TPK Your Entire Party

[Darklone]

Stupid Evil?

How about Smart Evil?
...
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.

That would be Smart Evil. Guess why we never had evil wizard PCs

They are just too easily able to lay the smack down on the whole party.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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).

That doesn't just apply to evil. If you stick the "no party killing" rule on, you limit all characters, not just evil ones. If the neutral rogue decides that it would be a good idea to kill the maid who saw him spying during a sensitive mission, and the lawful good cleric of Heironeous finds out, he might decide that the rogue has earned a one-way ticket to hell, courtesy of his trusty longsword. Or perhaps two neutral players are both after the same goal, and only one of them can actually achieve it. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that they'd arrange for one another to meet with an untimely end, even if this is not a regular pattern of behaviour for either of them.

In any case, you're limiting character options for the sake of playability. This does not make things less mature, and this doesn't specifically target evil. And again, I don't see where you get the idea that evil = kill your friends.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

And loses his gravy train who would by all expectations have continued to assist him in a so-far successful run of entering dungeons, killing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff. If the long term gain looks better than the sort term gain (which a glance at the "wealth by level" table suggests is the case), then we're back to "that's not evil. That's stupid."

Sure, he could just find another party, but why should he expect to find a group with the track record of success that got them, and him, to 10th level? Also, where do you get this idea that evil = killing your friends, even for phat lewt?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

As long as we're talking about what the alignment system and D&D in general forces on the plot and characterization of the game, it seems that, contrary to what KarinsDad suggests, evil is inherently cooperative and never turns upon itself. This is because the D&D game relies on a massive population of evil creatures, characters, and organizations to exist as potential targets for ravening bands of good adventurers. If these people and creatures did not exist, good adventurers would have to get real jobs. If evil creatures were unable to coexist in peace and harmony on a daily basis, there would be none left, and no adventurers.

 

[Falkus]

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.

Are you seriously trying to say that evil PCs motivations are all completely identical?

 

[Seeten]

What was that movie with Denzel Washington, set in Mexico City, where he plays a bodyguard, and when the little girl he is protecting is kidnapped, he goes John Rambo on the kidnappers, and tortures them, kills them, sets bombs to their... and yet loves the little girl, doesnt rape the wife of the employer, or even sleep with her, when he could, chops off the fingers of the kidnappers to make them talk, but doesnt slaughter his employer for his cash...

Musta been a terrible movie, with such an unbelievable and silly character.

 

[shilsen]

I think this is the point you are missing.

Nope. It's quite easy to think you're completely and utterly wrong without missing any points. Trust me on that one

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.

I got that already. I think we're quite agreed on the point that neither of us agrees with the other's definitions.

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

Evil and even chaotic characters do.

Only by your definitions, which we've already established I think are completely wrong. I think good and neutral characters are also consttrained by the cooperative nature of D&D. You don't see it.

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.

There's the explanation then! A number of us are trying to work out why your conception of evil is so limited and unidimensional. Now if you'd just told us it was all built around the idea that all evil should be like your mom's chihuahua, we'd have ended this a long time ago

If you limit EVIL to "no party killing", you are limiting the roleplaying aspects of the game.

So? People limit the roleplaying aspects of the game for all characters. All PCs, for example, of whatever alignment, are constrained from roleplaying the fact that they want to leave the other PCs and go off and hire on with a group made of NPCs and spend the rest of their career adventuring with them. That's limiting the roleplaying aspects of the game too. And it's okay.

Similarly, most groups do not allow the playing of chihuahua evil. That's okay too.

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).

Only by the definitions of chihuahua evil. Which you apparently follow.

Many of us have thrown off the shackles of our chihuahua overlords. I urge you, KarinsDad, rise up and join us, in the wild and wonderful world where chihuahua evil is not the be-all and the end-all, where we can have complex, multifaceted and deeply scary evil which is still capable of being played at the game table without ruining everyone else's day. Throw off the bogey of the chihuahua that has evidently haunted you for so long and rendered your understanding of alignment ... well, about as reliable as arguing that all dogs should be chihuahuas.

 

[shilsen]

Are you seriously trying to say that evil PCs motivations are all completely identical?

See my above post about chihuahua evil. All shall be answered therein.

KarinsDad is haunted by the specter of chihuahua evil. We should all pity and sympathize with him.

 

[IanB]

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:



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

Are you suggesting thinking takes a standard or move action?

In any case, we can restrict it to talking for now. Since talking is an action, why can't someone who just says evil things be evil as far as the game is concerned, even if he never stabs somebody? Surely other characters in the context of the game world will view a character who preaches Hextor's word on a street corner as evil.

I'd appreciate a response to my other post, if you get the chance (not sure if you missed it on the way to the second one - I really should have combined them into one since they were both directed at you.)

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad is haunted by the specter of chihuahua evil. We should all pity and sympathize with him.

Did I mock you?

If you are not going to be civil, please do not respond to my posts.