DMs, Do you allow your group(s) to play Evil PCs and/or parties, & why?

[ccs]

We dont use alignment anymore, but when we did, it was always "no evil PCs" because if just one guy was evil, it was a TPK waiting to happen.

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

 

[Maxperson]

This is a highly contentious hypothesis.

Find me an action that at its root is not based on what the doer wants, needs or likes to do.

 

[pemerton]

Find me an action that at its root is not based on what the doer wants, needs or likes to do.

You said:

All motivations, including altruism are selfish motivations. People wouldn't be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good or satisfy some other need of theirs.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

A counter-example would be any action that is not motivated by feeling good, nor satisfying some other need, and that isn't something the person likes to do.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

 

[Maxperson]

You said:

All motivations, including altruism are selfish motivations. People wouldn't be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good or satisfy some other need of theirs.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

Enjoyment is part of feeling good.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

No. Those all fall under the list I provided. People vote because they like to, need to have control, feel good participating, etc. They change dirty diapers because they enjoy caring for their kids, need to be responsible, yada yada. All of those have at their base, selfish motivations.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

Not necessarily those particular reasons, but some sort of selfish motivation is at the root of everything you do, including eating. I'd also like to point out that selfish isn't necessarily bad. Much like the word abnormal, people tend to view the word as being negative, but it isn't inherently negative at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

You said:

All motivations, including altruism are selfish motivations. People wouldn't be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good or satisfy some other need of theirs.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

A counter-example would be any action that is not motivated by feeling good, nor satisfying some other need, and that isn't something the person likes to do.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

Maxperson is on my ignore list (I'm actually surprised he can see my posts, I strangely can't see people who have ignored me!). In any case, this is a highly common argument found among ultra-libertarian anarcho-capitalist circles. There's no argument that you can provide that he's not simply going to say "Well you're really altruistic because helping people makes you feel good so you're really only doing it for your own self-benefit of feeling good!" and around and around in circles the argument will go.

Hey don't let me spoil your fun, but you won't get anywhere.

 

[Lanefan]

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

And a supplementary question for [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] is, why would it automatically be a TPK? If there's one E in a party of G's you're probably looking at one or two deaths tops: the E and maybe a G if s/he manages to drag one down with him/her. You are, however, looking at a session or two where nothing gets done beyond this...

Lanefan

 

[Psikerlord#]

And a supplementary question for @Psikerlord# is, why would it automatically be a TPK? If there's one E in a party of G's you're probably looking at one or two deaths tops: the E and maybe a G if s/he manages to drag one down with him/her. You are, however, looking at a session or two where nothing gets done beyond this...

Lanefan

TPK is probably the wrong word - I should have said - end of campaign. edit: nothing worse than intra-party fighting. Been there, done that, doesnt end well (at all!)

 

[Psikerlord#]

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

If you're using alignment, and you allow evil PCs, it's a licence to do unacceptable things. If you arent using alignment, it's the usual gaming "social contract" that keeps everyone from playing evil buggers.

 

[pemerton]

this is a highly common argument

<snip>

There's no argument that you can provide that he's not simply going to say "Well you're really altruistic because helping people makes you feel good so you're really only doing it for your own self-benefit of feeling good!" and around and around in circles the argument will go.

Hey don't let me spoil your fun, but you won't get anywhere.

Yeah, I'm fairly familiar with the argument (although I suspect that in Australia it's less common to encounter it in day-to-day argument than in the US).

I'm not that interested in getting on the merry-go-round - I just wanted to make the point that it's pretty contentious.

People vote because they like to, need to have control, feel good participating, etc. They change dirty diapers because they enjoy caring for their kids, need to be responsible, yada yada. All of those have at their base, selfish motivations.

<snip>

some sort of selfish motivation is at the root of everything you do

As I said, this is contentious.

It is an empirical claim, not a logical one (from the point of view of logic "X is desired by me" does not entail "getting X will provide me with personal satisfaction/pleasure"). As an empirical claim, I deny it. And all you've done is assert it.

Just to give one counterexample - I have changed dirty nappies and haven't enjoyed it. I did it out of obligation, not pleasure!

 

[RedSiegfried]

After at least 25 years of using it in D&D, we never bothered with alignment starting with our 4e games. I was so relieved to discover the concept of "Unaligned." The only times we actually "used" it was in regard to certain classes who had to pick a deity of a similar alignment for the purpose of domain powers, and even then eventually we let it slide because we couldn't find any rule that said you couldn't worship more than one deity. Not sure if that was correct or not, but that's how we played it.

Now that we play 13th Age, we have disregarded alignment altogether, even though the game supports it optionally. Your PC does whatever you want him to do and his deeds might or might not affect his relationships with the Icons and other NPCs. No more "No, you can't do that because alignment." Even Paladins who have the option to take, for example, Way of Evil Bastards or Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor, and can Smite Evil, don't have to adhere to any specific code of behavior. They can re-flavor those talents in whatever way works for that character, and the game fully supports this.

I don't miss alignment, not one bit.

All that having been said, I don't always feel comfortable playing with a group of "evil" characters, but as DM I wouldn't disallow it. I just try to avoid the situation by telling people I prefer not to play that way and then playing with people who have a similar preference.