Evil or not?

[Hussar]

Mal's quite firmly in the Neutral camp. Probably right-square at True Neutral. Potentially even leaning towards Good, considering how often he gets tripped over things like, oh...rescueing hapless girls, returning much needed medicine, only stealing from those that can really afford it, all of that.

A bit off topic, but still one of those examples that it's entirely possible for someone to do good things and evil things and, you know. Still be playing the same character.

To be honest, I think this is one place where 4e's alignment system works a bit better. Mal is Unaligned. He does what he thinks is best in the situation, not what any guiding morality would tell him to do.

As far as Crow threatening him, well, put it in D&D terms. You captured that bad guy. Bad guy says he's gonna getcha some time later. Would slitting bad guy's throat be considered the actions of a good character? I wouldn't. Then again, I put killing prisoners as an evil act pretty much regardless.

 

[Lanefan]

For example, I have no problem with zealous crusader paladins who act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Which quickly crosses the line from good into evil... ::shrug:: I'd rather play in a party with a chaotic idiot than a Paladin like this, if for no other reason than the Paladin is inevitably going to start telling me what to do, and acting as judge, jury, etc. when I decline to acquiesce to his requests.

The other thing I can't abide as either a player or a DM is intra-party fighting or betrayal unless it specifically happens as part of the story. For example, the rogue scouting ahead and secretly pocketing half the treasure cache he found without telling the rest of the group? Not acceptable to me at all.

Where to me such things are just another part of the game...as is the turning over and shaking of said Thief later, if suspicions are aroused.

If you like to play in such games, that's cool, but I hate it and I'd rather not play at all than play in a game where PCs steal from and betray each other.

If I found myself in a game where the party always had to get along I'd get bored in a hurry...and believe me, if I get bored in a game, party chaos and mayhem quickly follow.

Some of the most memorable and storied sessions I've ever known in over 25 years of playing this game have been those where the party throws down against each other.

All this said, the less well I know the other players the straighter I'm going to play things. Among good friends, anything goes!

Lane-"career-best theft from own party: 14000 g.p. value"-fan

 

[Rechan]

If I found myself in a game where the party always had to get along I'd get bored in a hurry...and believe me, if I get bored in a game, party chaos and mayhem quickly follow.

I think there's a difference between "getting along" and "Not stealing or betraying one another". In general, I consider "betraying one another" to be undermining each other's goals, or stabbing one another in their sleep, or generally being so against one another that it disrupts the party/adventure. Something like taking the wizard's spellbook and chucking it into a fire is a bit beyond "Hey, we don't agree with eachother."

In two recent games, I've had a party spend 30 minutes in real time arguing what to do about an evil shrine they found. In another, the Paladin of Freedom and the Frontier opposed the Warlord who tricked a demon into service, because the demon is now indentured and not free. That is conflict, and not agreeing.

 

[Umbran]

Would slitting bad guy's throat be considered the actions of a good character? I wouldn't. Then again, I put killing prisoners as an evil act pretty much regardless.

Well, that's an old one, right up there with killing goblin babies.

Personally, I think that alignment is a long term measure. A single act isn't enough to say much of anything, unless it is a really big act. Given the number of mitigating factors involved, I don't see that one thing as much of an issue.

 

[GSHamster]

I think Mal is Chaotic Neutral. Despite CN being considered the "crazy person" alignment in the community, I think it fits him best.

First, on Law vs Chaos, Mal is definitely Chaos. Personal freedom is his big thing.

On Good vs. Evil, Mal feels very "fallen" to me. In that at one time he was definitely Good, but then after the battle at Serenity Valley he became disillusioned, and stopped caring. He's not quite evil, but he's not quite good. So Neutral, and maybe with recent events in the show and his crew pulling him back towards the Good side.

Put the two together, and you get Chaotic Neutral.

Jayne is definitely Chaotic Evil. But he also illustrates another facet of CE: the strong rule the weak. And Mal is Jayne's alpha. So Jayne obeys him first, even he disagrees with Mal.

