Master Kaul
First Post
Thats a good quote, well put.
Last edited:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
why I play evil characters
- Thread starter trimeulose
- Start date
Master Kaul said:
Well, as long as we can keep things sociable. Here's why I take this position.
- Everyone enjoys playing, even the ones that sometimes whinge that they want to make an assassin or something.
- We alternate DMs ocassionally, and tend to change styles when we do so.
- I maintain that there is not something wrong with saying that certain types of characters are appropriate and others are not for a given campaign. For instance, a campaign might be centered on a certain religion, or take place in a dwarven stronghold. Does this restrict the players somewhat? Yes. But it is worth that restriction because of the increased fun of the campaign, to my group.
- Our game time is one day a month. We all enjoy the game, and spending it with one guy disrupting things is not acceptable.
To be honest, IME most people who want to run an evil PC do it because they want to tell the good cleric to go screw himself and torture prisoners when they don't want to talk. If a player were to present a character that wasn't disruptive to the campaign and happened to be evil - but that wasn't on the first line of description, I'd allow it. I've never had that happen though. Everyone likes playing the hero. (couple new players are an exception, but they're young)
Master Kaul
First Post
If you only have one game session a month then restricting character creation is TOTALLY acceptable, my opinion was based on a weekly session scenario.
I don't necessarly find as much interest in playing evil characters as much as i used too, for example: My first character in D&D was Kaul Ravinous, a Lawful Evil Necromancer(2nd Ed.), I just recently have gotten the chance to convert him over to 3rd Ed. and I'm fairly excited, but I'm not as drawn to him being evil as I used to be, I'm more interested in bringing him out of malicous ways of raiding graveyards and such, because that was before I knew how fun Rping was, now im going to attempt to portray him as the Lawful Neutral Lord of the obliterated Tilverton.
My main point is that evil is more often than not for newbies, but if a veteran D&Der still finds interest in playing a "Mean SOB" he should have the choice. I now understand that some groups have straining circumstances such as limited sessions in which i think stricter DMing is necessary for the enjoyment of the group's majority.
-Kaul Ravinous
I don't necessarly find as much interest in playing evil characters as much as i used too, for example: My first character in D&D was Kaul Ravinous, a Lawful Evil Necromancer(2nd Ed.), I just recently have gotten the chance to convert him over to 3rd Ed. and I'm fairly excited, but I'm not as drawn to him being evil as I used to be, I'm more interested in bringing him out of malicous ways of raiding graveyards and such, because that was before I knew how fun Rping was, now im going to attempt to portray him as the Lawful Neutral Lord of the obliterated Tilverton.
My main point is that evil is more often than not for newbies, but if a veteran D&Der still finds interest in playing a "Mean SOB" he should have the choice. I now understand that some groups have straining circumstances such as limited sessions in which i think stricter DMing is necessary for the enjoyment of the group's majority.
-Kaul Ravinous
Another take on evil characters
First off, I did away with alignment in my campaign first thing I did; it's the only thing in core D&D that really annoys me, since the new edition. Keep this in mind below.
Anyway, I just thought I'd mention another type of evil, which I realize is likely a very small subgroup but which has been curiously common in campaigns I have DM:ed: the person who wants to be good, yet when it comes down to it, acts evil anyway - out of cowardice, or defeatism, or just general habit. I have about one and a half such characters in my present campaign.
One is a thief, whom, orphaned, grew up with thieves after having initially been raised - by a girl who found him - to believe in justice and kindness. His behavior patterns override his ideals constantly, driving him slowly insane; his player pulls off the conflict well.
The other, who constitutes the half, is an elven necromancer (you have to understand that in my homebrew world, elves are rather nonstandard and detached from humans) obsessed with resurrecting his dead wife. He acts from love, but he's quite prepared to step over corpses and obliterate things others love for it. He doesn't really want to be "Good", and has few illusions about how humans view his deeds, but he feels that what is truly good is defined by what helps him "save" his wife; therefore he counts only for a half.
