Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 3743669" data-attributes="member: 1190">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</blockquote>

Verification