DM: Ok, for character creation you can't be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. Must start level 1 as a Rogue, but you can MC from there. Oh and everyone will start at level 3 unless you can roll a 4 on a d4.
Me: You're allowing Neutral Evil?
DM: Yeah.
Me: (since most DMs rarely allow an evil alignment, figure I'll give it a shot). Ok, got my guy rolled up. Rogue/Warrior. (roll d4, get a 4. I'm level 4! Nobody else in party does so, & they're all level 3.)
DM: Ok, so campaign starts, NPCs, starting town, blah, blah, blah. What do you do?
Me: I do something....evil.
DM: You aren't being evil, your character is just being a dick...because you're a dick.
Me: Uhm, what?
DM: Sorry, I don't want you in my game anymore.
Me: Why?
DM: Your actions didn't help the party at all. Plus you attacked one of my NPCs for no reason.
Me: I had a reason, Neutral people don't have to have the party's best interest at heart for every single action. Evil people often act like "*****". Hence the evil tag, which you allowed.
DM: Sorry, you're gone.
Me: Fine, I'll just make another character if you don't like this one.
DM: No, you're the problem. You aren't allowed at my table anymore.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Honestly being evil doesn't have to be killing people murder hobo style. Greed can be evil if you are being selfish and not sharing with your group, or choosing not to save a child about to fall off a cliff. Could be that your DM had too many people try stuff like this in the past and is tired of the "I'm evil so i must act like Hitler to everyone around me" trope. All of that aside, from what you told me your DM seems a little unreasonable telling you to leave the table. Your character was probably going to be punished in some way or another. I don't see why he kicked you from the group. I think he was looking for an apology. Weird as it sounds I have encountered DM's that take their games VERY seriously. He could be one, or he had a fondness for that character and you attempted to kill them without letting them develop their plot. I'm only guessing here.
I see no issue with the actions of your DM, and do not see any questions in your post, nor any relevance to rules or game mechanics. Additional clarity on what your point is intended to be would be appreciated.
I do want to point out two things though:
1) A player having as one of their first actions the random attacking of a non-hostile NPC for absolutely no reason is a pretty clear warning sign
2) When a player offers as the justification for their action that they don't always have to have the party's interests at heart, and their vision for evil characters (which they chose to play) is one wherein they are irrationally murderous in plain sight of other party members regardless of how harmful that is to the party, that is a even clearer warning sign
It sounds like it's not a good fit. It happens. The way you have fun isn't *wrong* (it can't be), but clearly your philosophy on gameplay and what you're looking for out of the campaign is different from the DM, and someone who wishes to play and act in that way isn't one he wants to play with. It happens, just find a group who *does* want to play as murder hobos with no rational explanation for their attacks on random passer byes.
The only thing I blame the DM for here is not setting clearer expectations regarding what he's looking for and what he's expecting from his players before things rolled out. However if anything, I think this is the perfect example of *why* allowing evil characters can be problematic (don't set clear expectations and you end up with arbitrary murderers actively working against the interests of the party without even trying to disguise that fact), and why most DMs wisely disallow them in their campaign.
1) Wasn't one of my first actions. There was a lot of town and blah, blah, blah and NPC interactions. Mentioned that, just didn't go into details.
2) You're assuming irrationally murderous in plain sight of other party members. Said evil action wasn't with the party....
The whole rest of your post is irrelevant because you're assuming a lot. Nobody said anything about murder hobos or attacking random passer byes. I agree, most DMs won't allow evil party members because they aren't easy to integrate into a traditional campaign (which this was not). You're once again assuming "arbitrary murderes actively working against the interests of the party without even trying to disguise that fact". This was not the case.
Short story is that Chaotic people don't always have the party's best interest at heart...if at all. Neutral people take a more balanced approach and Lawful people are more party-centric. Lawful people can still do Neutral actions from time to time though & should rarely do Chaotic actions. Neutral people don't ALWAYS have to stay on the fence; sometimes they'll do party-helpful things, sometimes not so much. No single action from a character should suddenly switch a person's alignment.
On the flip side, evil characters don't have to act evil all the time. However, if they DO an evil act it should be no surprise.
1) Wasn't one of my first actions. There was a lot of town and blah, blah, blah and NPC interactions. Mentioned that, just didn't go into details.
