TPK Your Entire Party

[Seeten]

I opine that this is total crap.

The problem is not necessarily with the maturity level of players. The problem is that well played Evil PCs is an Oxymoron.

In order to maintain harmony with the other players, the player of any evil PC is forced into certain "well behaved" modes of behavior. He must get along with the other PCs to some extent. He must not try to kill them, even though it is in the very nature of Evil to harm and kill others.

That's the problem. Mature players are not ones who kow tow to metagaming concepts of "group play", mature players are ones who roleplay their character according to the character concept, regardless of whether that means harming or killing another PC.

Unfortunately, that means that PC conflict will eventually occur and PCs will eventually kill each other.

And since it does take quite a while to create a new PC, PVP hampers the game.

It is not about maturity. It is about Evil eventually not behaving within group dynamics. Sooner or later, an evil PC should turn on other PCs, even if they are "friends" (as long as one is not metagaming).


So yes, one can pretend that it is mature to play Evil PCs, but that's nonsense. One is forced to be a good little evil PC when playing an evil PC, at least in regard to the other PCs, and that too is nonsense.

Evil is not limited this way. That's Evil skewed by metagaming.

As previously, I opine that this is total crap.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Subtlety is Key

I am 11th level evil wizard.

Why not just silence the area and slit throats, or use a scythe?

Most wizards do not have access to silence spells, and scythes are fairly difficult to conceal.

-Samir

 

[Seeten]

Why conceal it? Do the others think you plan to kill them while they sleep? If so, why are they sleeping while your awake?

Wand of Silence? UMD? Research a spell? Get a Cleric to cast silence on a rock, and throw it near the people you slaughter? Killing sleeping players isnt terribly hard.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Evil is Live Spelled Backwards

That's the problem. Mature players are not ones who kow tow to metagaming concepts of "group play", mature players are ones who roleplay their character according to the character concept, regardless of whether that means harming or killing another PC.

I have to disagree here, and with some of your earlier statements regarding the fratricidal nature of evil PCs.

Although Seeten (and I) possess greater flexibility regarding alignment than you, I wouldn't necessarily say that our attitude constitutes metagaming. IMO, evil characters can be played according to their ethos and still manage to co-exist with others. Granted, it may be quite a challenge to roleplay a "cooperative" evil PC ... but it can be done (and without sacrificing verisimilitude).

Your interpretation(s) of evil PCs aside, I heartily agree with your support of DM prerogative. Every DM has the right to adjudicate alignment.

-Samir

 

[shilsen]

I opine that this is total crap.

Fair enough. I think you're dead wrong, but I also think you've got every right to hold that opinion.

The problem is not necessarily with the maturity level of players. The problem is that well played Evil PCs is an Oxymoron.

Only for people who necessarily agree with your definitions. Some of us don't.

In order to maintain harmony with the other players, the player of any evil PC is forced into certain "well behaved" modes of behavior. He must get along with the other PCs to some extent. He must not try to kill them, even though it is in the very nature of Evil to harm and kill others.

Not necessarily any and all others, however, IME. For example, let's say that there's an adventurer who is completely and fanatically devoted to his companions and will eliminate anyone who threatens them, with extreme prejudice, using any method whatsoever. He will happily poison, torture, maim, etc. anyone who he thinks is a current or possibly future danger to his allies. IME, he would be an evil character, but he's one who would never work against his allies. Does that make him "well behaved" or non-evil? Hell, no!

That's the problem. Mature players are not ones who kow tow to metagaming concepts of "group play", mature players are ones who roleplay their character according to the character concept, regardless of whether that means harming or killing another PC.

Another definition issue. I personally think what you described as a mature player here is a significantly immature and not particularly creative player. D&D is a roleplaying game, and forgetting that it's a game is as silly as forgetting that it's about roleplaying. And characters are not set in stone, just as human beings in real life aren't. Most people in any given situation might react in a lot of different ways. The same should be true for most D&D characters.

In a given situation, the chances are that the evil character can justifiably do a lot of different things, some of which will be more conducive to continuing play in the campaign than others. The mature and creative player, IMNSHO, is the one who will find a way to be both true to his character concept and continue the game. If he has one and only one possible choice to fit his character concept, the chances are that he's not too creative a thinker and/or has a very limited character concept.

To use an example I did in another thread, based on what we have of his character in the play, Hamlet can justifiably not trust his father's Ghost. And he can justifiably trust it too. He can justifiably reject Ophelia, and he can justifiably be besotted with her too. He can justifiably kill Claudius and he can justifiably spare him. None of those opposed options are closed to him. Why? Because he's a complex and realistic character. I personally think it's a good idea to have characters in D&D, evil or good, be similarly complex.

