Evil is cool

[Garthanos]

Indeed. It starts with the races in the PHB. Well, one in particular. Is there even an equivalent in there - an 'Aasimar', by whatever name? No.
.

Don't know about that ... me I didn't really experience 4e til after Deva were available, and they feel like awesome on wheels to me.

 

[Shemeska]

And this is why if you look at my he-man action figures from when I was a kid in the 80s, virtually all of them are the bad guys. Evil gets the coolest powers, the coolest costumes, etc.

It's often the same in D&D. And for my own part, I've probably contributed to the trend, in print and out of.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Don't know about that ... me I didn't really experience 4e til after Deva were available, and they feel like awesome on wheels to me.

They're not in the PHB.

But anyway, if they're awesome on wheels to you, I'm not about putting a stop to that. To each their own.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course evil is cool. Doing whatever you like not concerned for the well-being of others always has its appeal...

But I think Good also can have a lot of "cool" stuff. For example, the Malediction Invoker sacrifices something of himself to gain more power. It's about sacrifice.
The latest Infernal Pact Patron is a good guy, and you basically get ot use the power of evil against itself.
The Paladin has a lot of cool protetion abilities that also fit into the altruistic/sacrifice scheme. "Strike me Instead" is a nice power, for example.

I think there could be done more along those lines, of course.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Evil is easy is all, you have to work too hard to be good.

 

[Janx]

One other factor, in the "Evil can do whatever it wants" is that good cannot do "whatever". Good is restricted from doing certain things, and encouraged to do others.

This has come up in the current plot thread. One of my observations as a DM is, with a good party, I can make them do stuff.

Why?

If you have 2 bars with a an evil party in one bar, and a good party in the other, and the plot hook bearing NPC runs in breathlessly exclaiming that kobolds have taken is baby, what can you predict about the two parties?

The good party, lacking any other higher priority "quest" will most likely volunteer to rescue the baby. They like XP. They like doing good deeds. Unless they determine the story is false, they will most likely be going to where the baby is.

The evil party is at most motivated by treasure and XP. As a DM, you have no idea if they will go rescue the baby. Or rescue the baby and hold it for ransom. Or not even talk to the NPC. Or go find the kobolds, kill the boss and start their own army. As a DM, you have no freaking clue. Even better, half-way through, they might change their mind.

Conversely, the good party is going to keep plowing through kobolds until they get that baby and bring it back. Barring some new information that changes their tactics or priority (like the baby is dead, evil, or a lie).

This trait of good PCs is something inherent to the nature of being good. If you embrace it, it's no big deal. I'm a hero, I solve problems. I get XP and treasure along the way, and I'm here to save the day.

If you don't embrace it, "having" to go rescue yet another brat gets in the way of doing stuff. Doing stuff usually seems to devolve into griefing NPCs and causing trouble.

 

[Gort]

Thing is, the way D&D is set up, the evil party *should* go and rescue the baby. You gain XP/power/levels/gear by going on quests, not by standing around in a tavern saying "Nuh-uh!" every time a plot hook shows up.

That's also why good parties will basically do every quest that shows up for any random peasant, reward or no - they're not going to spend anything going on the quest really, but they are going to gain a reward of XP.

 

[MrMyth]

They're not in the PHB.

But anyway, if they're awesome on wheels to you, I'm not about putting a stop to that. To each their own.

I don't dislike Tieflings, but for me, Deva are about a billion times more awesome in terms of design, story, and mechanics.

Not in the PHB, sure, but they finally got a version of the Aasimar right, and that to me was worth the wait.

I don't think the designers have any particular bias towards evil, nor do I entirely agree with Kzach's declaration that the only worthwhile domains are evil ones - I have definitely not found that to be the case. I can, certainly, sympathize with him wanting certain mechanical capabilities in LFR that are prohibited for alignment/etc reasons, but I'm not a fan of the school of thought that all limitations should be removed from all mechanics. I think that would lead to a very boring game with very boring characters, if there was nothing unique about any individual character element.

 

[Janx]

Thing is, the way D&D is set up, the evil party *should* go and rescue the baby. You gain XP/power/levels/gear by going on quests, not by standing around in a tavern saying "Nuh-uh!" every time a plot hook shows up.

That's also why good parties will basically do every quest that shows up for any random peasant, reward or no - they're not going to spend anything going on the quest really, but they are going to gain a reward of XP.

You're right that an evil party could go on the quest, but one of the stereotypes of "evil" PCs is that they are obstinate and inclined to do evil, just for the sake of being evil.

They'll smell the hook, and refuse to bite, just because it isn't what they WANT to do. They'll start killing everyone in the bar, because they get XP and its fun. If they didn't start it, they don't want it.

Bear in mind, I'm describing the stereotype. There are players who can play a non-homicidal psychopath with common sense wired into their survival instinct. But the horror stories are of the players who just go on a rampage, because "that's what evil does."

Now to tie this into the OP's topic.

Evil is cool because Good is stuck in a rut. Evil is cool because you can try to one-up each other in an evil-fest, to see who is the most depraved. Evil is cool because you can see how far you can go before the game world is able to stop you.

And Evil has cookies and cooler costumes.

 

[Celebrim]

Good is restricted from doing certain things, and encouraged to do others.

Evil is restricted from doing certain things, and encouraged to do others. These things are reversed from the things good is encouraged to do. For example, evil is encouraged to be brutal and cruel, restricted from showing mercy. If you show mercy all the time, then another evil observer will say, "Hey Joe, you just aren't evil anymore. You are weak and merciful." That isn't to say that you can't ever show mercy as an evil character any more than a good character can't ever say, "Now you must pay for your crimes.", but there is a definate expectation within the ethics of evil that you will return your enemies every slight that they give you several times over. And, if you don't, you aren't adhering to the tenants of evil.

Likewise, in the ethics of evil there is the definate expectation that you will prey upon the weak and helpless - that that is exactly what the weak are there for. If you don't treat the weak as something to be trampled on, to be used as the raw building material by which you are constructing an ediface to the greater glory of evil, and if in fact you are actually being benevolant rather than malevolant then you are off the right path and clearly not evil. Your role with respect to the weak is to show them that they are weak and useful only in so much as they serve there purpose. Your role isn't to help lift them up and give them a false belief in their own value and worth. As an evil character, you are forbidden from doing that. That isn't to say that you can't use and manipulate people, but you do so only with the intent of knocking them down. You aren't ever practicing 'tough love' - love and all that crap is for the good guys.

Likewise, in the ethics of evil the only life you love is your own - and maybe not that. You can't value life as an inherent thing. If you are valuing life, practicing benevolence, and and being merciful you can't say, "Heh, I'm evil. I can do what I want, including being good.", because that's a ridiculous attempt to claim that good and evil are merely labels. Evil characters may believe that the only difference between good and evil is that good is a lie and a hypocricy, but they always believe that there is at least some important difference.

When players want an alignment that is "eh, whatever", they are really searching for neutrality. Incidently, nuetrality includes the belief that good and evil are merely labels and that there is nothing intrinsicly different between the two.