D&D 5E Goals for a party - why should they even go anywhere together?

[Saeviomagy]

All I did was give an example of why I personally would not associate with someone that was evil.

If other players in your group that are all playing evil/neutral characters that have no issue associating with someone that is evil there is no problem.

The guy I knew in college was not a cackling evil madman, he never harmed me or anyone I personally knew. He was still evil and deserved to be in prison and I would not willingly associate with him.

So lets start with the fact that 'evil' is a game term that is far too broad to be applicable in the real world, or potentially even in D&D (but that's another argument).

We'll continue on with the fact that you're using an association fallacy IE: "John has red hair. John likes motorcycles. Therefore all people with red hair like motorcycles".

It's certainly within my imagination for there to exist D&D-context evil people who cannot be distinguished from good people by their actions alone. The only time this comes up will be when an in-game effect that can determine alignment (which are actually very rare) affects them. There's even different degrees of that: as someone pointed out - much of D&D places you effectively in a war zone with high stakes. If party members A & B are both alongside you slaughtering orcs, then are you going to drop party member A because he enjoys it while party member B finds it distasteful but necessary? It's different if party member A starts fights with orcs that are unnecessary... but that's boiling over into the region of chaotic stupid, rather than evil.

 

[transtemporal]

The guy I knew in college was not a cackling evil madman, he never harmed me or anyone I personally knew. He was still evil and deserved to be in prison and I would not willingly associate with him.

Having extreme negative views about a group is obviously distasteful (and I agree that may be grounds to disassociate yourself from them) but it doesn't automatically make them evil. Saying something and acting on it are two vastly different things. Some people just parrot back the hate they hear around them without really understanding or subscribing to it. Unless he was actually convicted of a crime or you personally saw him acting on his negative views, how do you know he's evil?

 

[Lanefan]

Which is why I think the group should do both:

-Don't play an evil character.
-Agree not to act like murder hobos. You're heroes. When it comes down to it, you're the good guys.

These are things I always cover in my session 0, just so we're all on the same page.

I'd be out, on hearing that.

While this particular character might have some heroic tendencies I want the freedom to decide that the next one might not; and might in fact just be out for the money and looking for the fun. I'm not in it to always play one of "the good guys", particularly if I have to worry about means as well as ends: if I've got to break some eggs to make an omelette, gimme that hammer.

Also, as someone else has posted already, there's different kinds of evil and different things that make one so.

One character in the game I play in is listed as evil - he's never done anything against the party that we know of, hasn't stolen from us, hasn't murdered anyone...but he does have this nasty habit of eating whatever he kills (except for Humans or Orcs, that is; as he's partly both) which means when we're fighting and sometimes killing members of the other kindred races things get...interesting.

Scary thing is, in that he's now the party's longest-serving member in a way it's become his party.

Lan-"I'd get more cheers 'round here if I banned Paladins than if I banned evil"-efan

 

[Lanliss]

Having extreme negative views about a group is obviously distasteful (and I agree that may be grounds to disassociate yourself from them) but it doesn't automatically make them evil. Saying something and acting on it are two vastly different things. Some people just parrot back the hate they hear around them without really understanding or subscribing to it. Unless he was actually convicted of a crime or you personally saw him acting on his negative views, how do you know he's evil?

Did you not read the full thing? The guy may have been attacking women. Evil.

 

[painted_klown]

....party sobers up.....

Oh wait, Tomb of Horrors .... Horrors .... oh, man .... so it's not the random harlot table?

There is so much win right here...so much win!

 

[Oofta]

So lets start with the fact that 'evil' is a game term that is far too broad to be applicable in the real world, or potentially even in D&D (but that's another argument).

I simply disagree. Evil in D&D is perhaps more clear cut than in the real world, but there are evil people. I would not willingly associate with an evil person.

We'll continue on with the fact that you're using an association fallacy IE: "John has red hair. John likes motorcycles. Therefore all people with red hair like motorcycles".

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I knew a guy I considered evil. I refused to associate with him once I realized it. End of story.

It's certainly within my imagination for there to exist D&D-context evil people who cannot be distinguished from good people by their actions alone.

Then why are they evil? if they never act out on their "evil nature" then IMHO at worst they are neutral. That gets into semantics.

For sake of argument I would only consider someone evil if they commit evil acts. Someone that fantasizes about robbing banks is not a bank robber. Someone that thinks about doing evil but never acts on it is not IMHO evil.

The only time this comes up will be when an in-game effect that can determine alignment (which are actually very rare) affects them. There's even different degrees of that: as someone pointed out - much of D&D places you effectively in a war zone with high stakes. If party members A & B are both alongside you slaughtering orcs, then are you going to drop party member A because he enjoys it while party member B finds it distasteful but necessary? It's different if party member A starts fights with orcs that are unnecessary... but that's boiling over into the region of chaotic stupid, rather than evil.

I don't know of any spells in 5E that detect alignment but I could easily be forgetting something.

 

[Lanliss]

I simply disagree. Evil in D&D is perhaps more clear cut than in the real world, but there are evil people. I would not willingly associate with an evil person.



I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I knew a guy I considered evil. I refused to associate with him once I realized it. End of story.



Then why are they evil? if they never act out on their "evil nature" then IMHO at worst they are neutral. That gets into semantics.

For sake of argument I would only consider someone evil if they commit evil acts. Someone that fantasizes about robbing banks is not a bank robber. Someone that thinks about doing evil but never acts on it is not IMHO evil.



I don't know of any spells in 5E that detect alignment but I could easily be forgetting something.

I think Glyph of Warding can be set to trigger when someone of a certain alignment walks into it, or anyone "Not lawful good" for example.

 

[Oofta]

Having extreme negative views about a group is obviously distasteful (and I agree that may be grounds to disassociate yourself from them) but it doesn't automatically make them evil. Saying something and acting on it are two vastly different things. Some people just parrot back the hate they hear around them without really understanding or subscribing to it. Unless he was actually convicted of a crime or you personally saw him acting on his negative views, how do you know he's evil?

I came to the conclusion that he attacked women on multiple occasions based on physical evidence (scratches and bruises) in addition to his attitude.

Listen, maybe you've never realized that someone you considered a friend is really a monster that belongs behind bars. I get that.

I don't understand how people can claim there are no evil people. We could get into a philosophical debate about the nature and root cause of evil, but the guy I knew in college was evil.

 

[transtemporal]

Did you not read the full thing? The guy may have been attacking women. Evil.

The operative word being "may", or are we presuming evil until proven good (or at least not-evil)?

 

[Lanliss]

The operative word being "may", or are we presuming evil until proven good (or at least not-evil)?

In the case where I was not there, and have only anecdotal evidence, I am not in any position to decide. Oofta, otoh, was there. Much like women are warned to call the police if they feel sufficiently threatened by a stranger, Oofta seems to have been sufficiently convinced of what this person was. Beyond basic logic, I have nothing to bring to this discussion, as I lack experience with any of the relevant factors (People who may be monsters, women who have felt threatened in that way, specific interaction with Oofta or the college friend, etc.), so I will bow out on this front.