When you're an "evil" person, what non-evil term do you use to describe yourself?

[The Thayan Menace]

Math = Power

ENTREPRENEUR


​

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Zeus' Caprice

SCAPEGOAT


​

 

[Rhun]

"What is light without dark?"

 

[painandgreed]

That has to be up there in the top 10 most bizarre statements I've heard anyone make on this board. The entire point to virtually every D&D campaign is a battle between good and evil. Evil churches stay hidden save in evil or neutral countries. People don't acquiese to it, they seek it out and destroy it with fire and sword.

I guess it's a testament to the amazing diversity of campaigns, but I've never, ever heard that position taken by anyone.

I usually see evil churches sought out and destoryed with fire and sword because nobody cares if you kill them and take their stuff. But there's a big difference between evil churches and evil people. Plus Neutral and evil countries usually make up 2/3rds of the countries.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

"Well, he's just an excitable boy." — Warren Zevon.

 

[Driddle]

You see that most Humans encompass all the alignments, which means that if you know 10 people, at least 3 are likely to be Evil to some extent or another. It's just as common as Good.

I'm sorry, K.M., but the mere presence of a category does not imply an equal distribution.

 

[Arkhandus]

I guess they'd call themselves 'enterprising', or 'ambitious', or 'revolutionary', or 'free-thinking'. Or just admit that they're evil by other peoples' standards, but they don't see anything wrong with it and think everyone should just act out of self-interest. I dunno.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm sorry, K.M., but the mere presence of a category does not imply an equal distribution.

Though the text in the PHB suggests that humans are spread equally amongst the alignments.

That has to be up there in the top 10 most bizarre statements I've heard anyone make on this board. The entire point to virtually every D&D campaign is a battle between good and evil. Evil churches stay hidden save in evil or neutral countries. People don't acquiese to it, they seek it out and destroy it with fire and sword.

I guess it's a testament to the amazing diversity of campaigns, but I've never, ever heard that position taken by anyone

I think you're mixing up the PC's and Everyone Else.

The PC's are heroes. By the D&D assumptions, they're better than everyone else. That's part of why they're Good and not Everyone Else is.

I'd say it's somewhat less common than Good and both are significantly less common than Neutral. Evil just gets more press, so it seems more common than it actually is. I certainly don't think people are equally spaced through all the alignments.

Why not?

 

[Tal Rasha]

It's all a matter of perspective. ... Good people can usually identify someone else as being evil or acting in an evil manner, but those same evil-doers rarely ever consider themselves by the same label -- admittedly selfish or self-serving, perhaps, or merely misunderstood. But those who do evil usually believe they are motivated by their own good motives. Not evil.

I beg to differ. There was a post on these boards a while back, that said (paraphrase): "Most people in D&D are neutral in alignment. They respond to good with good, to evil with evil. Good-aligned people are angelic. Evil-aligned people are vile."

I agree with this. My opinion is that evil characters' primary concern are their goals. They typically have neither the time nor the disposition to explain their motivations.

Wife asks: "Honey, why did you exterminate that village yonder?" Evil guy says: "We needed the undead to protect us from the pesky clerics up north."

Good hero asks: "You despicable villain, you brought misery to the land, and you have to pay!" Evil guy says: "Thanks for the info, now go away, I have work to do."

As far as I can see, the only time when an evil character would have to explain his motivations would be when confronted by a superior who questions his actions. Since he can't destroy or ignore the superior, he has to say something like: "Yes, I know it was incongruous of me to let the paladin escape from my dungeon, but you see, he is now infected with this nice critter I brewed up, and we will thus know his hideout and location of all his loot." In such cases, I think the evil character acknowledges and is fine with the fact that his actions and motives are nothing other than, for lack of a better word, evil.

 

[Seeten]

I ascribe things to my own motives, like, "Slick", "Self-Serving", "Brilliant", "Resourceful", "Charismatic" and "Sly". I can be kind, and gracious and nice, but lets be honest, its usually to get something I want, not because I'm actually kind or gracious. I don't like to think of myself as evil, I prefer the term, "The Bad Man", and I like to think of it as opportunistic.

See my signature for more good details.