This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic byVitaly S Alexius
It’s always better to have a character turn good than turn evil, since D&D is a cooperative game and good guys work well together. Especially if you’re saving the world! So I say take the path of good.
This might be a bit late, but I say evil... and when I say evil, I don't mean like, "I eat babies for fun" evil. I mean Dr. Doofenschmirtz who is a super genius, but his life is a mess and he isn't very good at villainy.
Joining the dark side doesn't usually lead to saving the world, though it might lead to personal gain. I guess as a neutral character you would just weigh the risks and rewards. Joining the dark side might be the quick and easy path. But the problem is that good usually triumphs in the end. Life expectancy for evil wizards is highly variable. You either die by the end of the campaign or you live thousands of years as a lich. How risk-averse is your character?
Ok. So i stayed with the light option because all my allies good and evil hated the evil diety
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic byVitaly S Alexius
Yeah, you don't want to turn antagonistic to your party. That's pretty much the only hard rule I have as a DM when it comes to character creation; D&D is a team game and generally not intended to be PvP; unless a group very specifically decides to do that you're just going to screw up the fun.
That being said, sometimes a "token evil teammate" can work if the character has reasons to stay loyal to their party. Even bad guys can have friends, after all. I was once a player in a game with six PCs, three good, two neutral, and one evil. The evil one was a ten year old human girl with the stated goal of becoming an assassin (this was back in 3.5 and the assassin prestige class requires an evil alignment). Despite being believably chaotic evil, she didn't act against the party in any significant way. Thinking back on it, this might very well have been aided by her young age to let her fall into the "bratty little sibling" role with the party so as long as she didn't act up too much it was easy to tolerate her (for the record, she did have small size and ability score penalties for being a child per 3.5 rules). She also had the whole brooding edgy rogue thing going on so she didn't speak up a lot, aside from recommending swift and severe violence during planning conversations. The other members of the party accepted that she needed them as a shelter/refuge to survive and liked having her around for when they needed some sneaky and/or shady stuff done because nobody expects the cute little child to whip out a poisoned dagger and shank them. The party basically considered her their pet psychopath.
If you wanted to go for a more anti-heroic character without dipping too far into evil you could try a chaotic good or neutral alignment. One approach to a chaotic good character might be someone with a "the ends justify the means" mentality- as in they ultimately have good intentions but aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in order to achieve them. Maybe someone who ultimately tries to do the right thing but isn't afraid of say... committing murder or lying and cheating to achieve what they think is a positive end.
That said, your description of a character "trying to save the world for personal gain" might be bordering more on chaotic neutral- someone who isn't quite good or bad, maybe has shades of both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a kenku artificer trying to save the world for personal gain.
Im taking a homebrew class that lets me build and modify magic masks
Do i take the path of good and dedicate myself to a good diety
Or do i dedicate myself to an evil diety to learn the forbiden arts of maskmaking
(Edit) forgot to mention we have several evil allies helping js save the world and im slightly on the dark side of the fence.
As i type this i realize its a question similar to sith vs jedi
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic by Vitaly S Alexius
It’s always better to have a character turn good than turn evil, since D&D is a cooperative game and good guys work well together. Especially if you’re saving the world! So I say take the path of good.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
This might be a bit late, but I say evil... and when I say evil, I don't mean like, "I eat babies for fun" evil. I mean Dr. Doofenschmirtz who is a super genius, but his life is a mess and he isn't very good at villainy.
Joining the dark side doesn't usually lead to saving the world, though it might lead to personal gain. I guess as a neutral character you would just weigh the risks and rewards. Joining the dark side might be the quick and easy path. But the problem is that good usually triumphs in the end. Life expectancy for evil wizards is highly variable. You either die by the end of the campaign or you live thousands of years as a lich. How risk-averse is your character?
Ok. So i stayed with the light option because all my allies good and evil hated the evil diety
This Mug immediately shared with me a transcendental tale of an Infinite Mug that anchors the Universe and keeps it from folding in on itself. I filed this report under "illogical nonsense" and asked why its sign is in Times New Roman font, when it is basic knowledge that Arial Black is a far superior font. I wondered: How did this mug even get past the assembly line with its theistic beliefs and poor font choices?
quote from Romantically Apocalyptic by Vitaly S Alexius
Yeah, you don't want to turn antagonistic to your party. That's pretty much the only hard rule I have as a DM when it comes to character creation; D&D is a team game and generally not intended to be PvP; unless a group very specifically decides to do that you're just going to screw up the fun.
That being said, sometimes a "token evil teammate" can work if the character has reasons to stay loyal to their party. Even bad guys can have friends, after all. I was once a player in a game with six PCs, three good, two neutral, and one evil. The evil one was a ten year old human girl with the stated goal of becoming an assassin (this was back in 3.5 and the assassin prestige class requires an evil alignment). Despite being believably chaotic evil, she didn't act against the party in any significant way. Thinking back on it, this might very well have been aided by her young age to let her fall into the "bratty little sibling" role with the party so as long as she didn't act up too much it was easy to tolerate her (for the record, she did have small size and ability score penalties for being a child per 3.5 rules). She also had the whole brooding edgy rogue thing going on so she didn't speak up a lot, aside from recommending swift and severe violence during planning conversations. The other members of the party accepted that she needed them as a shelter/refuge to survive and liked having her around for when they needed some sneaky and/or shady stuff done because nobody expects the cute little child to whip out a poisoned dagger and shank them. The party basically considered her their pet psychopath.
If you wanted to go for a more anti-heroic character without dipping too far into evil you could try a chaotic good or neutral alignment. One approach to a chaotic good character might be someone with a "the ends justify the means" mentality- as in they ultimately have good intentions but aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in order to achieve them. Maybe someone who ultimately tries to do the right thing but isn't afraid of say... committing murder or lying and cheating to achieve what they think is a positive end.
That said, your description of a character "trying to save the world for personal gain" might be bordering more on chaotic neutral- someone who isn't quite good or bad, maybe has shades of both.