and eats people for survival and safety, Drow or Fire Giants raid for slaves, Chromatic dragon burns and robs cities to grow his hoard, which is instrumental in dragon mating rites. Everyone have sensible if messed up reasons to do evil.
It's still the players, not the alignment. It's how players are interpreting the alignment.
I find it tedious to think of evil as selfish lone wolves who simply oppose good. If that's all someone thinks evil is, that person's evil character shouldn't be in a party.
The same goes for good. A player who thinks that good means everyone should do what the person's good character says shouldn't be in a party.
All of these bad examples stem from players imposing themselves upon others which has zip to do with alignment.
I keep bringing up a campaign where there's a decidedly evil character and there's also a good Paladin in the same group. The two characters started with stereotypical views of each other when they met but became friends by the end of the first session. She loves to see suffering and carnage of those who oppose them or are simply in their way, and he likes to explode things and doesn't think things through. It's a match made somewhere between the Seven and Nine - a weird and highly entertaining balance of the Heavens and Hells. The whole party is involved in it, too.
I can't make it more plain. It's the players, not the alignment.
I've seen Evil characters working great with Good characters several times.
I've also seen boring Good and Evil stereotypes clashing with their parties... but I've also seen people with creative characters of uncertain alignment who try to monopolize the story.
That tells me that it's the players, not the alignment.
If one thinks that Evil = drama with the party, that person should probably play another alignment or play solo.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To answer "why be evil?"; because engaging in a fantasy of fictional evil can be just that; a fantasy. There have always been evil characters as far back as the hobby goes, so clearly it's a fantasy that people find engaging.
In response to "Eat Crush All the time", I think the character you have in mind that's always doing evil all the time is a fairly 1 dimensional one. Think about it; when was the last time you wanted to be doing one thing always and forever? Evil characters have moods and motivations, and sometimes those conflict. That's like saying good students always do their homework as soon as it is assigned, no exceptions. It sounds fine if you've never been or met a student, but as we all know it doesn't always work like that and more often than they should, videogames get played before that homework is done. Likewise, sometimes an evil character just wants to get paid, sometimes they're hungry, sometimes they just want to kick back and have a drink, sometimes they're after the thrill of adventure. Nobody's every just one thing always.
Even if they were, just because you want to do something doesn't mean you'll do it. I'd love to go out to a restaurant and sit down at the bar, but that doesn't mean I'll do that during the pandemic.
Imagine a scene here. I'll use my pirate character from before for simplicity sake (I should really give him a name at this point). The party's meeting with a Thieves Guild operative in a back alley, because this operative has information on some missing townsfolk that might trace back to the main bad guy. The operative throws some shade the pirate's way, and in typical evil fashion, he reaches for his blades to teach them a lesson. One of the party members raises a hand and is like "woah hey! Calm down, we need them alive". The pirate simmers down, let's go of his blades and growls something like "you're lucky my friends were here."
Do you see how that played out? We have an evil character that likes to fight and hurt people feel insulted and feel like hurting them, but get reminded that they have other interests that fighting and hurting this person doesn't advance.
It seems to me that for a lot of people I've seen play the game, the fantasy they're chasing seems to be the fantasy of never backing down and always having the last word, so naturally when they think of playing an evil character they imagine an evil character that never backs down from the murder and sacrilege and will never allow the words or actions of anyone to influence them. Really, what I've just described there is either a very strong-willed villian whose sheer resolve keeps them from ever questioning themselves who has the might back up their villainy, or a very stupid animal with no concept of self-preservation who acts purely on every single impulse they ever get.
I will say, if your fantasy is to be Rorschach and never compromise even in the face of Armageddon, then yeah, don't play an evil character, that will suck. But then again those kinds of characters often suck when they're good too, because they tend to never let the other players ever have anything narratively and generally position themselves in the middle of the spotlight all the time.
If you want to play an evil character, be ready to play a character who can still recognize the wisdom in other characters' words. Be ready to occasionally talk a big game but know you're friends will hold you back if they think you need to be, and be prepared to let them as a player.
Exactly. If "grey areas" put one off, that person may be hard-pressed to find a party to enjoy because moral ambiguity among alignments is a very common theme among PCs and campaigns these days.
Why be evil if it's not simply "bad person"? Because "creativity" can be very rewarding for everyone if done cooperatively.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
These 3 paragraphs said it best and I agree 100%. This goes back to the 1st sentence in my 1st post. It can be more trouble than it's worth. Evil characters are and can be compelling, worthwhile and full of depth. As someone else said, it's about the player though.
Your last paragraph drives this home. The amount of players that can do what you said there is the minority from what I've seen. My experiences are different, among characters I've played and among my group, but that's that's just one table. I know it can be done and done well, but..
especially for new players, it's not worth it to allow evil characters. I'm not a fan of the grey area stuff because many players don't know how to do that. Evil has a strong component of selfishness built in. To be that way, yet back off when your friends say so is a delicate balance - and one not done easily (hence the minority). When it goes well, its elegant and provides a selling point for "playing evil". When it goes bad, its horribly bad. Players are pissed, PVP becomes a thing, flow and story go off the rails, etc. Playing neutral or good with a few "angry buttons" is a better solution because the good parts are good and the bad parts.. just aren't as bad.
That's why no grey. Be evil or don't. I don't have faith that most can juggle the nuances of it well enough to provide more fun and more story.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
we actually have the same views, its just that for some reasons you go into details about it, while i am keeping it broad for the sake of ambiguity.
the more broad you keep it, the less problem will arise about it in your game. while the more detailed you get the more ambiguious it will be.
never have i ever said that one cannot change, change is a whole other thing to begin with. change is not something that is evil or good. nor is it ordered or chaotic. it is just that change. every changes views, everone changes sides all the times. what you are describing to me is the definition of neutral. so you mean to tell me the alignment do not exists and that everyone is neutral and can just change from side to side as they pleae ! that's what i get from your perspective and i completely agree to that... IF, IF we were in our real world ! the number of truly lawful good people in our world can be counted on 1 hand. the number of chaotic evil people cannot be counted on a single hand. you'd need thousands of hands. which is why games are tending more toward evil in games. because human beings are neutral at best and evil at worse.
the best way to describe alignment is to take on wizard of the coast alignment test.
they actually gave a test to people to do to determine their alignment.
they don't literally tell you, you are lawful good or chaotic evil... they are saying... you are overall chaotic evil or lawful good. meaning that you can act differently with certain people. akja goblins that you hate for a good reason. after all, you don'T act the same with your boss then you would with your best friend ! so its possible that one acts completely evil toward one perso he hates the most. but act good toward pretty much every others. would that makes the person evil because the person hates 1 other ? nope. the OVERALL alignment is what you most of the time obey to.
can one change from side to side... its been seen quite often. a paladin of good who gets subjugated by a succubus or demon and starts muredering people, find s a love for it and eventually just denounce his own belief and change drastically. more closer to home for people who understand.. frank castle, the punisher, wants to help people the right way, changes completely and starts killing bad guys for the sake of saving people by doing the job nobody wants. from lawful good directly to chaotic neutral ! but reality is... the alignmeent system isn't linear ! its a square with a point, you... that changes depending on numerous factors of your life. but for all intent and purposes... that point is "OVERALL" not definitive.
i'm definitely not lawful good toward a person i hate. but in general i am a good person. i care for others, i care to follow the laws. i care to think of what happens to others if i do the wrong thing. thats definitely not what an evil person do !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)