(Yeah, it's a pretty low level campaign so far.)
I would definitely consider both these characters Evil if I used alignments. Still, it strikes me as a very human evil, easy to RP around, and easy to identify with, and the campaign is the deeper and more involving for it.
The point of all this blabbing, I guess, is "don't think Evil means 'O-mohahahaaaa!'; it can be so much more subtle and enhance the game thereby". Or, it could be "Dont drink a large bottle of cola late at night and then try to write a messageboard entry". I wouldn't really know, though; I've had too much cola to drink.
/Feliath
First off, I did away with alignment in my campaign first thing I did; it's the only thing in core D&D that really annoys me, since the new edition. Keep this in mind below.
Anyway, I just thought I'd mention another type of evil, which I realize is likely a very small subgroup but which has been curiously common in campaigns I have DM:ed: the person who wants to be good, yet when it comes down to it, acts evil anyway - out of cowardice, or defeatism, or just general habit. I have about one and a half such characters in my present campaign.
One is a thief, whom, orphaned, grew up with thieves after having initially been raised - by a girl who found him - to believe in justice and kindness. His behavior patterns override his ideals constantly, driving him slowly insane; his player pulls off the conflict well.
The other, who constitutes the half, is an elven necromancer (you have to understand that in my homebrew world, elves are rather nonstandard and detached from humans) obsessed with resurrecting his dead wife. He acts from love, but he's quite prepared to step over corpses and obliterate things others love for it. He doesn't really want to be "Good", and has few illusions about how humans view his deeds, but he feels that what is truly good is defined by what helps him "save" his wife; therefore he counts only for a half.
(Yeah, it's a pretty low level campaign so far.)
I would definitely consider both these characters Evil if I used alignments. Still, it strikes me as a very human evil, easy to RP around, and easy to identify with, and the campaign is the deeper and more involving for it.
The point of all this blabbing, I guess, is "don't think Evil means 'O-mohahahaaaa!'; it can be so much more subtle and enhance the game thereby". Or, it could be "Dont drink a large bottle of cola late at night and then try to write a messageboard entry". I wouldn't really know, though; I've had too much cola to drink.
/Feliath
noretoc
First Post
Well, I'll put my 15 cents in. First, I am a DM, and in my party, I have several evil characters and good ones. I have a greedy ranger who thinks he is neutral, but turned evil, when he sold some innocent souls to a demon. I have a neutral drow, who is bloodthirsty, and I have NE assassin who is the king of evil. On the other side I have a NG cleric, who is trying to save the others by showing them the light. A lawful good fighter, who is his protector, and a neutral good bard, who love watching the stuff happen. There is also a true neutral wizard who plays both sides perfectly (sometimes he gets mad when the assasin kills the innocent, sometimes he gets pissed when the cleric gives the party's money to the aforementioned innocent's orphaned son.
I spoke with them recently. The assassin told me "I know one day I am gonna push too far and the other are going to kill me, but it is still fu". The same night, the player of the priest told me "Brother Tobin (his priest char) fully expects to die in his sleep one night"
I love it. It never gets to the point of disrupting the game. (thought one night, it got close to someone giving up his character. Not in a bad way at all. If the other didn't talk him out of it, he would have retired that one, and gotten a new one. He still loved the gamed and what happened and would have enjoyed the new crit, but the other PC talked him into staying (with a promise by the assassin to be more careful who he killed).
