Ampersand: Wizards and Worlds

[arscott]

What we're really looking at here is "Good as Default". The options to play evil characters are there--we may not have necromancers, but most of the Warlock Pacts are pretty malign, and the only classes that are 'good flavored' are the cleric and paladin.

The way it's set up right now, though, people can only play evil characters if their DM calls it out as an option. And that's a good thing, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

To me, the only difference I'm seeing is one of being more transparent.

Core 3e was certainly designed with a good group in mind. You have paladins for one. Evil clerics cannot trade spells for healing. The best items are good aligned or neutral. Evil items are ones to be destroyed. Evil monsters are there to be killed.

Maybe it wasn't explicit in 3e, but, a good aligned party was certainly the baseline assumption. Again, look at modules. Other than the Savage Tide adventure path, I can't recall any Dungeon adventures that have any presumptions about the party being evil. And even the STAP strongly assumes that you are going to be playing a good party.

Let's face facts here. Most people DO play in a good, or at least neutral, party campaign. The evil campaign is an outlier by a pretty long shot.

Ask how to run evil campaigns here on EnWorld and you will have numerous DM's piping up that they flat out will not allow evil characters in their game. And those DM's far outnumber the number who will.

So, why shouldn't WOTC cater to this?

 

[Nymrohd]

Thing is, most people play good guys. This early in the edition's history options are going to be limited and devoting options to smaller niches should be done later on. I mean there is no doubt that we will eventually get a necromancer, it's been said that necromancy has been reserved for a future class, in the shadow power source. Heck only thing we don't know is what role they will have. 4E does not look like it is good instead of evil. Just heroic instead of villainous.

 

[Rechan]

Let's face facts here. Most people DO play in a good, or at least neutral, party campaign. The evil campaign is an outlier by a pretty long shot.

Except that I can open up the Core PHB and find the Warlock has an INFERNAL pact, which is fueled by deals with DEVILS.

That's not exactly Neutral.

Same with the Cthulu Pact.

 

[Cadfan]

There's a lot of fantasy where deals with devils aren't actually evil things. They're just deals with dangerous creatures who want to kill you and manipulate you into horrible acts. If you didn't want to deal with that sort of thing, you shouldn't have chosen to learn magic.

 

[Rechan]

There's a lot of fantasy where deals with devils aren't actually evil things. They're just deals with dangerous creatures who want to kill you and manipulate you into horrible acts. If you didn't want to deal with that sort of thing, you shouldn't have chosen to learn magic.

Just pointing out that if the game only (or almost only) about wearing a White Hat, then there wouldn't be tieflings and warlocks in the core.

 

[Jasperak]

There's a lot of fantasy where deals with devils aren't actually evil things. They're just deals with dangerous creatures who want to kill you and manipulate you into horrible acts. If you didn't want to deal with that sort of thing, you shouldn't have chosen to learn magic.

Wouldn't that be considered part of the definition of evil?

 

[Cadfan]

Wouldn't that be considered part of the definition of evil?

Read it again. The devil is evil. The deal is not.

 

[pawsplay]

While the default assumption may be neutral-to-good parties, there has always been a place for neutral-to-evil PCs. Apart from the Thief, you have the 1e Assassin, Raistlin as a model PC in Dragonlance, and in good ol' Cyclopedia D&D, despite is protestations, you have rules for PC Avengers (i.e. blackguards).

 

[Lanefan]

Ask how to run evil campaigns here on EnWorld and you will have numerous DM's piping up that they flat out will not allow evil characters in their game. And those DM's far outnumber the number who will.

A few things:

1. There's a big difference between having individual evil *characters* and running an evil campaign.

2. Definition of evil. Example: my current game has just learned the driving force behind keeping the empire together (Good) is a once-Necromancer, now arch-Vampire (Evil). The party, being vaguely Good, decided to join up with him...leading to an ongoing situation of a Good party taking their marching orders from an Evil leader in order to accomplish Good things. Fun, huh?

2. Would the evil-ban DM's really outnumber the evil-allow ones by that much? If yes, that's very sad.

Must be the same ones who ban party infighting.

Lanefan