roguerouge
First Post
Kzach: If the player tells you that he wants to do a redemption narrative, in which the character starts as evil and slowly redeems himself, would you let him?
Evil or not?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
I'm currently running a mostly evil campaign. It's the first time I've ever done it. I was pretty leery at first allowing it, but, I must say, my players have come through beautifully.
Surprisingly, I find that they are less fractious/disruptive now than when they play good characters. They know two things that keep everyone in line - first, the outside world really is trying to get them, if they don't stand up for each other, they'll all get it in the neck. Secondly, they know that if they do stupid things to each other, like stealing or lipping off or whatever other disruptive actions I've seen players make over the years, the other guy is well within character to kill him in his sleep.
When you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you get on the bad side of the other guy, you're going to wake up minus body parts, everyone gets a WHOLE lot more polite.
No one's gone into the rape fantasy thing. The party isn't so much pro-actively evil that they go around doing evil things just because, but, their methods for achieving a goal are certainly evil. Watching the LE monk put a harpoon into the back of the guy who was swimming away because he wanted to eliminate witnesses pretty much sealed his alignment.
It's been a very interesting experience. I'm lucky because I've got absolutely fantastic players who are capable of being mature about the whole thing. I know there are other groups that I wouldn't try this at all with.
It all comes down to knowing your players.
But back to your original question as to why? Well, it allows you to play the anti-hero. Not in the weak, cowardly sense, but, in the Elric or most of the characters from Sin City (other than Frank the cop). Heck, there's all sorts of examples of characters that are evil that aren't disruptive. In Heroes, for example, Mr. Bennet (cannot remember his first name) is quite clearly evil (murders many people, kidnap, torture, etc) yet he loves his adopted daughter so much that he tries to stop the Company to save her.
THAT'S an interesting character in my mind. Being the boy scout is easy. And we've probably done it many, many times if you've played D&D for a while. Going evil is a nice change of pace. It's challenging and opens up all sorts of other character concepts that aren't available to traditionally heroic characters.
Surprisingly, I find that they are less fractious/disruptive now than when they play good characters. They know two things that keep everyone in line - first, the outside world really is trying to get them, if they don't stand up for each other, they'll all get it in the neck. Secondly, they know that if they do stupid things to each other, like stealing or lipping off or whatever other disruptive actions I've seen players make over the years, the other guy is well within character to kill him in his sleep.
When you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you get on the bad side of the other guy, you're going to wake up minus body parts, everyone gets a WHOLE lot more polite.
No one's gone into the rape fantasy thing. The party isn't so much pro-actively evil that they go around doing evil things just because, but, their methods for achieving a goal are certainly evil. Watching the LE monk put a harpoon into the back of the guy who was swimming away because he wanted to eliminate witnesses pretty much sealed his alignment.
It's been a very interesting experience. I'm lucky because I've got absolutely fantastic players who are capable of being mature about the whole thing. I know there are other groups that I wouldn't try this at all with.
It all comes down to knowing your players.
But back to your original question as to why? Well, it allows you to play the anti-hero. Not in the weak, cowardly sense, but, in the Elric or most of the characters from Sin City (other than Frank the cop). Heck, there's all sorts of examples of characters that are evil that aren't disruptive. In Heroes, for example, Mr. Bennet (cannot remember his first name) is quite clearly evil (murders many people, kidnap, torture, etc) yet he loves his adopted daughter so much that he tries to stop the Company to save her.
THAT'S an interesting character in my mind. Being the boy scout is easy. And we've probably done it many, many times if you've played D&D for a while. Going evil is a nice change of pace. It's challenging and opens up all sorts of other character concepts that aren't available to traditionally heroic characters.
shilsen
Adventurer
Not at all. See Mallus' post above. Evil can lead to disruptiveness, but so can good.
I'm sure we might differ in our definitions, but I only referenced selfishness due to your original post, where you wrote "I'm not there, as a DM, to allow a player's vicarious enactment of selfish fantasies..." Did you mean something else when you referred to 'selfish fantasies'?
I won't facilitate rape fantasies or (too much) torture at the table. But acting out murderous thoughts is absolutely part and parcel of D&D. Whether that murder is (in my opinion, often very tenuously) justified in some way or not, D&D characters constantly and regularly kill other people and creatures, and the act of doing so provides some of the primary entertainment in the game.
Hello Penelope!
