TPK Your Entire Party

[AbeTheGnome]

i'm of the opinion that the alignment system is f***ed anyway. though it's supposed to be nine shades of gray, it seems, IMO, to be far too black and white to represent real-life morals or ethics.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

What About Richard Ramirez?

No one wants to be a bad person IN THEIR OWN mind, so to me, that makes a difference.

Although I applaud the fact that you play evil characters with depth, I'm not exactly sure this statement is true ... in D&D or IRL.

Some individuals do consider themselves evil, and are quite proud of it.

-Samir

 

[The Thayan Menace]

One More Thing ....

Casting scorching ray is a standard action ... you can't combine it with a full-round action.

However, I believe that Quicken Spell can overcome this limitation.

You'll also need to make sure that you're adjacent to all three targets ... at the same time.

Good luck!

-Samir

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, depends on the particular character. You can have a dozen LE characters who are very different. You're making fairly simplistic "this is the way it must be" statements here, which, IMNSHO, significantly miss how varied characters of the same alignment may be.

I am basing my "should be" (not "must be") on the alignment definitions in the book.

Yes, different LE characters can (and should) be different.

But, if one really reads the alignment system and plays by it, LE does not mean true blue to allies. That is a misconception.

Many people play LE as "not quite so evil" or "borderline evil", just like they play CN as "can get away with anything". But if read carefully, that is not what the alignment system states.


In a party of PCs, a LE PC should want a hierarchy and/or structure of some sort. He is lawful after all. But, most PC parties have very little in the way of hierarchies. PCs are played by players who tend to do whatever they feel like (even ones playing Lawful PCs). They may have a party leader and/or a watch order and/or a marching order and/or even a treasure sharing technique, but these typically are the biggest concessions to order in a DND game and even then, many other players would ignore orders by the PC leader if they thought they had a better idea themselves.

And if the fellow PCs of a LE PC are good and showed kindness to him, many LE PCs should often consider that a sign of weakness.

Most PC parties do not have military or other structures. Hence, LE PCs should feel uncomfortable in a PC party and should have no qualms about leaving it for something better unless they themselves are party leader (in which case they should define the structure). Course, a non-leader LE PC might as well kill the other PCs and take their stuff while leaving if feasible.


Regardless of (most falicious) claims to the contrary, it's very difficult for most people to play any Evil or Good aligned PC well in DND. People who think they are doing it well are typically self deluding themselves (and yes, that means most of the people reading this). This is not a dig on roleplaying style, it is an observation of the design of the game system.

It's tough to not have the good PC Cleric attack on round one when the PCs first meet a creature in a "dungeon". Orc = Kill it. Gnoll = Kill it. Unknown slimy thing on the ground = Kill it.

Murder, murder, murder.

Is it dead? Search for loot (i.e. Theft).

Murder and Theft are practically the core components of the game system (including XP).

Oh, you want to do non-lethal damage? -4 to your to hit.


The game is not well designed for Good PCs. Ditto for Evil PCs.
The entire concept of adventuring is generally a more Neutral activity. It can easily be Evil as well, but then there has to generally be "in game" motivations for Evil PCs to not wipe out other PCs in order to gain vast amounts of treasure (shy of out of game reasons to not do so). But "Good Adventurers" are really an oxymoron in DND.


Compare DND to Heroes (Champions). There, most enemies are stunned into unconsciousness. They aren't killed. They are captured. There, the PCs typically do not steal the equipment and wealth of their enemies. Murder and Theft is not the name of the game.

It is much easier to actually rolelplay good in Champions because the game system is designed more for it. The genre is also designed for it moreso than DND.

 

[Seeten]

Although I applaud the fact that you play evil characters with depth, I'm not exactly sure this statement is true ... in D&D or IRL.

Some individuals do consider themselves evil, and are quite proud of it.

-Samir

Very few.

Most consider themselves "The Arm of God" or the only guy brave enough to do what it takes, or some other self delusion.

 

[KarinsDad]

I play evil characters a lot, I believe in depth, and morality, and I do it, in my mind, the right way, playing a full character, with goals, and lines he or she will, and will not cross, and reasons for their actions, that justifies the actions to them. No one wants to be a bad person IN THEIR OWN mind, so to me, that makes a difference.

No one wants to be a bad person in their own mind?

I suspect that you have never played an Evil PC who was out to get all of the other PCs, just because he was out to get everyone. A truly diabolical PC.

If not, that is most likely a personal line you will not cross (not ruining the game for the other players), not a line of the PCs.


And btw, many truly evil people actually do want to be bad people. They savor it like a fine wine, seeing what they can get away with. There are many historical examples.

 

[Seeten]

That is true, but there are MANY more examples of people who felt they were doing right, when in fact, they were crossing the line that D&D defines as evil.

