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

[jodyjohnson]

I think one of the goals is a small Player book. That means a lot of stuff is going to get cut from the PHB section.

 

[Umbran]

I have no problem with specifically evil classes or races be outside the PHB.

Spells? Well, how many spells will they have that are evil, and not simply the reverse of a good counterpart? If we are talking about Protection from Good and Cause Light Wounds style stuff, then they can go ahead and put the material elsewhere, because it will simply be a description of how to reverse the effects, which should be pretty intuitive once you know the scheme.

 

[Mallus]

I disagree - in fact, it makes much more sense for players in a structured D&D-style campaign to be good than it does for them to be evil. Why? Because selflessness is rolled into the concept of being good.

But the archetypal D&D group isn't really selfless -- it's a group of mercenary, power-and-profit minded adventurers who agree to work together in order to acquire power (also 'kewl powerz'). There's usually a layer of moral gloss slathered on, but that's over top of a framework consisting of theft, trickery, and murder. Even when if you play D&D in high fantasy mode, there's still (usually) quite a bit of... ahem... amoral problem-solving going on (done when the party's paladin isn't looking, or rationalized out the wazoo).

As for support for evil in the PHB. I'm of two minds on this.

Part of me says: do you need rules for evil? Evil is intent and action. A paladin uses smite on a demon, an anti-paladin uses it a helpless prisoner. A ranger shoots an ogre in the face, an assassin, the prince in the back. I don't think there needs to be explicit mechanical support for evil.

Then again, D&D has had precisely that in the past, and there are special cases, like "inherently evil" spells and poisons.

I think I'm in favor of dropping the all inherent moral descriptors. It's not evil to poison a tyrant, it's not inherently evil to create undead -- perhaps they were the willing martyrs?

 

[Scorpio616]

Terrible. Free will? Not in D&D Next. We'll say you can't play evil characters, but well neither codify what level of wickedness makes you evil and we'll give you only the slightest of descriptions what is Evil for our game.

WotC's track record with 'evil' character material leaves me underwhelmed. We'll be lucky if the bulk of the material is even in the DMG rather than squirreled away into another supplement.

 

[Dannager]

But the archetypal D&D group isn't really selfless -- it's a group of mercenary, power-and-profit minded adventurers who agree to work together in order to acquire power (also 'kewl powerz').

Sure, and that's not too difficult to handle.

There's usually a layer of moral gloss slathered on, but that's over top of a framework consisting of theft, trickery, and murder. Even when if you play D&D in high fantasy mode, there's still (usually) quite a bit of... ahem... amoral problem-solving going on (done when the party's paladin isn't looking, or rationalized out the wazoo).

I think this is more an artifact of D&D-as-a-game than a reflection of the characters' "actual" moral values.

What it boils down to is that evil characters tend to look for ways to take advantage of situations in amoral ways. Whereas a neutral or good party might agree to split the loot, and see that as equitable, an evil character doesn't really care about what's equitable, and might agree to split the loot only to hide some of it (come on, you've all experienced that one guy who tells the DM he's hiding one of the gems in his pocket before splitting the loot, only to be immediately followed by half the party asking for Spot checks and demanding that the thief roll Bluff checks for lying to them, which inevitably escalates to swords drawn in-game and words screamed out-of-game). Trust is hard to come by in evil groups, but a certain level of trust is required for the game's overarching plot to progress; the group as a whole must decide on a collective action, but a lack of trust makes that difficult, if not impossible. Players are torn between doing the "smart" thing - being distrustful and exercising an overabundance of caution with their own party members - and doing the expedient thing that moves the game forward.

 

[Dannager]

Terrible. Free will? Not in D&D Next. We'll say you can't play evil characters, but well neither codify what level of wickedness makes you evil and we'll give you only the slightest of descriptions what is Evil for our game.

You must have missed the part where it was explicitly stated that evil player characters will be supported in D&D Next. Maybe tone down the silly hyperbole and focus on accuracy?

 

[Celebrim]

Why? Because selflessness is rolled into the concept of being good.

A common misunderstanding but, as an aside, no it is not.

A character that falls on to a grenade to save his colleagues, or which carries a satchel charge up to a pillbox or tank and blows himself up, or which falls on his own sword just because his commander orders him to is obviously selfless, but it's not at all obvious that he's good. He might be - for a certain conception of what heroic is - be 'heroic', in the sense that his actions might be seen by his society to represent virtue and honorable behavior, but heroism in an evil cause isn't good - it's greater evil. If we think about it, we can probably think of many philosophical systems that encourage selflessness and subjugation of the self for the good of the group, but which don't encourage anything we normally associate with good - justice, mercy, benevolence, peacefulness, compassion, gentleness, purity, etc. Typically even to the extent that think those things are virtues at all, and not signs of weakness or insanity, they tend to think that they are behaviors that only should be directed toward the in group.

Or in short, it's possible to be selflessly destructive - and we normally don't think of that is good even when, and maybe especially when, it's self-destructive.

 

[Scorpio616]

You must have missed the part where it was explicitly stated that evil player characters will be supported in D&D Next. Maybe tone down the silly hyperbole and focus on accuracy?

That was not what Mearls statement looked like to me. One sentence said material for evil characters is not in the PHB, he did not say evil player characters. The other sentence refereed to his thoughts on the matter, not an assurance of what would be in D&DN.

"The stuff aimed at evil characters will be in the game, just not in the PH. Thinking is that an evil game is a DM option."

'

IMO there is vast gulf between supporting an option and having a one sentence footnote of "You can let your players take evil spells and abilities, but the game devs don't reccomend it."

 

[Dannager]

A character that falls on to a grenade to save his colleagues, or which carries a satchel charge up to a pillbox or tank and blows himself up, or which falls on his own sword just because his commander orders him to is obviously selfless, but it's not at all obvious that he's good. He might be - for a certain conception of what heroic is - be 'heroic', in the sense that his actions might be seen by his society to represent virtue and honorable behavior, but heroism in an evil cause isn't good - it's greater evil.

D&D does not engage in complex moral relativism. The system doesn't acknowledge it, and the mechanics don't support it. So while you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) it doesn't really have a bearing on this discussion. Good characters tend to cooperate more easily, and D&D works best when the PCs cooperate well.

 

[dmgorgon]

Someone explain how the blackguard is eviler then a warlock with a fiend or far realms pact.

He is not and I hope the evil warlock sub-classes are also in the DMG for the sake of consistency.