Now, my take on alignment, is not a guideline on how to play, but a moral standing. Being neutral evil doesn’t mean that that the character has to disregard everyone. It only means that he doesn’t see anything wrong with that. On the other hand, a neutral good character does not have to do good things all the time. However, when he sees a tied up virgin for sacrifice, he knows it would be the right think to do to free her. Alignment shows what you feel is right. This is also why society has nothing to do with alignment. Evil, lawful, etc is absolute. If you grew up with slavery, and thought it was fine, and everyone else though it was fine, it only shows that you have an evil outlook. So did all the people around you. The first time someone explained it to you in a different light, maybe you would see it different, and gain a good or neutral outlook, but if you thought it was ok, no matter what you grew up with, or the society. You would be evil. This is how I feel alignment works
I spoke with them recently. The assassin told me "I know one day I am gonna push too far and the other are going to kill me, but it is still fu". The same night, the player of the priest told me "Brother Tobin (his priest char) fully expects to die in his sleep one night"
I love it. It never gets to the point of disrupting the game. (thought one night, it got close to someone giving up his character. Not in a bad way at all. If the other didn't talk him out of it, he would have retired that one, and gotten a new one. He still loved the gamed and what happened and would have enjoyed the new crit, but the other PC talked him into staying (with a promise by the assassin to be more careful who he killed).
Now, my take on alignment, is not a guideline on how to play, but a moral standing. Being neutral evil doesn’t mean that that the character has to disregard everyone. It only means that he doesn’t see anything wrong with that. On the other hand, a neutral good character does not have to do good things all the time. However, when he sees a tied up virgin for sacrifice, he knows it would be the right think to do to free her. Alignment shows what you feel is right. This is also why society has nothing to do with alignment. Evil, lawful, etc is absolute. If you grew up with slavery, and thought it was fine, and everyone else though it was fine, it only shows that you have an evil outlook. So did all the people around you. The first time someone explained it to you in a different light, maybe you would see it different, and gain a good or neutral outlook, but if you thought it was ok, no matter what you grew up with, or the society. You would be evil. This is how I feel alignment works
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
First off, evil isn't an abstract in D&D. It's tangible, representable. Particles and energies and forces of evil exist, and that's what makes it fantasy. You can play good guys vs. bad guys in a way that is impossible in the real world. Or you can play bad guys vs. the world in the same way.
You could do away with alignments and with this concept....it's not too hard. But default D&D has evil energy, the same way it has fire energy or sonic energy. Evil energy is produced from evil people. Actions don't have an alignment -- characters do. This is important. Evil doesn't have to mean demon-wicked (though it can). It could mean thug-on-the-street wicked.
Of course, in the Real World, you could debate about good and evil all day and still never get anywhere. I'd be happy to do that, but not here.
Play whatever way you have fun. Really, who am I to tell you how you should play?
But please, don't tell me that because you like to play evil characters, you are somehow truly enlightened. IMHO, enlightnement cannot come from simply pretending to be that which you are not.
I've played good characters. I've played evil characters. I've played characters that dance about in some of the gray area in between. I've seen players play immaturely evil characters, and those who have played evil characters reconizable as villains. Neither is really long, as long as it's fun. Sometimes, Snidely Whiplash is a blast to play. In my game, one of heroism and fantasy, it's a far more apt character than one who tries to emulate any real-world person that is believed to be evil
Don't pretend that playing evil characters your way makes you better than those who don't. Try your best not to be condescending to those who may object with you. Don't call me blinded or someone who just goes with the crowd, or ignorant of what you so obviously know due to your vast experience with evil characters.
Your message seems to be quite...preachy. Quite rebel-mistique, IMHO, too. I'm not trying to judge you, but when your first post has a thesis of "I'm going to show you the light that you haven't seen because you're too busy doing things the usual way, while I have defied the norm and gained such insight into the world around me that I must show people how great and right I am by telling them why I defy the norm, and do it the right way," it's a bit hard to take you without a grain of salt.
Maybe I've known too many preachy anti-hero punk boys. I'm not into taking the road less traveled simply because it's the road less traveled. Don't tell me that I'm wrong for not doing that. Especially in something as trivial as D&D alignment choice.
You could do away with alignments and with this concept....it's not too hard. But default D&D has evil energy, the same way it has fire energy or sonic energy. Evil energy is produced from evil people. Actions don't have an alignment -- characters do. This is important. Evil doesn't have to mean demon-wicked (though it can). It could mean thug-on-the-street wicked.
