D&D 5E (2014) Evil characters material not going to be in the PHB

[billd91]

I don't have any problem with something like the antipaladin going in the DMG, but the spells? That seems pretty lame to me. I'd rather not have to consult between two books just to read the description of spells.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Oh great.

Why do they think everyone wants to play the hero?

 

[The Human Target]

I would like to come into some of you guys campaigns and "explore" playing a chaotic evil pyromaniac vampire necromancer.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I'd very much prefer to make the whole alignment stuff an optional system, which doesn't have to be spelled out in the core books.

The way a character is played should make him "evil", not the access to some game elements marked as such.

 

[Kinak]

My two best, longest running campaigns both included evil PCs (one had a single evil PC, the other a whole evil party) complete with summoning, deals with dark gods, and all the rest.

I understand some groups might have problems, but I'm certainly not looking in two places for spells. It's hard enough to find them when they're all in the same place.

I would like to come into some of you guys campaigns and "explore" playing a chaotic evil pyromaniac vampire necromancer.

If you want to be disruptive, you don't need evil PC options to do so.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[steeldragons]

I would like to know how not having anti-paladins or vampires as a PC race in the PHB prohibits players from making evil characters if they want them? That having an "assassin" class is necessary to make a Rogue (or fighter) character who gets paid to hunt down and kill npcs? Alignments are presented and (presumably) explained.

If that's what you want, the tools for character creation are amply there to have an evil pc without "Here's eeevillll PC options for all you cool kids who need evil spelled out for them to know how to play it."

 

[steeldragons]

Also, to clarify, I agree the spells things sounds ridiculous and [I posit] was probably another of Mearls' soon to be [if not already] infamous mis-speaks. Obviously, there's no reason something like "Protection from Good" wouldn't be listed with/wherever the Protection from Evil spell is [or my personal preference to simply list it as the "reverse" instead of a completely unnecessary separate spell].

 

[steeldragons]

I would like to come into some of you guys campaigns and "explore" playing a chaotic evil pyromaniac vampire necromancer.

You are more than welcome to like that. As I am more than welcome, and would like to inform you that such a PC is not permitted in my campaign.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would like to come into some of you guys campaigns and "explore" playing a chaotic evil pyromaniac vampire necromancer.

I've had worse.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Issues like this are one reason I still embrace the simple Law/ Neutrality/Chaos alignment system. Let players decide their character's morals in actual play. The game needs to make no assumptions either way in this matter. D&D remains very playable without assuming the PCs will be heroes or anti-heroes.