I think Jayne illustrates the only way a Chaotic Evil PC is viable. A player wanting to play a CE character would have to be willing to be subordinate in the pack/group. If a CE bucks for Alpha, I think everything ends up going badly.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think Mal is Chaotic Neutral. Despite CN being considered the "crazy person" alignment in the community, I think it fits him best.

First, on Law vs Chaos, Mal is definitely Chaos. Personal freedom is his big thing.

On Good vs. Evil, Mal feels very "fallen" to me. In that at one time he was definitely Good, but then after the battle at Serenity Valley he became disillusioned, and stopped caring. He's not quite evil, but he's not quite good. So Neutral, and maybe with recent events in the show and his crew pulling him back towards the Good side.

Put the two together, and you get Chaotic Neutral.

Jayne is definitely Chaotic Evil. But he also illustrates another facet of CE: the strong rule the weak. And Mal is Jayne's alpha. So Jayne obeys him first, even he disagrees with Mal.

I think Jayne illustrates the only way a Chaotic Evil PC is viable. A player wanting to play a CE character would have to be willing to be subordinate in the pack/group. If a CE bucks for Alpha, I think everything ends up going badly.

I think that's a pretty good breakdown. Very Nice.

As a DM, I will allow "evil" characters. But, I'll only allow them with the caveat that they must come up with a roleplaying reason to be a part of a group for an extended period of time (the duration of a campaign, essentially, as long as the group is being run).

I think the allure of evil characters is simply that they are fun. They are allowed to do things that polite society, and the agreements of our social contracts, say we can't do. Ask any actor and they'll probably say, playing the "bad guy" is usually the most fun.

Playing a character that "breaks the rules" is okay in a group, as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as the "Player" remembers they have to be a part of a group, and it's their responsibility to come up with and maintain that reason.

 

[Korgoth]

I allow characters of any alignment, as long as the players observe the rule that the party is supposed to basically get along and work together... but if they want to work together for woe rather than weal, so be it.

There are a couple Evil characters in my Empire of the Petal Throne game. They are, however, impeccably lawful (which is not an official alignment in the game... merely an adaptation necessary to avoid the impalement stake). For example, they met a talking stone face (a satyr-faced old man) in the Underworld. It turned out that this enigmatic creature possessed information that the party desired, but the price he demanded was a suitable female (for an undisclosed but obviously dubious purpose... he had some rap about "you wouldn't understand", etc.). A bargain was struck and it was upward and off to the slave market for the evil band, whereupon they purchased some unfortunate for the deal (they even checked her teeth). Despite her futile hysterics, the poor slave was forced at spearpoint by the party into the creature's stony maw, never to be seen again.

Evil? Yes. But the Tsolyani culture accepts slavery and human sacrifice as lawful and proper (now, it's also true that objectively speaking they're horrible and wrong... but the Tsolyani would undoubtedly punish that opinion as impious... this happens in real life, too; viz. Socrates). And the party was careful to honor their bargain to the stone face, and it honored its bargain to them. All was done, in the eyes of the law, with propriety and respect. The Good characters in the bunch (only a couple were present that day) might have disagreed, but there was no crime committed and ultimately they probably wouldn't see it as that big a deal (after all, practically everybody in that society accepts that slaves are routinely discharged as so much chaff).

It's clearly evil to be violently anti-social, but not everyone who is evil is violently anti-social (all horses are animals but not all animals are horses). Evil characters can get along with others and obey the law and even be treated as heroes. It's just that they're cold-hearted sons of biscuits who don't place the proper value on human life. There are a lot of people like that.

How many people that you interact with on a daily basis value their own well-being over another person's life? Probably a lot of them. Those are the Evil people you know. They generally don't spring at you with sinusoidal daggers shouting "Cthulhu ftagn!" or twirl their waxed mustaches while chaining purehearted lasses to the railroad tracks. They're still Evil, though.

 

[Dausuul]

And personally, I see the "I'm going to burn the village down for fun" evil just the same as "Teehee, I'm a kender and I'll play a kender like kender are!" They're both done for the sake of being annoying/disruptive, and alignment doesn't matter when it comes to the player.

