General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I can't really see evil campaigns working in 4e, since there's no more lawful evil, and the big emphasis is on Chaotic "LOL I KILL HIM BECAUSE I'M BAD" Evil.
Also, if your evil character has to constantly make excuses, then you're doing it wrong. Evil doesn't mean "I like to run around knifing people," no matter what Bioware might tell you. On of my favorite characters was an evil psionic who believed that, for the good of the world, he had every right to push himself into the minds of others and forceably change them. Not a good act by any stretch. But nor did it require me to constantly try to justify being with the party.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?
Note that the rules can change, and do, from table to table.
The classic example in 3.5 is, of course, the Eberron Campaign Setting, which enables and encourages the play of races traditionally deemed monstrous, e.g. orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, minotaurs, and others.
The western orcs, in particular, are deemed a highly spiritual race; whether serving as Gatekeepers--the druid order responsible for defending the world against extraplanar threats--or paladins of Kalok Shash, "the Binding Flame," responsible for ensuring that the hosts of the Demon Wastes remain there, most orcs described in the setting are either genuinely heroic, or contemplative mystics.
Similarly, it's not unheard of to find mercenary bands of gnolls available for hire in any of the larger cities in the setting, and while not fully integrated, most cities have a large population of goblins that undertake all manner of occupations from shoeshine boy to investment banker, though the banking industry per se is still dominated by dwarves.
So--if playing monstrous races works with your setting, do that. Playing a dark elf working with surface dwellers in order to spy upon and scout out the surface world is not at all out of character. Likewise, a shadar-kai in the world is likely simply seeking new experiences to deal with its racial sense of ennui, whether or not in service to the Raven Queen.
Playing a goblin working with other races requires even less justification. Similarly for gnomes, minotaurs, or any other race not assumed to have its own somewhat insular civilization.
It's all simply a matter of how your campaign setting works: in a really simple hack-and-slash environment, where civilization exists only as a place to exchange coins for magic items or vice-versa, the race of a player character only matters in a purely game-mechanical sense, and none of this discussion is needed. If your setting assumes that all of civilization was more-or-less wiped away by a wave of marauding gnolls (c.f. the fate of the Empire of Nerath, in the Points of Light setting), then it's going to be harder to play a gnoll character than, say, a gnome.
In a larger sense, the assumption in the rules that the player characters are good is generally true of reader-identification literature in general: it's not unique to Wizards of the Coast, or even role-playing games. Simply looking at literature generally, the character with whom the reader or audience is expected to identify is almost always what we would characterize as of good alignment.
Even in situations where the reader-identification character is explicitly a sociopathic serial killer--e.g. the television series Dexter--the character is also usually good, in the alignment sense of Dungeons & Dragons: despite being perfectly willing to butcher living victims, for example, Dexter adheres to a code that calls upon him to never harm an innocent.
That the rules even permit--not encourage, but merely permit--the play of evil characters is something that continues to render Dungeons & Dragons quite suspect to many people outside the hobby.
—Siran Dunmorgan
Last edited by Siran Dunmorgan; 27th September 2008 at 01:19 AM..
Reason: Formatting
That the rules even permit--not encourage, but merely permit--the play of evil characters is something that continues to render Dungeons & Dragons quite suspect to many people outside the hobby.
—Siran Dunmorgan
Such as, say, those people playing World of Warcraft, who kill things and take their stuff, or someone playing Halo, who kills things and sometimes take their stuff, or stuff floating around in random places?
Fantasy slaughter isn't a taboo, it's a marketing ploy.
My evil characters blend into the party pretty well, unless you consider that calling them 'my minions' occasionally is anti-party behavior. And I'm almost always playing a human. (though many in the party play non-humans just for the darkvision, which I find cheesy)
I can't really see evil campaigns working in 4e, since there's no more lawful evil, and the big emphasis is on Chaotic "LOL I KILL HIM BECAUSE I'M BAD" Evil.
So you think that 3e's Lawful Evil is substantially different from 4e's Evil.
