Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[Reynard]

A good inquiry and I couldn't really say. In my experiences there certainly was a bit of youthful mindedness to disruptive play, but I’ve seen it in adults too. Probably a combination of experience and expectation instead of a singular source.

I am playing my current warlock as evil. He is selfish and hungry for power and loves to goad the meat shields and especially that insufferably sheery cleric into putting themselves in danger rather than himself. He is also loyal to the group and does his part in and out of combat. He never takes more than his share of the treasure (although a couple dead meat shields or that insufferable cleric dying would boost his share...). He serves the Undying One, who is evil as all get out, but also hates Orcus, because everlasting life hates undeath.

 

[Lanefan]

TLDR:
How evil do you like your evil to be?
How much granularity do you prefer when it comes to painting morality?

Game of Thrones pretty much nailed it for me. A wide variety of good-ness and evil-ness portrayed in a wide variety of ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Game of Thrones pretty much nailed it for me. A wide variety of good-ness and evil-ness portrayed in a wide variety of ways.

And an excellent example of modern fantasy that made no attempt to depict all its protagonists as heroes. I see no reason gaming can't or doesn't do the same, and no proof that PC as hero is the prevailing view in actual play beyond official D&D shilling the idea.

 

[GrimCo]

Game of Thrones pretty much nailed it for me. A wide variety of good-ness and evil-ness portrayed in a wide variety of ways.

Same. First 3 books were among first fantasy books i read after Lord of the Rings. It was also very popular with my HS gaming group, we even played some Game of Thrones D20. So for me and people i started playing with, GoT was big influence when creating settings and characters and shaped my playstyle preferences. GoT was kind of our baseline.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How evil do you like your evil to be?
How much granularity do you prefer when it comes to painting morality?

Personally, I'm pretty open to just about anything, with the caveat that everyone else is equally comfortable. And even then, I don't think that everything needs to be focused on... we can imply things or fade to black as needed.

I mean, given how frequently I've had to do this kind of stuff for NPCs as the GM, it's a present part of nearly every game.

And even the poster child for TSR's shift to heroes... the Dragonlance Saga... had a perfect example of a playable character who was evil in Raistlin. Arguably the most interesting character from those books.

It doesn't have to be just casual brutality and complete abhorrence. Usually, that kind of stuff is more annoying then compelling, and it gets really old, really quick. Compelling "villains" as we think of them in fiction tend to be the ones that are complicated and who think they're right in some way.

 

[Voadam]

And even the poster child for TSR's shift to heroes... the Dragonlance Saga... had a perfect example of a playable character who was evil in Raistlin. Arguably the most interesting character from those books.

Well in the modules PC Raistlin is neutral. Even in the novels he starts off as a red robes and only turns to black near the end.

I have not read the module parts that correspond to him turning evil in the novel so I can't say how that is handled there.

 

[Umbran]

Given that one of the player-facing classes in 1e (Assassin) had to be Evil, I don't think that houserule was nearly as common as you think prior to the Great Sanitization that was 2e.

If, like, half the classes went that way, this would be a solid point. But when it was only one class, and the game really didn't break if nobody played it, doesn't really speak to the houserule - it may be loads of folks were willing to do without Assassins.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If, like, half the classes went that way, this would be a solid point. But when it was only one class, and the game really didn't break if nobody played it, doesn't really speak to the houserule - it may be loads of folks were willing to do without Assassins.

I suppose there's no real evidence either way then. We're just dueling anecdotes, and I don't really understand the value people seem to get by claiming more people feel the same as then than feel the same as you (general you).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Given that one of the player-facing classes in 1e (Assassin) had to be Evil, I don't think that houserule was nearly as common as you think prior to the Great Sanitization that was 2e.

All that means is the same people didn't bother to permit Assassins. Or ignored the evil requirement. I don't recall seeing but one PC assassin in the time I played OD&D (where it was a Blackmoor class).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I suppose there's no real evidence either way then. We're just dueling anecdotes, and I don't really understand the value people seem to get by claiming more people feel the same as then than feel the same as you (general you).

I can certainly say I saw an awful lot of people who either banned evil characters or were extremely conservative with which types they permitted in the 70's, and this was far from ones just from one group or locale. So, basically I'm going by the (not small) pool of data points I have.