AlecAustin
First Post
While I don't play with rigidly defined alignments very often, I have several players who consistently play characters that verge on evil. They're out for their own interests, generally apathetic about the greater good unless it affects them personally, and tend to be quite ruthless with regards to who they'll kill and why. The best way to motivate their characters is usually the prospect of malicious revenge on old foes or organizations that have crossed them.
That said, neither they (nor I, when I'm not DMing) run characters who are vilely evil... just ruthless, cold-blooded, expedient, and calculating. It's hard to argue that many of the characters in our games wouldn't be categorized as evil in the D&D alignment system, but at the same time, they work together well, partly because of metagaming, and partly because their alliance serves their own interests. Just because someone's "evil" doesn't mean that they automatically approve of everything that society considers wrong. A LE fighter might well have an ethical code as complex as a paladin's, and be fiercely protective of children, while slaughtering those who obstruct their goals or offend their honor without the slightest compunction.
Part of the reason why I like Eberron and 3E's approach to alignment is that it acknowledges that there are nuances in both evil and good. I mean, other than the big "Good" stamp on the paladin's forehead, what is it that makes the genocidally-inclined slaughter of evil humanoids or lycanthropes okay? In the Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, WotC effectively came out and created new "alignment levels" beyond simple good and evil, and a lot of the people describing wanton rape and pillaging strike me as describing a style of play I'd describe as Chaotic stupid or vilely Evil. I understand why they don't want to having PCs of those kinds in their games. I wouldn't either, just as I'd never play one.
But to say that a ruthless, machiavellian character who works well with their comrades is okay if their alignment is listed as "LN" but one with "LE" listed isn't... well, it strikes me as a bit silly, given that how the character is played will generally be more important than anything else. I've seen more than my share of people who've used "CN" as an excuse to do anything they wanted over the years, and it wasn't the alignment that was the problem.
That said, neither they (nor I, when I'm not DMing) run characters who are vilely evil... just ruthless, cold-blooded, expedient, and calculating. It's hard to argue that many of the characters in our games wouldn't be categorized as evil in the D&D alignment system, but at the same time, they work together well, partly because of metagaming, and partly because their alliance serves their own interests. Just because someone's "evil" doesn't mean that they automatically approve of everything that society considers wrong. A LE fighter might well have an ethical code as complex as a paladin's, and be fiercely protective of children, while slaughtering those who obstruct their goals or offend their honor without the slightest compunction.
Part of the reason why I like Eberron and 3E's approach to alignment is that it acknowledges that there are nuances in both evil and good. I mean, other than the big "Good" stamp on the paladin's forehead, what is it that makes the genocidally-inclined slaughter of evil humanoids or lycanthropes okay? In the Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, WotC effectively came out and created new "alignment levels" beyond simple good and evil, and a lot of the people describing wanton rape and pillaging strike me as describing a style of play I'd describe as Chaotic stupid or vilely Evil. I understand why they don't want to having PCs of those kinds in their games. I wouldn't either, just as I'd never play one.
But to say that a ruthless, machiavellian character who works well with their comrades is okay if their alignment is listed as "LN" but one with "LE" listed isn't... well, it strikes me as a bit silly, given that how the character is played will generally be more important than anything else. I've seen more than my share of people who've used "CN" as an excuse to do anything they wanted over the years, and it wasn't the alignment that was the problem.