2) You're assuming irrationally murderous in plain sight of other party members. Said evil action wasn't with the party....
The whole rest of your post is irrelevant because you're assuming a lot. Nobody said anything about murder hobos or attacking random passer byes. I agree, most DMs won't allow evil party members because they aren't easy to integrate into a traditional campaign (which this was not). You're once again assuming "arbitrary murderes actively working against the interests of the party without even trying to disguise that fact". This was not the case.
Short story is that Chaotic people don't always have the party's best interest at heart...if at all. Neutral people take a more balanced approach and Lawful people are more party-centric. Lawful people can still do Neutral actions from time to time though & should rarely do Chaotic actions. Neutral people don't ALWAYS have to stay on the fence; sometimes they'll do party-helpful things, sometimes not so much. No single action from a character should suddenly switch a person's alignment.
On the flip side, evil characters don't have to act evil all the time. However, if they DO an evil act it should be no surprise.
Ok, so let's take the bolded claims from your post. Let's look at what you originally posted, and see if it supports those claims.
DM: Ok, for character creation you can't be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. Must start level 1 as a Rogue, but you can MC from there. Oh and everyone will start at level 3 unless you can roll a 4 on a d4.
Me: You're allowing Neutral Evil?
DM: Yeah.
Me: (since most DMs rarely allow an evil alignment, figure I'll give it a shot). Ok, got my guy rolled up. Rogue/Warrior. (roll d4, get a 4. I'm level 4! Nobody else in party does so, & they're all level 3.)
DM: Ok, so campaign starts, NPCs, starting town, blah, blah, blah. What do you do?
Me: I do something....evil.
DM: You aren't being evil, your character is just being a dick...because you're a dick.
Me: Uhm, what?
DM: Sorry, I don't want you in my game anymore.
Me: Why?
DM: Your actions didn't help the party at all. Plus you attacked one of my NPCs for no reason.
Me: I had a reason, Neutral people don't have to have the party's best interest at heart for every single action. Evil people often act like "*****". Hence the evil tag, which you allowed.
DM: Sorry, you're gone.
Me: Fine, I'll just make another character if you don't like this one.
DM: No, you're the problem. You aren't allowed at my table anymore.
Me: Uhm, what?
So as to the first claim, per the script style writing that you employed in your original post, there was literally NO interaction between the DM describing the setting and you performing the evil act. Your first "line" or words stated, in your original post, following the DM intro, was the evil act. So nope, you did not mention there was a lot of interaction between the start of the campaign and the evil act. Specifically, your post indicated the opposite.
Now, if your first action following the description, the first words spoken to the DM following his initial question after finishing describing the setting, are the evil act, which is what you indicated in your original post, as shown above, then the party would still be there. It's not my fault if you failed to accurately describe the sequence of events, I assumed nothing other than what you indicated in your own words in the way you chose to recount the situation.
As to the second claim: It appears that indeed, in your own words the issue the DM had with it was that the NPC was attacked for "no reason". If that's not being a murder hobo, then you and I have a different understanding of the term.
Sorry, I find your claims to be without merit. If your first action was not the evil act, then you should not have posted that your first action was the evil act or else the fault for others perceiving it to be your first act solely lies with you.
As to the alignment bit, the way you see alignment is a highly subjective one, but here's mine, since we're comparing notes I guess.
Lawful means that someone respects both laws and contracts established, as well as the need for folks bound by such laws and contracts to respect their sanctity. Whether lawful good or lawful evil, they respect the fact that individuals working together can accomplish more if they abide by those laws and contracts (regardless of what their mutual aims are), and they fear the consequences of anarchy (whether in the dissolution of society or in terms of their minions turning on them). The difference is in what they Do with that belief. Lawful good folks act to seek justice for others wronged by criminals and law breakers, seek to uphold the laws of a society, and seek to better society as a whole, often regardless of the personal cost upon themselves or those close to them. Lawful evil folks seek to use laws and contracts as weapons to bind others, and as leverage or power over others. They act primarily for the betterment of themselves, regardless of the impact upon others.