 

[shilsen]

I am basing my "should be" (not "must be") on the alignment definitions in the book.

Yes, different LE characters can (and should) be different.

Here we agree.

But, if one really reads the alignment system and plays by it, LE does not mean true blue to allies. That is a misconception.

Correction - Does not necessarily mean. It can, but doesn't have to. But, if you're running a LE PC, since keeping the group alive will help the game, it makes sense to run an LE PC for whom being "true blue to allies" matters. What I'm saying is that you can run a LE PC who is able to function with and within the group. You could also run a LE PC who is unable to function with the group, but that's hardly any help in a group-oriented game like D&D.

Many people play LE as "not quite so evil" or "borderline evil", just like they play CN as "can get away with anything". But if read carefully, that is not what the alignment system states.

The alignment system lists a few among many possibilities.

Also, your idea of careful reading isn't necessarily shared by everyone.

In a party of PCs, a LE PC should want a hierarchy and/or structure of some sort. He is lawful after all. But, most PC parties have very little in the way of hierarchies. PCs are played by players who tend to do whatever they feel like (even ones playing Lawful PCs). They may have a party leader and/or a watch order and/or a marching order and/or even a treasure sharing technique, but these typically are the biggest concessions to order in a DND game and even then, many other players would ignore orders by the PC leader if they thought they had a better idea themselves.

The L component in an LE PC can be all about internal instead of external order. Just as the examples of LN PCs include characters who have a personal code. A LE PC could work fine in a non-heirarchical group by relying on his internal code to provide the lawfulness he needs.

And if the fellow PCs of a LE PC are good and showed kindness to him, many LE PCs should often consider that a sign of weakness.

Many and often. Which I agree with. Just not all and always.

Most PC parties do not have military or other structures. Hence, LE PCs should feel uncomfortable in a PC party and should have no qualms about leaving it for something better unless they themselves are party leader (in which case they should define the structure). Course, a non-leader LE PC might as well kill the other PCs and take their stuff while leaving if feasible.

And we're back to a broad statement about LE PCs, period. As before, I think you're wrong.

Regardless of (most falicious) claims to the contrary, it's very difficult for most people to play any Evil or Good aligned PC well in DND. People who think they are doing it well are typically self deluding themselves (and yes, that means most of the people reading this). This is not a dig on roleplaying style, it is an observation of the design of the game system.

I think it's more of an observation on your particular reading of good and evil in the game, just as my opinions are more of an observation on my particular reading of good and evil in the game.

It's tough to not have the good PC Cleric attack on round one when the PCs first meet a creature in a "dungeon". Orc = Kill it. Gnoll = Kill it. Unknown slimy thing on the ground = Kill it.

In many games, yes. Not in all. Not in mine, for example.

Murder, murder, murder.

Also true in many games.

Is it dead? Search for loot (i.e. Theft).

See above.

Murder and Theft are practically the core components of the game system (including XP).

See above.

Oh, you want to do non-lethal damage? -4 to your to hit.

True.

The game is not well designed for Good PCs. Ditto for Evil PCs.
The entire concept of adventuring is generally a more Neutral activity. It can easily be Evil as well, but then there has to generally be "in game" motivations for Evil PCs to not wipe out other PCs in order to gain vast amounts of treasure (shy of out of game reasons to not do so). But "Good Adventurers" are really an oxymoron in DND.

Only with more real world, abstract, complex definitions of good, and not with the more concrete definitions of it that exist in the game. And lots of people, working even within those concrete definitions, are able to have abstract, complex good and evil. So I'd say your statements are true for many games, but not all.

Compare DND to Heroes (Champions). There, most enemies are stunned into unconsciousness. They aren't killed. They are captured. There, the PCs typically do not steal the equipment and wealth of their enemies. Murder and Theft is not the name of the game.

What would count as Murder and Theft in Champions would not count as Murder and Theft in D&D, so while your point about automatic lethality in D&D is a good one, the comparison between the systems is a little flawed.

It is much easier to actually rolelplay good in Champions because the game system is designed more for it. The genre is also designed for it moreso than DND.

For a given definition of Good, which D&D doesn't use for the most part.

In short, I think you simply happen to be painting with too broad a brush. Not that it matters, since if it works for you and your group, that's all the justification it needs.

 

[KarinsDad]

For a given definition of Good, which D&D doesn't use for the most part.

Precisely.

Killing is often Good in DND due to its wargaming roots. THe entire system is designed to be lethal and morality takes a back seat in game design (not necessarily any specific game).

Them versus Us.

 

[Seeten]

Just to be clear, I use all alignment as a frame of reference. I build a personality, and then look where it fits clearest. I dont work back from archetypal alignment, and try to be that, to a T. Real characters are not archetypes, they are people.