Why do I tend to be evil ?

[rythm_rampage]

Well ehm...

Our goal is to find a monolith to prevent a war, so we actually have a just cause but our means are rotten.
And the speech you're talking about, ehm... our cleric is a neutral evil dwarf who kills at random ?

Our DM will talk to him because he got no actual reason to stick with the group, maybe his Char will leave soon.

We're pretty close to finding the monolith and maybe we just should finish it soon. But back in our starting city there will be some serious sh*t going on, because our original Heir backstabbed us .

 

[rgard]

Many would argue that this is still evil - you've just shifted the focus of your evilness from inocents onto an evil person. But evil is still evil regardless of to whom it is done.

You want to be a good character? Make a character who doesn't kill intelligent beings. I'd suggest not killing at all, but baby-steps ... right? A character that beats them up, sure. Takes them prisoner, sure. Makes sure their opponents are thrown so far into prison they'll never see the light of day again ... sure.

I know people play good and kill all the time. My personal problem with that is that when fighting evil it can be far too easy to sound like Hitler but justify it because the people you are killing are evil. Is it okay to kill a demon but not a good fairy? Why? Is the life of the fey more intrinsicly valuable than the life of the fiend?

Now, I am certainly not wanting to start arguments with the many people on this board who play good characters that end up killing things. Because, after all, I do the same thing so I'd have to argue with myself. But if you are looking for a hard and fast character reason to be good, you'll need something like "I don't require payment," "I'll help anyone for a just cause," or "I value the sanctity of all life" as a rallying cry. For people that are tempted to evil easily, playing good requires a hard character attribute that for all intents and purposes is unbreakable for that character.

A good place to look is the Book of Exalted Deeds. I love that book for coming up with character ideas. I especially love the idea of redeeming evil. Why not create a character who refused to kill and desired to bring to justice evil? By justice I mean either imprisonment or redemption. What better way to introduce a cohort to your character than one who is redeemed and now fiercely loyal!

Anyway, I've gone on long enough. To play good, find an positive absolute that your character wouldn't break and play off of that.

You know, I almost stopped reading your post after the first 3 paragraphs. I know you don't want a debate and I don't feel like being involved in one either right now, but I completely disagreed with the first 3 paragraphs.

Then I read paragraphs 4-6. You did give good, playable advice!

Thanks,
Rich

BTW, the fey's life IS more intrinsicly valuable than the life of the fiend.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Have an epiphany. You don't need to talk to a priest first, you just become overwhelmed by a sense of guilt and decide to make a change in your life. Change your alignment to good, start behaving that way or go even more radical and multi-class to a good aligned cleric.

You can then begin to re-dress your previous bad behavior.

Sounds like you will need to kill the dwarf or he will kill you.

Thanks,
Rich

That sounds like the sort of behavior that changed his alignment in the first place. But then, I don't see the problem anyway. The only good enemy is a dead one.

 

[Felon]

Our goal is to find a monolith to prevent a war, so we actually have a just cause but our means are rotten.

Well, you have a task, but that doesn't mean you have something to care about. Why do you want to stop the war? Is it just a job?

You say you are "in an evil world with evil mofos and betrayal everywhere". Most folks aren't born with an innate understanding of right and wrong. If the bar is set low enough, then just keeping your end of a deal to go out and kill someone can represent a heightened sense of ethics.

If you haven't read it yet, you ought to go pick up Glen Cook's The Black Company.

 

[rgard]

That sounds like the sort of behavior that changed his alignment in the first place. But then, I don't see the problem anyway. The only good enemy is a dead one.

Well yes...consistent change in behavior changes the character's alignment.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Gold Roger]

Once more, the importance of constant conversation is demonstrated.

For the matter of introduction, I'm the DM of the game in question.

I feel slightly at fault for the current situation.

You see, even though I personally prefeer heroic games I didn't really provide all building blocks of one for the sole reason that I assumed it wasn't wanted.

I belief that assumption was well founded. I've played with each of these players for at least two campaigns. Some I play with for almost five years.

And they have never really expressed any interest in playing good charakters. If they had good charakters they never really differenciated themselfes much from the neutrals. In turn, there was a constant interest in evil chars or even games and we almost always had one evil char in our groups.

As player my experience has been that my good characters often got into trouble with the other PC's for being goody two shoes (example: my char is a sharn cop with mercifull crossbow-the other PC's kill the goblins I subdued).

So I just assumed there was a difference in playstyle and went along with it (there are plenty of other things I enjoy about the game, so why get hung up on the one I can't get).

And this session (that was quite enjoyable all in all) the assumption turned out to be false. One player (rythm rampage) decided he didn't want a evil char anymore. Another voiced at least interest in a more heroic game.



I don't know if we should really make that change.

For one not all players are 100% behind such a change (and this could only be change in the whole group to work).

Then there's the fact that another player will soon start of his first campaign as DM and we already all agreed that we will all play good in that game.

Lastly there's the fact that such a change would be so extreme to the party that we could just as well start a new campaign (at least two chars would have to be scrapped entirely. The concept of rythm rampage's char is build around a bunch of evil spells and the dwarf is of very inflexible morality). I've scrapped campaigns before, but my time with this group is running to an end and I'll most likely move away in a few months. I want the last campaign I run for them to come to a decent conclusion.

 

[rythm_rampage]

Ok, I see your point.
I agree that in the past there has never been a real interest in good characters.
And I agree to the fact that the campaign could as well be dumped if we switch to heroics.

I got some time to think about my problems and I think I'm just making a big deal out of something that really isn't that significant. I really like my spells and my character concept.
What really bothered was the constant killing in the last two sessions. I didn't really like my choice in the encounter with the slavedrivers (I killed the leader of some kind of fighting squad to restrict her from coming back with reinforcements) and basically I introduced that tactic myself. As far as I remember the other two players (our Druid and our Barbarian) didn't want me to do that but since we're a team they didn't keep me from doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I like combat a lot. It's more that I have some ethical issues I wasn't actually aware of before. oO I have no problem with playing evil, but I need a different kind of evil, not that "kill first, ask questions" later.
Nothing I can't do.

 

[Hairfoot]

Well, to answer the thread title alone: because it's easier. Much easier.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Well, to answer the thread title alone: because it's easier. Much easier.

When the DM is afraid to "punish" evil behavior when logical but consistently rewards it, yes. I recal a thread back when where the entire party had been captured and I suggested that as a DM I might institute a "rescue mission" mini adventure for a good party but not the evil one under discussion. I got jumped all over for "punishing the group's RP choices" and was told that such a plot twist should be somehow contrived at equal cost for any party or I was being unfair.

Combine that sort of thinking with unrealisticly effective results for torture and other evil acts and sure its easier. But as some greek guy said a couple thousand years ago, there are practical reasons for mercy.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Change your own mindset. Instead of thinking of enemy NPC's as people who will come back with reinforcements, think of them as recurring characters - trust your DM to give you appropriate challenges. After all, you're going to have fight new opponents anyway, why not have it be with ones you already have a history with?