Chaotic means that someone believes their own brand of morality is more important than what someone else put down as some kind of law or contract. They believe in freedom, and personal choice and responsibility, rather than arbitrary compliance with some social construct. They will gladly abide by laws and contracts, as long as they are in lock step with their own moral code and beliefs, and will abandon their compliance with them the moment a conflict arises. A chaotic good person thus refuses to follow unjust laws, seeks to free people wrongly (as they see it) imprisoned or enslaved, and works to overthrow tyranny where it exists. A chaotic evil person acts in whatever way is most expedient to their own best interests, regardless of the lawfulness or not of the action involved. They often seek to undermine authority wherever it exists (except if they hold it), and to sow the seeds of chaos and destruction.
It's not about party centric or not party centric. Lawful or chaotic are views on Society and whether it is more important to follow previously established contracts or your own moral code. In many cases, being lawful is More harmful to the party. After all, a lawful good person who realizes the rogue in the party stole something may feel obligated to report the crime, then help capture and imprison the Rogue, as the compliance to societal laws and correcting the "injustice" of their theft is more important than any harm their actions inflicts on themselves or the Rogue. A chaotic individual sees that the Rogue is better off, who is at a minimum an ally of the person in question, and is far more likely to just let it slide as the action benefits them.
This by the way is likely why lawful good was barred, as well as chaotic evil. BOTH of them care nothing for the party, for very different reasons. After all, an intelligent evil character should be able to recognize that actions which harm their party harm themselves, and as long as they're not chaotic stupid, will thus act in a way that furthers the interests of the party. An intelligent good character, as long as they're not lawful stupid, can recognize that even if a particular act performed by a party member is not in line with their moral compass, the good the party does together outweighs the harm of a particular act, and thus it's in their best interest to keep the party together and to all help each other. ALL alignments have reasons to put the party's interests first, and no alignment, chaotic or otherwise, has an inherent tendency to work against the interests of those they call allies. If a player chooses to do so, that's on the player, not the alignment.
Now as far as "acting evil", there are a wide spectrum of acts which can be described as evil. Certainly it should be no surprise if an evil character acts evilly. Stealing money from the collection plate as it goes around vs putting gold in, would be wholly in character for a neutral evil character. Collecting blackmail on a character who is a problem for the party, and extorting them to both get out of the party's way, as well as maybe for some side cash, is totally in line with a neutral evil character. But always, any action taken by Any character, should benefit ideally their party or at minimum themselves. Evil people don't arbitrarily self destruct, or perform actions which needlessly endanger themselves without gain. That's not evil, that's just shortsighted. You quoted that exact line from your DM, after all. "You attacked one of my NPCs for no reason". Meaning that per your recounting of events, the DM claimed there was no cause to do so- no gain obtained through that action which outweighed the needless risk imposed by it. Again, not evil, and not an inherent tendency of evil people. Just a tendency of murder hobos. That was in your recounting of the events, in your words. And in your words, the "reason" was "evil people often act like *****", not any reason why it benefited you, or why you felt the need to attack him, just "evil people often act like *****".
I 100% get that you wholly disagree with my assessment of law vs chaos, good vs evil, the whole shebang. The DM clearly understood that as well, and did not want you to play further. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that rather than debate that evil actually means this or chaotic actually means that, you are likely better served accepting that different people see it differently, the DM saw your interpretation of things as problematic, and you should find others who agree with your assessment of things and wish to play with you. If you don't like the label "murder hobos", that's fine, but the point stands. Find others of like mind, the DM did nothing wrong in deciding you were best off parting ways.
What was the evil act and how did you do it? Neutral evil tends to be the most careful evil alignment. They’ll pretend to be lawful good when it suits their agenda only to slip a poison into the drink they just bought for the merchant they just met if it will advance their agenda more than not poisoning him will. But they won’t casually do evil, only when it advances their agenda.
Sounds like the DM made the right decision.... you have a history of having issues with every group you are in (as made evident by many of your other posts).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DM: Ok, for character creation you can't be Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. Must start level 1 as a Rogue, but you can MC from there. Oh and everyone will start at level 3 unless you can roll a 4 on a d4.
Me: You're allowing Neutral Evil?
DM: Yeah.
Me: (since most DMs rarely allow an evil alignment, figure I'll give it a shot). Ok, got my guy rolled up. Rogue/Warrior. (roll d4, get a 4. I'm level 4! Nobody else in party does so, & they're all level 3.)