This.

The thing I find unacceptable is disruptive behavior. Obnoxiously messing with other PCs is not cool; being the guy who refuses to get on board with the party's goals is not cool; acting sociopathic toward random NPCs is not cool. I don't care what your alignment is.

Yes, there are people who use "I'm eeeevil!" as an excuse for these things, but if you don't allow them to play evil characters, they'll play Chaotic Neutral - or, in 4E, Unaligned - characters and keep right on going. Heck, even if you mandate good alignment, they'll still find ways to do those things. The way to stop them is to a) explain that you want them to stop the disruptive behavior, and b) if they keep being disruptive, kick them out of the game.

If somebody has an idea for an evil character who can get on okay with the rest of the group, who doesn't always have to be coaxed to sign up for the quest du jour, and who doesn't commit senseless mayhem, that's fine by me. In fact, an evil character can add an interesting dynamic to an otherwise heroic party. Raistlin Majere is a good example of this. He's a ruthless, power-hungry bastard, but he still works well within the Heroes of the Lance, and he challenges the other Heroes to confront their own dark sides.

On the other hand, Tasslehoff Burrfoot is a perfect example of a non-evil but highly disruptive character. His antics can be fun in the books, but in a D&D game they would drive most DMs and players absolutely bats**t. I'd take a Raistlin PC in my gaming group over a Tasslehoff PC any day of the week. In fact, I'd probably take Raistlin over Sturm, who skirts the edges of the Lawful Stupid paladin archetype.

Secondly, they know that if they do stupid things to each other, like stealing or lipping off or whatever other disruptive actions I've seen players make over the years, the other guy is well within character to kill him in his sleep.

This is actually a nice argument for including at least one well-played evil character in every party. Great way to cut down on intra-party squabbling. As I recall, even though the rest of the party was constantly being pilfered and pestered, Raistlin never had much trouble with Tasslehoff...

 

[Set]

Having grown up on the fantasy of Moorcock, Leiber and Howard, whose 'heroes' are thieves and scoundrels and mercenaries, and then gone on to play all sorts of GURPS fantasy, in addition to D&D, I pretty much ignore alignment. My 'evil' people may worship evil gods and be willing to do all sorts of nasty stuff to advance the plot, but they aren't *crazy.* My 'good' people aren't the sort that I've seen played by every single Paladin player, EVER, who stab other party members in the back for 'touching their treasure' or 'disrespecting them' or 'killing their prisoner.'

That's my entire beef with alignment as a system. The people who use their character's alignment to justify inter-party conflict and attacking their party members, and, in my experience, these players *always* choose Lawful Good.

Gimme a party of nice, orderly Lawful Evils any day of the week. Or, even better, my normal group, who have played a dozen RPGs over the years, including GURPS, M&M, Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, V&V and Paranoia, and have no need for the crutch of alignment to play 'good guys.'

It's interesting that most *Superhero games* have little use for the alignment mechanic... People sometimes argue about what 'alignment' Batman or Spiderman or Captain America would be, but they weren't written for the D&D universe, so they don't have alignments, and function just fine as 'heroes' without them.

In 30 years of gaming, I've never seen a player play an evil character that *wouldn't* go on an adventure to stop someone from destroying the world or whatever. The reason why evil will never conquer the world is the same reason why it's easy as pie to run an all-evil party through an adventure based on stopping evil. Evil isn't a big club. If Zuggtmoy conquers the world and drags it into her fungal layer of the Abyss, that doesn't do my Cleric of Hextor a darn bit of good. Of course he'll take up arms and fight the moldy demon-wench! How the heck is *HE* going to conquer the world if he lets it get turned into a mushroom appetizer?

Even an apocalyptic worshippers of some crazy end times cult would be put out if some upstart like Lolth started destroying the world. That's just not part of Great Cthulhu's plan, after all!

 

[WetWombat]

And playing in one where the PCs are trying to find out what the god in the box in the paladin's codpiece is. Both games are pretty damn good.

Okay Shilsen, I have to know. The what in the WHAT?