So that's why you like it

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It not really about intelligence or intelligent play.

Sorry, I wasn't clear and didn't mean to cast any dispersions on the player. I meant I've only played with two people who can play an evil PC as an intelligent person. Others I've gamed with have their PCs attack others as if they were playing an Int 1 Chaos Beast, killing without any thought to repercussions in the game.

An example. One player in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was turned evil by a certain fixture in the Temple. His immediate action was to take on the rest of the party with 5:1 odds against him. This was his definition of Evil, to attack others wantonly even if it meant putting himself at risk.

So maybe my dislike stems from the limited view of evil that the people I've gamed with hold to be true?

 

[Bumbles]

So maybe my dislike stems from the limited view of evil that the people I've gamed with hold to be true?

It's certainly an aspect of the problem. Too many people play evil in that kind of froth-ridden bloody way for it to be ignored.

I think I'll start making them read the Sinister Six comics.

 

[Mallus]

So maybe my dislike stems from the limited view of evil that the people I've gamed with hold to be true?

I think the truth of it is that some people use evil alignments as a excuse to indulge their inner (homicidal) moron, including a few normally fine folks who otherwise are responsible, level-headed gamers.

I can't explain it. All I'm sure of is that the problem lies not in the alignment, but in themselv the players.

I mean, banning certain alignments --as oppose to just stipulating 'no intra-party fighting' at the start of the campaign, which BTW, is a better option-- is like banning people from wearing backwards baseball caps at your parties, because you were at a party once where a guy in backwards baseball cap started a fight.

Which is to say it's mistaking the symptom for the problem.

 

[Hereticus]

The thing I don't understand is the appeal of evil campaigns in D&D. Other games seem to fit the evil vibe better. And every time I've personally seen an evil D&D campaign it's just an exercise in anti-teamwork that quickly implodes. Why would someone want to play in an ongoing campaign that seems doomed to collapse?

Evil characters need not be monsters.

Chaotic characters need not be anarchists.

Players that are immature are more likely to play in a game that implodes, regardless of alignment.

The longest running campaign I was involved in was mostly evil, and the group was the most efficient destruction machine I've ever seen.

 

[Hereticus]

My idea of the core D&D experience is that of violent, amoral looters willing to stab each other in the back over magical lucre at the drop of a pointy hat. This may have something to do with my formative D&D experience playing 1e in high school The idea that D&D doesn't do evil well is foreign to me.

That type of player is likely to "stab each other in the back" regardless of whichever alignment they write on their character sheet.

Rule #1 of our game... Thou shalt not kill another player character.

We were evil, and we attacked and sabotaged each others' interests outside of adventures. But when the battle started, we worked together, because that would increase our ability to loot treasure.

edit: also, playing evil doesn't imply a lack of teamwork any more than playing good guarantees teamwork.

Exactly.

I've seen some good aligned groups that were disfunctional.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Mallus and VB, I think you guys have hit on the key issue that makes evil parties work - no infighting. That's certainly how it's been for me. I played in a successful D&D game a few years ago where most of the party was evil, we ran a crime gang, one PC was a half-demon, another was a necromancer, but we had a good chemistry as a group of players and a high level of agreement as to what was necessary for a game to work. We all agreed that the PCs should broadly work together as a team, though of course disagreements and even the occasional non-lethal fist fight were fine.

I know serious PC conflict does work for some people but I think for most players it doesn't. The default mode of play, certainly for D&D, is party cohesion.

 

[Scribble]

Sorry, I wasn't clear and didn't mean to cast any dispersions on the player. I meant I've only played with two people who can play an evil PC as an intelligent person. Others I've gamed with have their PCs attack others as if they were playing an Int 1 Chaos Beast, killing without any thought to repercussions in the game.

An example. One player in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was turned evil by a certain fixture in the Temple. His immediate action was to take on the rest of the party with 5:1 odds against him. This was his definition of Evil, to attack others wantonly even if it meant putting himself at risk.

So maybe my dislike stems from the limited view of evil that the people I've gamed with hold to be true?

I've noticed a similar theme- with one difference.

I've noticed it tended to come about more often when someone either made the choice to "Be Evil" or was forced (like you ToEE example) to "Be Evil."

Anytime the choice was made, it turned into the stab other players in the back despite the problems it caused him, attack randomly like your example etc...

But I've noticed if you go lax on the alignment rules, and just let players who like the idea of an evil campaign just play their character as they want and not worry about alignment... The evil characters act more believably evil.

Almost like the player felt some weird compulsion to "do evil stuff" just to prove he was playing evil or soemthing. I guess like mentioned it really was the opposite of lawful stupid.

 

[Hereticus]

Someone said upthread that good and evil were subjective concepts.

Consider a campaign where the PC's are orc raiders. They have been ordered to pillage the human orphanage and return with children for the stewpot. During thier mission the PC's take pity on the poor children and let them go. They return to a very unforgiving chieftain with no meat for the pot.

Or the campaign where the humans, elves or dwarves encroached on the land belonging to the orcs and killed them like vermin. When the orcs fought back and kidnapped the two children of the local prince to get the attacks on them to stop, adventurers were called in to exterminate all the orc vermin.

Evil need not be monstrous, and there are more than one side to a story.

Another thread here talked about why people played half orcs. There were some good stories there.

D & D What's the draw of half-orcs?

I played a Half Orc Barbarian from first to the teens in levels (3.5E). He wasn't the sharpest marble in the bag, but his wisdom gave him insight into combat strategy.

And he always had a different (often diametrically opposed) perspective to the situation than the Humans, Elves, Dwarves, or other so-called civilized races.

 

[Hereticus]

An example. One player in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was turned evil by a certain fixture in the Temple. His immediate action was to take on the rest of the party with 5:1 odds against him. This was his definition of Evil, to attack others wantonly even if it meant putting himself at risk.

That is not an example of evil in D&D, that is an example of stupid and anti-social behavior on the part of the player.

I can't explain it. All I'm sure of is that the problem lies not in the alignment, but in themselv the players.

This is correct, I've seen evil played very well as a team.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Players that are immature are more likely to play in a game that implodes, regardless of alignment.

That type of player is likely to "stab each other in the back" regardless of whichever alignment they write on their character sheet.

I've seen some good aligned groups that were disfunctional.

That is not an example of evil in D&D, that is an example of stupid and anti-social behavior on the part of the player.

IME, the same players who played "Evil=Psychopath" were perfectly fine players when playing good or neutral PCs.