I can't really see evil campaigns working in 4e, since there's no more lawful evil, and the big emphasis is on Chaotic "LOL I KILL HIM BECAUSE I'M BAD" Evil.
Lawful Evil fits in just fine with Evil, and Chaotic Evil is the same as it's always been. If you have an issue with the alignments, it's not 4e's fault, it's the silly alignment system. Please don't turn this into another edition war thing.
I'm personally happy with the focus of the game on "heroic" play. Even anti-heroes in books and movies often have some ethical or morale code that makes them somehow redeemable. It's really easy to strip the heroic out and create an evil character if that's what you want. It's more important to give as many methods to bring a character from a typically evil background into heroic campaigns.
I can't really see evil campaigns working in 4e, since there's no more lawful evil, and the big emphasis is on Chaotic "LOL I KILL HIM BECAUSE I'M BAD" Evil.
Just because the categorization of 'Lawful Evil' no longer exists, does not mean that you cannot roleplay a 4E character whose personality and viewpoints can be described in the same manner Lawful Evil characters were previously described.
There's no ban on characters who (to quote the SRD here): methodically takes what they wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts; who also cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.
__________________ It doesn't matter how gimped the class may be, people will always play Rangers. Saying "I'm a Ranger" in fantasy gaming is kinda like saying "I'm Batman."
"I have no silver gifts for thee,
No scented words nor frankincense:
Only this love, that burns in me
Like a vain fire in valleys whence
The sun has flown beyond the sea."
-Clark Ashton Smith, 'The Song at Evenfall'
"Oh pick up flutes and fiddles, a new tune is beginning
A melody forsaken, on the chords of our elders' song
Each note is telling a story, a fragment of existence."
-Elvenking, 'Oakenshield'
Just seems like 4e is planting the 'You are a good guy, so play a good guy' angle harder than anything in 3/3.5. Many of the PrC and race descriptions in 3/3.5 relished being evil (or at least naughty)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
4E ended the paladin code, meanwhile introducing warlocks as a core class and tieflings as a core race. I don't think they're pushing "good guy" any harder than before. The game is built on the assumption that you're the good guys, and there are good reasons for that; but if you want to go evil, 4E supports that perfectly well.
__________________ Have you ever known a person who always behaved exactly the way you expected? Real people don't stay in character.
A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
But what if you want to play a bad ass evil Drow who goes back to Menzobarrenzan every once in awhile and reports back to your Matron Mother?
I refer you to the back of the PHB -
THE WORLD NEEDS HEROES
that is all.
__________________ "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson 18th century English author.
A lot of the 'roleplaying info' text assumes that you will play your character as a 'noble and good rebel'----opposed to the racial type? For instance---all the examples of playing a Drow (from the FR Player's Handbook) indicate that the PC opposes the Drow races evil tendencies.
I think you have oversimplified the information in the FRPG. The section "Playing a Drow" gives insight into the evil society the drow have grow up with.
"Drow are born into darkness. [snip] Even drow who escape the clutches of this sinister culture find themselves scarred by the lessons they learned in their youth. [snip] Drow are never surprised when the knife appears, and they consequently find it hard to form lasting friendships."
Then the three "noble and good rebels" you mention, per the "Drow Adventurers" section, are:
A ranger that follows the Unaligned god of death, Kelmvor. He led a resistance, it does not say what his intentions were in the resistance. Was it to gain personal power? Was it because his house was practicing necromancy? And now he has a vendetta against his house. None of this automatically makes him noble or good.
A rogue who grew up being told she was going to be sacrificed to Lolth on her mother's altar. She came to hate the goddess Lolth and escaped. Now she stays on the move to evade her mother's spies. Again, none of this automatically makes her noble or good.
A feylock that seeks others that value nature and the lives of others. This example is most likely good, possibly even noble. But there's nothing saying he can't value his new friends while still regarding others with hatred. They may even give him reason through discrimination or their destruction of nature.
I think there is room for both "good and noble rebels" and "messed up because I was brought up in a purely evil society" in all three of the concepts they have presented.
)---and almost none of the base races/classes had any 'Dudley Do-right' language.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