In the context of D&D, killing things and taking their stuff is at the very heart of the gameplay. If you view "outright murder" as Evil (capitalized), then you must run a very social-encounter focused campaign. :/
In the context of the fantasy genre generally, there are lots and lots of interesting evil (non-capitalized-- heh) characters. I would have trouble fully enjoying the genre as much without Conan, the Grey Mouser, and Elric. Even just within TSR/WOTC characters there are Earvis Cale, Riven, Artemis Entreti and all of Dark Sun. In a setting with purely "heroic" protagonists you end up with dreck like Dragonlance. Bleh. No thanks...
Hussar
Legend
In the context of D&D, killing things and taking their stuff is at the very heart of the gameplay. If you view "outright murder" as Evil (capitalized), then you must run a very social-encounter focused campaign. :/
In the context of the fantasy genre generally, there are lots and lots of interesting evil (non-capitalized-- heh) characters. I would have trouble fully enjoying the genre as much without Conan, the Grey Mouser, and Elric. Even just within TSR/WOTC characters there are Earvis Cale, Riven, Artemis Entreti and all of Dark Sun. In a setting with purely "heroic" protagonists you end up with dreck like Dragonlance. Bleh. No thanks...
Let's be fair though. One of the most notable characters from Dragonlance is Raistlin Majere - a character that starts out neutral at best and heads south from there pretty quickly. Yet, Raistlin manages to work with the group (most of the time) and acheive the party goals.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
I use the same rule - although in previous editions, I didn't just say "no evil" I said "No non-good". Everyone had to be good aligned.
I wanted goody two shoes heroic characters battling a great evil, that was the tone I liked in the games I ran, and if things got to shades of gray I tended to lose interesting in GMing.
I would explain to players that I have too much in shades of gray in real life, and gaming was escapism for me (as a player or GM), so I had a solid black and white kind of game - the good guys are here, the bad guys are there, and you could tell which was which. I think at one time I said something to the effect of "Think of your GM as an invisible Paladin watching the whole party" or something to that effect.
My players tend to game for similar reasons and want similar things so I've never had any problems.
The fact that the major genre we play outside of D&D is four color superheroes may color our approach. We would end up playing (by tone if not power) the Justice League in D&D (lots of Paladins, good fighter, good clerics ect) worked well.
I wanted goody two shoes heroic characters battling a great evil, that was the tone I liked in the games I ran, and if things got to shades of gray I tended to lose interesting in GMing.
I would explain to players that I have too much in shades of gray in real life, and gaming was escapism for me (as a player or GM), so I had a solid black and white kind of game - the good guys are here, the bad guys are there, and you could tell which was which. I think at one time I said something to the effect of "Think of your GM as an invisible Paladin watching the whole party" or something to that effect.
My players tend to game for similar reasons and want similar things so I've never had any problems.
The fact that the major genre we play outside of D&D is four color superheroes may color our approach. We would end up playing (by tone if not power) the Justice League in D&D (lots of Paladins, good fighter, good clerics ect) worked well.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
I agree with this 100%. While at some point in the future I might be handed an evil character who nevertheless has excellent motivation to join in a particular heroic endevour, a character who strives to fight against his baser impulses or who seeks a harrowing path of redemption, all I've ever received in the past from people who want to play evil characters are thinly-disquised requests for me to run rape fantasies instead of adventures or means to totally avoid all responsibility for their actions.
In other words, yeah, there might be some justification someone could come up with for playing an evil character but so far for 30 years all I've gotten is a lot of hot air about 'I'll work towards the party goals' or 'Lawful evil characters can work with others', or 'I'll be the cool anti-hero', when all they really bring to the table is casual murder, derailing the game while they plot revenge against the shopkeeper who slighted them by not buckling under into a whining ball of submission at the least hint of intimidation, and so forth.
The 'killing things and taking their stuff' arguement wears a little thin. The phrase is meant to be funny and somewhat ironic, not a literal truth. Especially in older editions, monsters are born evil; in latter editions, there are still huge numbers of creatures that are unswearingly evil by their very nature. Instead of it being 'murder', killing them eases a burden on the world itself. So, let's put that arguement out to pasture from now on. As long as we have alignments, it holds no water in the game as written or most commonly played.
Being a truly good character is the hardest thing a person can aspire to. Being evil is the easy, cheap road.
Vegepygmy
First Post
In my experience, most people who have a "no evil PCs" policy define "evil" in a very particular way (as you do). Some rule systems, however, define evil differently. In 3.5 D&D, for example, "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others, while "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Obviously, in 3.5, evil isn't limited to rape and torture. But perhaps in other games, it is.
Personally, I think anti-heroes can be even more interesting than "good guy" heroes, so I have no problem with evil PCs. As others have said, it just takes the right kind of player to run an enjoyable evil character.
Similar Threads
