D&D 5E Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

[Lwaxy]

My guess is that it isn't about page count or complexity, but rather a Hasbro boss somewhere concerned about Concerned Parents.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[The Human Target]

Even if it is a Hasbro concern, it is a legit concern for some people.

Nipple rings of Domination probably shouldn't be in the PHB.

I mean for a loooot of people D&D is an all ages/family game.

Even if it can be used to run something more Mature rated, which I personally do myself.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Even if it is a Hasbro concern, it is a legit concern for some people.

Nipple rings of Domination probably shouldn't be in the PHB.

I mean for a loooot of people D&D is an all ages/family game.

Even if it can be used to run something more Mature rated, which I personally do myself.

Please name me a PHB that ever had any of that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This is all you need to make an evil character.

Lawful Evil: description

Neutral Evil: description

Chaotic Evil: description.

That is all you need. You don't have to have some evil magic power to be evil.

 

[The Human Target]

That's not the evil character material (items, spells, powers, feats, backgrounds, etc) we are discussing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Okay, here's a straight up question: Did the 3.0/3.5 PHB have too much in the way of evil character options or materials in it?

All I'm saying is that 5e should have a similar level of presentation--especially given that in all likely the PHB is going to be extremely similar in presentation and content to the 2e and 3e PHBs.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if it is a Hasbro concern, it is a legit concern for some people.

True.

My hope is this is a glimpse into their larger marketing plan. I hope they plan to blitz television, online ads, retail stores, game magazines, and other marketing sources with a massive ad campaign trying to lure teens to play D&D, as part of their larger branding and marketing of the line. And if that is the case, then I think it's a small sacrifice to skip the "evil PC" content in the PHB and just save it for a Book of Vile Darkness with a parental warning on the cover, for a later release.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, here's a straight up question: Did the 3.0/3.5 PHB have too much in the way of evil character options or materials in it?

All I'm saying is that 5e should have a similar level of presentation--especially given that in all likely the PHB is going to be extremely similar in presentation and content to the 2e and 3e PHBs.

And I do think that's fair. The 3.5 PHB, by and large, had very, very little support for evil characters. There were no inherently evil classes, and even Evil tagged spells were fairly few and far between. I mean, mechanically, there was very, very little evil content in the 3.5 PHB.

1e at least had an outright evil class - Assassin. And the overall tone tended towards less "Big shiny heroes" and more, "Amoral mercenaries". Heck, the Moldvay Basic rules had a picture of the "evil" (well, it was Chaotic, since Moldvay Basic didn't have Evil as an alignment) rogue about to gank a bound prisoner with the "good" (again, Lawful) dwarf holding him back and the Neutral fighter watching on, bored.

That's, I think, the kind of thing they are talking about when they talk about support for evil characters. It's not just straight up mechanics, but also art representations and flavour text as well. In a PHB with no evil support, you likely won't have images like Emrikol the Chaotic riding through town whacking guardsmen.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And I do think that's fair. The 3.5 PHB, by and large, had very, very little support for evil characters. There were no inherently evil classes, and even Evil tagged spells were fairly few and far between. I mean, mechanically, there was very, very little evil content in the 3.5 PHB.

I think that's probably true. Though, to be honest, I don't think there's a lot of Good stuff in there, either. The only thing that stands out is the Paladin.

 

[Hussar]

Well, kinda sorta. After all, the 3e/3.5 PHB shows (AFAIK) no evil PC's. All of the iconics are either straight up heroic good or neutral at best. None of them are evil. Even Krusk, the half orc barbarian is often described as heroic and good, not evil. And, if you read through the Adventurers sections of the 3.5 PHB and how it describes the classes, it's almost always good characters (or possibly neutral) being described. "A ranger often accepts the role of protector, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods." "Rogues adventure for the same reason they do most other things: to get what they can get. ... Quite a few enjoy a challenge. Figuring out how to thwart a trap or avoid an alarm is great fun for many rogues."

Granted, sorcerers explicitly mention evil: "Evil sorcerers also feel themselves set apart from others - apart and above. They adventure to gain power over those they look down upon". So, there is at least a nod in the direction of evil PC's. But, by and large, "Evil PC" isn't mentioned in the class descriptions whereas "Good PC" is mentioned in almost every class.