TPK Your Entire Party

[KarinsDad]

Thinking is an act. It isn't an action in game terms, but the alignment rules don't say anything about that sort of action.

Yes, the alignment rules do:

Actions dictate alignments, not statements by players.

 

[IanB]

KD:

Are NPCs in your game held to the same standard of evil behavior that PCs apparently are?

When the players head out to the local kobold lair, do they find a cave strewn with corpses and a couple kobolds counting their loot before they, too, turn on each other?

Are there no degrees of alignment at all in your game? That's what you're making it sound like.

 

[IanB]

Yes, the alignment rules do:

Actions dictate alignments, not statements by players.

That doesn't rule out statements by characters, though. Talking (and thinking, by extension) are free actions, after all.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have to disagree here, and with some of your earlier statements regarding the fratricidal nature of evil PCs.

Although Seeten (and I) possess greater flexibility regarding alignment than you, I wouldn't necessarily say that our attitude constitutes metagaming. IMO, evil characters can be played according to their ethos and still manage to co-exist with others. Granted, it may be quite a challenge to roleplay a "cooperative" evil PC ... but it can be done (and without sacrificing verisimilitude).

I do not disagree. Evil PCs can be played cooperatively. I never once said they could not.

My point which people tend to be missing is that because DND is a game, Evil PCs MUST be cooperative (or the group self destructs). That limits Evil roleplaying options.


If a player wants to play a fratricidal (for lack of a better term) PC, he will probably become a pariah in most groups the moment he puts his plans in play. DND is designed for cooperation and hence, is not designed for non-cooperation.

 

[Falkus]

DM: "You can be as EVIL as you want, but just don't kill the other PCs."

What kind of EVIL is that??? The Howdy Doody definition of EVIL!!!

Since when was evil defined as: A rabid dog who will turn on his companions at the drop of a hat?

 

[Darklone]

....

DM: "You can be as EVIL as you want, but just don't kill the other PCs."

What kind of EVIL is that??? The Howdy Doody definition of EVIL!!!
...

Hey KD... we gave some examples how an evil PC might do well in a goody-goody party (except for paladins). That example is not included.

In none of the games where we had a single or two evil PCs in the party the DM forbade to kill other PCs.

Yet it never happened. Partially because the other PCs knew their evil buddies rather well and knew how to treat them. Partially because the evil PCs were rather selfish evil (I make them all work for me/my best interest), not stupidly cruel evil (Me want to kill... kill... kill!). E.g. never let them alone on watch if you're just carrying home a big treasure if the PC is horribly greedy.

But for example if someone plays a cowardly greedy char, he will try to avoid any risk... such as trying to kill other PCs who KNOW he might do that. And why shouldn't a greedy char who was a dark alley sneaker who was killing people for silver coins suddenly turn on his buddies who always seem to keep the big monsters away from him and who bring him shares of treasure he never dared to dream of? Like shilsen said: Thieves honor works for evil chars to. He might even do silly heroic stunts to help his buddies.

Well. Long post for me. I can say it shorter: Evil PCs who aren't imaginative enough to be evil without HAVING to kill the other PCs have the tenth alignment: Stupid evil.

 

[KarinsDad]

That doesn't rule out statements by characters, though. Talking (and thinking, by extension) are free actions, after all.

Thinking "by extension" is not an action.

That's something that you added, but the rules do not actually state this.

A moment ago, your example was:

If a guy privately hates a particular race, but never says or does anything overt because he doesn't want the consequences, he's still a racist. Likewise with evil, IMO.

Now, you are adding "talking" in as an action, even though a moment ago you were not.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well. Long post for me. I can say it shorter: Evil PCs who aren't imaginative enough to be evil without HAVING to kill the other PCs have the tenth alignment: Stupid evil.

Stupid Evil?

How about Smart Evil?


The big battle is over. The Evil PC Wizard waited until he took no damage in a fight, but nearly everyone else took major damage. Fireball. Even if some of the other PCs survive his first (surprise round) attack (unlikely because he waits for a combat where they are nearly decimated), he should still easily win.

What does he gain? Plus three (or more) times his current wealth. That's HUGE.

A 10th level Wizard suddenly gains the wealth of a 15th level Wizard. Even selling off loot he cannot use for half price, he still has the wealth of 13th to 14th level.

This is definitely evil. Killing for Greed.

