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

Should evil character material be in the PHB or out?

  • All of it or as much as possible should be in the PHB

    Votes: 51 33.8%
  • A mix: some of it in the PHB, some of it in the DMG

    Votes: 35 23.2%
  • All of it or as much as possible should be in the DMG

    Votes: 65 43.0%


log in or register to remove this ad

Ahnehnois

First Post
And yet many many people still ended up playing evil, neutral, creepy, or jerkish characters throughout 3e.
I find it odd that you lump in "neutral", the alignment for normal people, decent people, and people who in the real world would be considered the good ones, with those other options.
 

The Human Target

Adventurer
I find it odd that you lump in "neutral", the alignment for normal people, decent people, and people who in the real world would be considered the good ones, with those other options.
Chaotic neutral characters have a fine and long tradition of being played by disruptive players.

Also, if Paladins were real I'm pretty sure we would call them "the good ones."
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Chaotic neutral characters have a fine and long tradition of being played by disruptive players.
True, but others in this thread have noted that chaotic good characters are similar, if more well-intentioned. And, in general, good characters tend to have a superior attitude and inflexible thinking.

Also, if Paladins were real I'm pretty sure we would call them "the good ones."
Totally disagree. "Lawful stupid" is a D&D phenomenon. In the real world, we can see puritanical zealotry for what it is. Sure paladins would have their fans, but most people would know better.

Conversely true neutral people simply do whatever they think is right, and are flexible and adaptable to the real world.

As any official writing on D&D alignments notes, they don't apply in reality.
 

Kinak

First Post
After some further thinking, my opinion basically boils down to "Not in the DMG."

I'm fine with them not having explicitly evil options, or even not having any alignment weighted options, but I don't want players' options in the DMG or MM. If you're expecting everyone to have both at the table, either change the names or give us one big book.

My preferred solution is just to move alignment into the background, though. Most options are already valid for any alignment and, if we must have good-only paths in the PHB, include some darker paths to balance them out.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

The Human Target

Adventurer
True, but others in this thread have noted that chaotic good characters are similar, if more well-intentioned. And, in general, good characters tend to have a superior attitude and inflexible thinking.

Totally disagree. "Lawful stupid" is a D&D phenomenon. In the real world, we can see puritanical zealotry for what it is. Sure paladins would have their fans, but most people would know better.

Conversely true neutral people simply do whatever they think is right, and are flexible and adaptable to the real world.

As any official writing on D&D alignments notes, they don't apply in reality.

Sure any character can be disruptive but I don't think it can be disputed that an in character good heroic character is always going to be more of a team player and less potentially murderous and horrible.

A paladin (for this discussion) is lawful good. He might not get invited to a lot of bachelor parties, but he would jump in front of a bullet to save strangers and has dedicated his life to helping people. If you think that would make him somehow less good in real life because hes a religious stick in the mud I obviously wil not be able to change your mind. Also being LG doesnt make you any kind of zealot in the game. This is why im pro no alignments in dnd.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Sure any character can be disruptive but I don't think it can be disputed that an in character good heroic character is always going to be more of a team player and less potentially murderous and horrible.
As others have noted, the treasure-hunting archetypical D&D character does a lot of killing without asking why.

A paladin (for this discussion) is lawful good. He might not get invited to a lot of bachelor parties, but he would jump in front of a bullet to save strangers and has dedicated his life to helping people. If you think that would make him somehow less good in real life because hes a religious stick in the mud I obviously wil not be able to change your mind.
No, you won't. Throwing yourself in front of a bullet sounds cool, but the same paladin-type person would also do some pretty nasty things, particularly to those he sees as evil.

This is why im pro no alignments in dnd.
We can agree on that.

In this context, that means to me that things like assassins and "evil" spells and such should be in the rules with everything else, with the players and DM exploring their moral implications in their own individual way.
 

Mallus

Legend
Sure any character can be disruptive but I don't think it can be disputed that an in character good heroic character is always going to be more of a team player and less potentially murderous and horrible.
Would you rather have Avon or Blake in your corner when death is on the line?

(note: if you're not a familiar with Blake's 7, please ignore)
 

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
No, you won't. Throwing yourself in front of a bullet sounds cool, but the same paladin-type person would also do some pretty nasty things, particularly to those he sees as evil.
Depends on the paladin. I tend to view the archetypal paladin as Paksenarrion or Michael Carpenter (or Eadric from Sepulchrave's Story Hour, but that's more self-referential for D&D), and less of a Judge Dredd type. But that's all very dependent on how you view "good", of course.
 

Ahnehnois

First Post
Depends on the paladin. I tend to view the archetypal paladin as Paksenarrion or Michael Carpenter (or Eadric from Sepulchrave's Story Hour, but that's more self-referential for D&D), and less of a Judge Dredd type. But that's all very dependent on how you view "good", of course.
My view of "good" in real life is pacifistic. D&D's Lawful Good ain't that.

So in this thread we're talking about the hypocrisy of WotC being willing to publish a game that heavily supports violent behavior, but being squeamish about including a spell for evil people to protect themselves from maurading paladins.

Or to give another example, I read a great anecdote once about a medical student who ended up with a white supremacist patient and talked about having to provide the same level of care to anyone else despite finding the patient's beliefs repugnant. Which is exactly what paladins won't do; they don't associate with or provide aid to evil people according to the code (which goes beyond, but is consistent with the alignment). Medicine is full of those kinds of examples.
 
Last edited:

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top