DM: Ok, so campaign starts, NPCs, starting town, blah, blah, blah. What do you do?
Me: I do something....evil.
DM: You aren't being evil, your character is just being a dick...because you're a dick.
Me: Uhm, what?
DM: Sorry, I don't want you in my game anymore.
Me: Why?
DM: Your actions didn't help the party at all. Plus you attacked one of my NPCs for no reason.
Me: I had a reason, Neutral people don't have to have the party's best interest at heart for every single action. Evil people often act like "*****". Hence the evil tag, which you allowed.
DM: Sorry, you're gone.
Me: Fine, I'll just make another character if you don't like this one.
DM: No, you're the problem. You aren't allowed at my table anymore.
Me: Uhm, what?
Well you might try to talk to them again and look for common ground, if you want to play in that game. Could also just be a bad fit though.
Sounds like a good campaign to not be part of.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Seems like your not telling us everything.
Honestly being evil doesn't have to be killing people murder hobo style. Greed can be evil if you are being selfish and not sharing with your group, or choosing not to save a child about to fall off a cliff. Could be that your DM had too many people try stuff like this in the past and is tired of the "I'm evil so i must act like Hitler to everyone around me" trope. All of that aside, from what you told me your DM seems a little unreasonable telling you to leave the table. Your character was probably going to be punished in some way or another. I don't see why he kicked you from the group. I think he was looking for an apology. Weird as it sounds I have encountered DM's that take their games VERY seriously. He could be one, or he had a fondness for that character and you attempted to kill them without letting them develop their plot. I'm only guessing here.
I see no issue with the actions of your DM, and do not see any questions in your post, nor any relevance to rules or game mechanics. Additional clarity on what your point is intended to be would be appreciated.
I do want to point out two things though:
1) A player having as one of their first actions the random attacking of a non-hostile NPC for absolutely no reason is a pretty clear warning sign
2) When a player offers as the justification for their action that they don't always have to have the party's interests at heart, and their vision for evil characters (which they chose to play) is one wherein they are irrationally murderous in plain sight of other party members regardless of how harmful that is to the party, that is a even clearer warning sign
It sounds like it's not a good fit. It happens. The way you have fun isn't *wrong* (it can't be), but clearly your philosophy on gameplay and what you're looking for out of the campaign is different from the DM, and someone who wishes to play and act in that way isn't one he wants to play with. It happens, just find a group who *does* want to play as murder hobos with no rational explanation for their attacks on random passer byes.
The only thing I blame the DM for here is not setting clearer expectations regarding what he's looking for and what he's expecting from his players before things rolled out. However if anything, I think this is the perfect example of *why* allowing evil characters can be problematic (don't set clear expectations and you end up with arbitrary murderers actively working against the interests of the party without even trying to disguise that fact), and why most DMs wisely disallow them in their campaign.
1) Wasn't one of my first actions. There was a lot of town and blah, blah, blah and NPC interactions. Mentioned that, just didn't go into details.
2) You're assuming irrationally murderous in plain sight of other party members. Said evil action wasn't with the party....
The whole rest of your post is irrelevant because you're assuming a lot. Nobody said anything about murder hobos or attacking random passer byes. I agree, most DMs won't allow evil party members because they aren't easy to integrate into a traditional campaign (which this was not). You're once again assuming "arbitrary murderes actively working against the interests of the party without even trying to disguise that fact". This was not the case.
Short story is that Chaotic people don't always have the party's best interest at heart...if at all. Neutral people take a more balanced approach and Lawful people are more party-centric. Lawful people can still do Neutral actions from time to time though & should rarely do Chaotic actions. Neutral people don't ALWAYS have to stay on the fence; sometimes they'll do party-helpful things, sometimes not so much. No single action from a character should suddenly switch a person's alignment.
On the flip side, evil characters don't have to act evil all the time. However, if they DO an evil act it should be no surprise.
What was the evil act and how did you do it? Neutral evil tends to be the most careful evil alignment. They’ll pretend to be lawful good when it suits their agenda only to slip a poison into the drink they just bought for the merchant they just met if it will advance their agenda more than not poisoning him will. But they won’t casually do evil, only when it advances their agenda.
Professional computer geek
Sounds like the DM made the right decision.... you have a history of having issues with every group you are in (as made evident by many of your other posts).