Plus, a truly evil PC should resent the maudling good other PCs: "If I had to hear FOR THE GLORY OF THOR one more time, I think I would have puked!".


The point is, this is a SMART (and very much in nature) thing for many evil adventurers to do every once in a while. But because of the "cooperative nature of DND", it is something that is typically prevented from happening.

 

[Seeten]

I think this is the point you are missing.

DND is a game system which basically REQUIRES players to make character decisions that continue the game (the game does not force this, it just is designed with this in mind).

The moment a player makes that concession, he is forced to play his Evil PCs in a certain manner.

You call it creative and mature.

I call it often against character nature and inferior roleplaying.


Good and even neutral characters by definition do not have this issue.

Evil and even chaotic characters do.


DM: "You can be as EVIL as you want, but just don't kill the other PCs."

What kind of EVIL is that??? The Howdy Doody definition of EVIL!!!

My mom had a Chihuahua that was more EVIL than that.


If you limit EVIL to "no party killing", you are limiting the roleplaying aspects of the game. By definition, the game is not meant to be played by Evil PCs because of this inherent limitation. One is forced to play an "evil, but not really evil" PC by definition (or, self destruct that particular party).

Just like PCs are not really meant to play deities. The game system is not well designed for it.

I think you boldly miss the point that Evil doesnt mean archetypal steepling fingers and belly laughing, nor does it mean insane. Normal people can be evil.

If I am willing to kill and torture to get back at the BBEG who burned my village, by any means necessary, the D&D alignment system says I am evil. I do not, by any means, by necessity, also need to murder my friends, lovers and companions. That isnt even IMPLIED by the alignment system. You willfully ignore this fact, and make it out like all evil people are Dr. Evil, or S.P.E.C.T.R.E. some ridiculous caricature of a 1 dimensional person who insists on killing everyone they come across, including women, children, how is there a single drow left alive in your world? How do Orc Tribes manage to attack civilized cities? They all must be dead. In fact, by your statements, they'd all die every night.

Its not realistic, and in fact, its downright silly. Calling 1 dimensional play "Good rp" and realistic believable characters with motivations and goals in no way impacted by considerations like "Archetypal" alignment poor rp is ... I am not going to comment on it.

If your idea of believable rp is Jeremy Irons as the villain in D&D: The Movie, well, it isnt the kind of game I play in, is all I can say.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I opine that this is total crap.

The problem is not necessarily with the maturity level of players. The problem is that well played Evil PCs is an Oxymoron.

In order to maintain harmony with the other players, the player of any evil PC is forced into certain "well behaved" modes of behavior. He must get along with the other PCs to some extent. He must not try to kill them, even though it is in the very nature of Evil to harm and kill others.

That's the problem. Mature players are not ones who kow tow to metagaming concepts of "group play", mature players are ones who roleplay their character according to the character concept, regardless of whether that means harming or killing another PC.

Unfortunately, that means that PC conflict will eventually occur and PCs will eventually kill each other.

And since it does take quite a while to create a new PC, PVP hampers the game.

It is not about maturity. It is about Evil eventually not behaving within group dynamics. Sooner or later, an evil PC should turn on other PCs, even if they are "friends" (as long as one is not metagaming).


So yes, one can pretend that it is mature to play Evil PCs, but that's nonsense. One is forced to be a good little evil PC when playing an evil PC, at least in regard to the other PCs, and that too is nonsense.

Evil is not limited this way. That's Evil skewed by metagaming.

So, you're not evil unless you plot the deaths of every sentient creature in existence, especially your companions?

Evil people don't have to be stupid. They don't have to arrange to undermine their own plans, and they don't have to eliminate the very people who can help them to realize those plans. That's dumb. Requiring that evil characters eventually turn on their friends in order to count as evil is just as dumb as requiring that chaotic characters overthrow at least one government or else fall from chaotic grace.

A chaotic evil character might kill his best friend because that would be both chaotic and evil. Or he might go on a rampage with his best friend, spreading chaos and evil in their wake in a devoted show of camaraderie and friendship. Perhaps this massacre brings them closer to each other, and at the end of it they make a blood pact, forever viewing each other as blood brothers. Then, later on, when one of the brothers is killed by a paladin for being an evil bastard, the other comes looking for revenge, tears in his eyes over the loss of a warrior so mighty and terrible.

Or are you suggesting that the alignment system is intended to restrict characters to being one-dimensional?