Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Playing Evil
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4911735" data-attributes="member: 15538"><p>Is there a difference between how a CG party approaches things and a LG party? A group of dwarves versus a group of elves? I'm going to say, "Yes, a big difference." You will never see the same adventure played the same way twice. Good characters and evil characters have different approaches to similar problems.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. Let's go back to the servant girl who helps the princess escape (for whatever reason that motivates the poor girl). The good rogue is not going to murder her as a witness; the assassin might. The evil knight might murder her, while the good knight is not going to murder anyone at all. Good characters have less problems with making enemies, but more problems with avoiding "collateral damage." Good characters attract more loyalty, evil characters can more credibly generate fear.</p><p></p><p>Two lawful good paladins can play completely different. Imagine one, we'll call him Sir Clark of Smallville, is a shining knight. He believes in fair play, honor, mercy, and just punishment. He rides bravely into battle, affords his opponents every opportunity to surrender, and looks forward to either glorious death or the rewards of noble service. There is another equally honorable paladin of his order, named Dame Diana of Hespera. She believes in order, the law, mercy, and just punishment. She regards the battle against evil as serious business and would never give an opponent an opportunity based on a misguided sense of fair play as if combat were some kind of game. She is extremely cautious about endangerous her companions or bystanders, and looks forward to a quiet retirement, although she is resigned to the likelihood of dying in battle against the forces of evil. </p><p></p><p>Sir Clark might very well challenge the evil Baron to a duel, or threaten to simply lay siege to his castle. Dame Diana might look for an opportunity to ambush him while hunting, or failing to discover an opportune time to attack, might try to challenge him as well, as a less desirable option (she lives by the maxim of Sun Tzu that first you must become victorious, then you enter battle). </p><p></p><p>There is so much potential difference between two characters of the same alignment with similar codes of conduct, that the differences between Good and Evil are truly vast.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>True. Lawful Good fighters might get very frustrated with all the idiots intent on dying for their worthless Baron and let loose a few choice expletives.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Every romance novel has pretty much the same story... people fall in love, and attempt to be together. Complaining that both good and evil PCs apply violence is pretty much the same as admitting that a fighter or wizard can be either good or evil. </p><p></p><p>Nonetheless, the decision to apply violence is never the same in its application. Both good and evil characters can have honor, but it's a different kind of honor. Both good and evil characters might think of collateral damage, but for different reasons. There is a difference between a good rogue using Stealth to avoid unnecessary battles in order to take out the evil Baron, versus an evil Assassin using Stealth to get close to as many members of the Baron's family as possible in order to execute them all, down to the youngest child.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My experience suggests otherwise. In the 3.5 campaign I've been running, the party is mainly good and neutral, and they have really wrestled with some decisions. Characters have taken great measures in order to preserve or restore their good alignment. I don't make it easy. In many situations, I offer an obvious alternative to the right thing, and the only immediate consequence of choosing evil is that the characters become evil. And yet time and again, players will look for ways to avoid the evil option. </p><p></p><p>Star Wars is another game where many problems are solved by the application of violence. And yet, the Light Side and Dark Side are important themes in Star Wars. </p><p></p><p>D&D need not be amoral, and if it is, individual characters need not be amoral. The fact that many people choose to run it as a morally neutral maze game does not mean that's the only way to run it... or even the simplest. At its heart, D&D is a game about fortune seekers, each of whom is empowered to make any decision in a fashion they choose. In Monopoly, you cannot suddenly decide to burn down the Shoe's hotels in an act of arson, but in D&D arson is a possibility.</p><p></p><p>In fact, my players had a run-in with a powerful druid, due to their wanton forest-burning during a series of running battles.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 4911735, member: 15538"] Is there a difference between how a CG party approaches things and a LG party? A group of dwarves versus a group of elves? I'm going to say, "Yes, a big difference." You will never see the same adventure played the same way twice. Good characters and evil characters have different approaches to similar problems. Yes. Let's go back to the servant girl who helps the princess escape (for whatever reason that motivates the poor girl). The good rogue is not going to murder her as a witness; the assassin might. The evil knight might murder her, while the good knight is not going to murder anyone at all. Good characters have less problems with making enemies, but more problems with avoiding "collateral damage." Good characters attract more loyalty, evil characters can more credibly generate fear. Two lawful good paladins can play completely different. Imagine one, we'll call him Sir Clark of Smallville, is a shining knight. He believes in fair play, honor, mercy, and just punishment. He rides bravely into battle, affords his opponents every opportunity to surrender, and looks forward to either glorious death or the rewards of noble service. There is another equally honorable paladin of his order, named Dame Diana of Hespera. She believes in order, the law, mercy, and just punishment. She regards the battle against evil as serious business and would never give an opponent an opportunity based on a misguided sense of fair play as if combat were some kind of game. She is extremely cautious about endangerous her companions or bystanders, and looks forward to a quiet retirement, although she is resigned to the likelihood of dying in battle against the forces of evil. Sir Clark might very well challenge the evil Baron to a duel, or threaten to simply lay siege to his castle. Dame Diana might look for an opportunity to ambush him while hunting, or failing to discover an opportune time to attack, might try to challenge him as well, as a less desirable option (she lives by the maxim of Sun Tzu that first you must become victorious, then you enter battle). There is so much potential difference between two characters of the same alignment with similar codes of conduct, that the differences between Good and Evil are truly vast. True. Lawful Good fighters might get very frustrated with all the idiots intent on dying for their worthless Baron and let loose a few choice expletives. Every romance novel has pretty much the same story... people fall in love, and attempt to be together. Complaining that both good and evil PCs apply violence is pretty much the same as admitting that a fighter or wizard can be either good or evil. Nonetheless, the decision to apply violence is never the same in its application. Both good and evil characters can have honor, but it's a different kind of honor. Both good and evil characters might think of collateral damage, but for different reasons. There is a difference between a good rogue using Stealth to avoid unnecessary battles in order to take out the evil Baron, versus an evil Assassin using Stealth to get close to as many members of the Baron's family as possible in order to execute them all, down to the youngest child. My experience suggests otherwise. In the 3.5 campaign I've been running, the party is mainly good and neutral, and they have really wrestled with some decisions. Characters have taken great measures in order to preserve or restore their good alignment. I don't make it easy. In many situations, I offer an obvious alternative to the right thing, and the only immediate consequence of choosing evil is that the characters become evil. And yet time and again, players will look for ways to avoid the evil option. Star Wars is another game where many problems are solved by the application of violence. And yet, the Light Side and Dark Side are important themes in Star Wars. D&D need not be amoral, and if it is, individual characters need not be amoral. The fact that many people choose to run it as a morally neutral maze game does not mean that's the only way to run it... or even the simplest. At its heart, D&D is a game about fortune seekers, each of whom is empowered to make any decision in a fashion they choose. In Monopoly, you cannot suddenly decide to burn down the Shoe's hotels in an act of arson, but in D&D arson is a possibility. In fact, my players had a run-in with a powerful druid, due to their wanton forest-burning during a series of running battles. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Playing Evil
Top