Unfortunately, that means that PC conflict will eventually occur and PCs will eventually kill each other.

Not a necessity at all.

And since it does take quite a while to create a new PC, PVP hampers the game.

Amazingly, we agree

It is not about maturity. It is about Evil eventually not behaving within group dynamics. Sooner or later, an evil PC should turn on other PCs, even if they are "friends" (as long as one is not metagaming).

Whereas I think it is about maturity and there's no absolute need for an evil PC to turn on other PCs. Aren't opinions cool?

So yes, one can pretend that it is mature to play Evil PCs, but that's nonsense. One is forced to be a good little evil PC when playing an evil PC, at least in regard to the other PCs, and that too is nonsense.

Evil is not limited this way. That's Evil skewed by metagaming.

And, as I said at the start, I think you're absolutely wrong. Luckily, as I also mentioned, my opinion has no influence on your game and yours has none on mine.

Game on!

 

[The Thayan Menace]

A Questionable Harvest

Why conceal it?

You definitely have a point, however I doubt that sam500's wizard has ever used a scythe during his campaign. If he suddenly goes out of his way to acquire one, it might raise suspicion.

-Samir

 

[werk]

If he were really evil, he'd trick someone else into killing the rest of the party, then kill that person and raise him as an undead servant. That way, later on, he could always refer to his servant and say "Him? Oh, he mercilessly killed my last group of travelling companions in their sleep...save myself. That undead there is an example of what treachery brings."

He's merely homicidal, barely evil.

 

[IanB]

If an evil creature never performs evil acts or a good creature never performs good acts, how can they claim to be evil or good respectively?

[some snipping here]

That's part of the definition of evil in the game system. If one plays his PC without harming others, he is not evil.

You'll note that these say "acts" or "does", not "thinks". Philosophy comes into it, but actions is a major part of it and cannot be just dropped on the floor.

I really think that because the game system does not have a lot of solid rules about alignment and how it affects game elements (outside of a few spells), that people tend to blow it off as a non-serious aspect of their character.

To me, like other character attributes, it helps define the character.

Thinking is an act. It isn't an action in game terms, but the alignment rules don't say anything about that sort of action.

If I *literally* want to strangle my co-worker, and would be happy if he was found dead, but won't actually do anything because I'm afraid of being caught, why do I get a free pass to neutrality in your system?

If a guy privately hates a particular race, but never says or does anything overt because he doesn't want the consequences, he's still a racist. Likewise with evil, IMO.

 

[IanB]

Anyway ... on with the 3PK.

sam500 needs a quickened scorching ray and three adjacent sleepers to pull it off.

Good luck, bro!

-Samir

To try and bring it back to a more concrete rules argument for a moment, I don't believe the rules support this.

Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

The rules very specifically say the coup can only be delivered with a melee weapon, or with a bow or crossbow. Scorching ray is none of these things. I don't think "Weapon-like spells" are not treated as weapons for everything in the rules; the section in Complete Arcane is fairly specific about when to treat them like weapons.

Scorching ray is not a spell that allows you to 'hold a charge' as it doesn't have a range of touch - so even if you cast it in a quickened form and your DM allowed you to treat it as a weapon, you couldn't use it as a weapon for the upcoming full round action, because you've already fired it off by the time you get to that action.

In addition, even if he could do it with scorching ray, there is no rules support for the idea that he could coup three people simultaneously. That would take 3 full round actions, and thus three castings of whatever spell was being used.

 

[KarinsDad]

In a given situation, the chances are that the evil character can justifiably do a lot of different things, some of which will be more conducive to continuing play in the campaign than others. The mature and creative player, IMNSHO, is the one who will find a way to be both true to his character concept and continue the game. If he has one and only one possible choice to fit his character concept, the chances are that he's not too creative a thinker and/or has a very limited character concept.

I think this is the point you are missing.

DND is a game system which basically REQUIRES players to make character decisions that continue the game (the game does not force this, it just is designed with this in mind).

The moment a player makes that concession, he is forced to play his Evil PCs in a certain manner.

You call it creative and mature.

I call it often against character nature and inferior roleplaying.


Good and even neutral characters by definition do not have this issue.

Evil and even chaotic characters do.


DM: "You can be as EVIL as you want, but just don't kill the other PCs."

What kind of EVIL is that??? The Howdy Doody definition of EVIL!!!

My mom had a Chihuahua that was more EVIL than that.


If you limit EVIL to "no party killing", you are limiting the roleplaying aspects of the game. By definition, the game is not meant to be played by Evil PCs because of this inherent limitation. One is forced to play an "evil, but not really evil" PC by definition (or, self destruct that particular party).

Just like PCs are not really meant to play deities. The game system is not well designed for it.