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

[Li Shenron]

IIUC Mearls has slipped some info on Twitter, that stuff normally used by evil PC/NPC won't be in the 5e PHB.

He didn't say such stuff won't be in core, it could be in the DMG, e.g. as part of a campaign module.

He mentioned for example a Protection from Good spell and the "antipaladin" subclass of the Paladin.

I don't have any objection for the Paladin's evil subclass, but maybe putting all "evil" spells in a separate location could be quite weird, especially since a lot of spells are after all usable very much in both a good and evil way.

What would be your preference?

 

[steeldragons]

My preference would be for them to stop doing stuff that I'm planning on doing in my own rpg! It's like we're sharing a brain and I'm getting kinda tired of it!

I think it's a great idea. No reason players, particularly beginning/new players, need access to evil character options. Personally, I don't like them for any degree of player/game, but I get that some people think it's somehow cool or interesting to explore the evil character type...That doesn't mean it's something a game premised on "heroic fantasy" needs to set up/supply for people who want to play that way. There are other games that do that.

The anti-hero fetish running rampant through popular (and many sub-) culture needs to burn out already.

...oh yeah...and git offa my yard! ;P

 

[Shemeska]

*eyebrow*

I can't say much without more detail, but that could end up being really quite bizarre to downright annoying if someone is playing a neutral or evil PC.

 

[the Jester]

One of the worst post-1e changes in D&D is the increasing level of "YOU WILL BE GOOD GUYS!!!" shoved down the playstyle throat.

From removing assassins from the PH to not having evil gods in the PH, I think this trend is horrible. Evil pcs are a playstyle choice; leaving them out of the PH smacks very much of enforcing a specific playstyle- something that I thought 5e was going to try to stay away from.

So far, this decision is one of my two least favorite things about 5e. (The other being the damned overpowered human racial package.)

 

[delericho]

I don't have any objection for the Paladin's evil subclass

Yep, I'm fine with this.

maybe putting all "evil" spells in a separate location could be quite weird, especially since a lot of spells are after all usable very much in both a good and evil way.

IMO, this is a mistake. The place for "evil" spells is right alongside the rest of the spells. Splitting them up means that every time the DM wants to use an evil spellcaster, he now has to consult two sources rather than one.

 

[the Jester]

I think it's a great idea. No reason players, particularly beginning/new players, need access to evil character options.

There's no reason players need access to rogues, either.

Oh wait, actually there kind of is- so that they can recreate pcs from earlier games. Which is the exact same reason that some might "need" access to evil pc options.

Personally, I don't like them for any degree of player/game, but I get that some people think it's somehow cool or interesting to explore the evil character type...That doesn't mean it's something a game premised on "heroic fantasy" needs to set up/supply for people who want to play that way. There are other games that do that.

The anti-hero fetish running rampant through popular (and many sub-) culture needs to burn out already.

...oh yeah...and git offa my yard! ;P

Or we could just, you know, support all playstyles that D&D has traditionally supported, evil pcs among them... and yes it has traditionally supported evil pcs, even if not necessarily immediately.

Moving the evil stuff out of the PH is a poor choice because, among other things, it requires the players of evil pcs have access to the DMG... which, no, some of us old-skoolers don't do that.

 

[The Human Target]

If those are my options, DMG.

I'd rather it was in a separate splat book or other alternate source though.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It seems an odd line to draw. There aren't a huge number of explicitly aligned mechanical elements, and there's no reason why a player shouldn't take them if he's playing an evil character.

Obviously, the message is to point players towards good, but that isn't really the game's business.

 

[Jester David]

I think there needs to be evil options. For a myriad different reasons.
For DMs using the PC rules to build adversaries. For non-standard games. For the occasional evil character in a good group.

WotC has releasing a Big Book of Evil Options in the last two editions, but this is a late edition product, which makes it hard to run villainous stories in the meantime.

But evil options would make an excellent Dragon and Dungeon theme for a month. A bunch of new crunch for evil PCs and some adventures for bad guys.

 

[herrozerro]

I didn't vote because there is no option for evil options to be in a non PHB or DMG splatbook.