Is this fair?

[Phlebas]

..... I despise WotC for allowing it's players to be able to choose evil as their alignment. .........

Early editions advised against it, and people still did it - not WOTC fault really

..... I cannot see why anyone would want to play an evil character, since what I know of evil is the type of person to kill someone who doesn't actually need to die, burn a village for expressing views that oppose their own, and the like. .........

Just reminds me of a lot of computer games out at the moment, and they seem to be fairly popular. Not my favourite (unless you count Civilisation) but a lot of people play them without any issues. (Not making any point about them being good / bad, just saying they exist and people play them)

 

[HellHound]

As a person who espouses many chaotic and evil beliefs (I truly feel that my immediate family and friends deserve better treatment than everyone else, and feel that laws are something that should be applied to everyone but myself), I still feel that running a "good-only" game is a very good way to run a game in general.

Before I run a game, I talk to my players and we decide what kind of game we want to play. If the goal is heroic fantasy, then we play heroic fantasy. And that means no evil characters, thank you very much.

 

[Nifft]

Just reminds me of a lot of computer games out at the moment, and they seem to be fairly popular. Not my favourite (unless you count Civilisation) but a lot of people play them without any issues. (Not making any point about them being good / bad, just saying they exist and people play them)

There may not be a moral difference between ordering a village burned and role-playing out the burning of an individual villager, but there sure as heck is a visceral difference, and I'd think a psychological difference as well.

The former is an Evil I'd tolerate in my game. The latter, not so much.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Minicol]

OK, I, me personally, have a problem with evil characters. I think they're horrid, and I despise WotC for allowing it's players to be able to choose evil as their alignment. I cannot see why anyone would want to play an evil character, since what I know of evil is the type of person to kill someone who doesn't actually need to die, burn a village for expressing views that oppose their own, and the like. As such, I have an ongoing houserule that states no evil alignments. I generally don't restrict race or class at all, but I always say nonevil. Is this fair for my players, or should I try to open up?

It is fait if you say it in advance, before anyone starts rolling characters.

 

[gnfnrf]

Not only is it fair, but it isn't even a house rule. Don't despise WotC for allowing evil characters, because they didn't.

From the 3.5 PHB, p. 105

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

Now, in many games, this rule (more of a guideline, really) is ignored, and that works. And in some WotC products, ways to play the game without using this guideline are presented. But in the core rules, evil is for monsters and villians, not PCs.

--
gnfnrf

 

[Aleolus]

...Good to know that, I did not know that. I'll have to get a thread started on little known rules in the game.

 

[DreamChaser]

It is important to remember though that evil is (as someone pointed out above) not sociopathic. Evil, at is core, means selfish and unconcerned with the damage your actions do beyond the fact they achieve your ends.

Would I allow most players to play evil in my game? No. Because most players are not far sighted enough to play it. Honestly, in my experience 90% of players have trouble playing anything more than a lukewarm neutral (or chaotic neutral).

An evil wizard (say perhaps an archetype even: Raistlin from Dragonlance) is not stupid or shortsighted but when forced to chose between his personal advancement and the lives of his companions he had to weigh multiple factors (mainly, whether he stood to gain more in the long run by ensuring that they survive).

Now apply this to the average adventuring party. An evil character traveling about with three others would likely see a vested interest in remaining with them: if not, he simply wouldn't be there. That being the case, rather than marauding through the town raping the virgins and killing the babies, he would probably just sit back and ignore the rest of the group while they listened to the sob story of the villagers telling of the evil monster that has been terrorizing them.

If they decided to help the villagers, he would likely even help; not because he has any interest in helping but BECAUSE THERE IS NO INHERENT REASON FOR HIM NOT TO. If he believed or strongly suspected that they party could not stand against this monster, he would not go (and vote against going).

Let's say the monster was intelligent enough to offer the characters a cut of the action. The evil character would probably vote for them to take it. If he felt that his odds were better (IN THE LONG RUN) he might even join with the monster against the party, but again, this would need to be fairly compelling (he has been traveling with the party for some reason, after all).

Now an evil character with a low INT or WIS score will not long associate with most people; because he will be too stupid or shortsighted to keep a long view about his actions; only other stupid and evil (or evil and smart enough to manipulate) people will tolerate them. These sorts are the thugs and outcasts of society.


So back on topic: good and neutral are the standards because good is heroic and neutral is what most people end up anyway (as a side note, any character who has ever justified her actions as good by pointing out all the evil things she DIDN'T do is not good: she is neutral. Good and evil are both active; neutral is what happens when you don't want to choose, don't care about either, or lack the strength of your convictions).

Evil requires more finesse and a more open style of game play. It is not for everyone but that is not to say that including evil is the death knell of the game or the antithesis of heroic. Fantasy if full of anti-heroes who are certainly evil but do good things along the way because for an evil person, the ends DO justify the means.

DC

 

[AnonymousOne]

AM I the only one who sees this as a problem of (yes once again) the alignment system? Me? my personal beliefs that I hold would actually qualify me as a CE individual in the D&D world. I'm fickle, I'm self interested, I have little regard for 'law' as a concept.
This makes me CE according to the PHB.

On the other hand, I'm rational, friendly, and a team player because my own ends of protecting my own ass and furthering my own wealth and comfort are best served by working with the group.

Thank you WotC for throwing Adam Smith right out the window.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

D&D Evil is more of a selfish outlook than evil.

Evil characters add more to the game than the standard 'kill things (that are evil-ish) and take their stuff" It's harder to play a proper Lawful Good than it is to play a Lawful or Neutral Evil.
Chaotic Evil, no one ever gets that one right, outside of a horror flick. All of those people who are arguing over rules and trying to squeeze the most out of their characters pretty much have the Lawful Evil down pat.

People seem to like to play Chaotic Retarded and Lawful Stupid, and, except for the dialogue, are exactly the same. The first says "Yay! Combat!" and the second says "Stamp out Evil! (and take its stuff)"

Oh, and people who are CE out in the world..aren't, because they get locked up/shot/whatever if they really are CE. Those who say they are, are NE at worst, likely moderately LE because they fear getting caught. Though, like the book says, most are just Neutral. Apathy wins out over all.

 

[shurai]

AM I the only one who sees this as a problem of (yes once again) the alignment system? Me? my personal beliefs that I hold would actually qualify me as a CE individual in the D&D world. I'm fickle, I'm self interested, I have little regard for 'law' as a concept.
This makes me CE according to the PHB.

So you're this, then?

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.

Really? You seem alright to me, so far anyway. : ]