Of course, in the Real World, you could debate about good and evil all day and still never get anywhere. I'd be happy to do that, but not here.
Play whatever way you have fun. Really, who am I to tell you how you should play?
But please, don't tell me that because you like to play evil characters, you are somehow truly enlightened. IMHO, enlightnement cannot come from simply pretending to be that which you are not.
I've played good characters. I've played evil characters. I've played characters that dance about in some of the gray area in between. I've seen players play immaturely evil characters, and those who have played evil characters reconizable as villains. Neither is really long, as long as it's fun. Sometimes, Snidely Whiplash is a blast to play. In my game, one of heroism and fantasy, it's a far more apt character than one who tries to emulate any real-world person that is believed to be evil
Don't pretend that playing evil characters your way makes you better than those who don't. Try your best not to be condescending to those who may object with you. Don't call me blinded or someone who just goes with the crowd, or ignorant of what you so obviously know due to your vast experience with evil characters.
Your message seems to be quite...preachy. Quite rebel-mistique, IMHO, too. I'm not trying to judge you, but when your first post has a thesis of "I'm going to show you the light that you haven't seen because you're too busy doing things the usual way, while I have defied the norm and gained such insight into the world around me that I must show people how great and right I am by telling them why I defy the norm, and do it the right way," it's a bit hard to take you without a grain of salt.
Maybe I've known too many preachy anti-hero punk boys. I'm not into taking the road less traveled simply because it's the road less traveled. Don't tell me that I'm wrong for not doing that. Especially in something as trivial as D&D alignment choice.
Easy evil? That's just not right.
I couldn't disagree more that playing an evilly-aligned character represents an easier choice/style of play.
In group play evil characters, its always a balancing act to keep characters working together, finding coinciding goals, like motivations, trying to stay true to the characters natures while still functioning together as a party (and as part of a story}. I find it very entertaining. Its another level of challenge --having not only to keep a character alive, but to continually justify why he is where he is and is doing what he's doing.
And how exactly, is it hard to be 'good' in D&D? In an enviroment with no actual consequences for ones actions, how is it difficult to 'always do the right thing'? Giving an imaginary sapphire back to it imaginary rightful owner isn't comparable in any way to the ethical challenge of mailing a wallet found on the street back to its owner. To me, its good that's far too easy. And thus meaningless, and worse, dull. Good DM's can drive home the challenge and pain involved in trying to act nobly. But I've found few who really bother.
With evil characters I really enjoy playing out/exploring human weakness. And better in the gameworld than the real. Get the better my current character Dr. Mallus and he gets angry. And sometimes he does things wildly far outside his own best interest. He's done some bad things. He's learned things about himself that he doesn't like, but like anyone, he keeps going on.
People seem to agree that playing good characters with flaws is nearly a neccessity. Sometimes evil is merely a matter of those flaws carrying one over a moral line....
I couldn't disagree more that playing an evilly-aligned character represents an easier choice/style of play.
In group play evil characters, its always a balancing act to keep characters working together, finding coinciding goals, like motivations, trying to stay true to the characters natures while still functioning together as a party (and as part of a story}. I find it very entertaining. Its another level of challenge --having not only to keep a character alive, but to continually justify why he is where he is and is doing what he's doing.
And how exactly, is it hard to be 'good' in D&D? In an enviroment with no actual consequences for ones actions, how is it difficult to 'always do the right thing'? Giving an imaginary sapphire back to it imaginary rightful owner isn't comparable in any way to the ethical challenge of mailing a wallet found on the street back to its owner. To me, its good that's far too easy. And thus meaningless, and worse, dull. Good DM's can drive home the challenge and pain involved in trying to act nobly. But I've found few who really bother.
With evil characters I really enjoy playing out/exploring human weakness. And better in the gameworld than the real. Get the better my current character Dr. Mallus and he gets angry. And sometimes he does things wildly far outside his own best interest. He's done some bad things. He's learned things about himself that he doesn't like, but like anyone, he keeps going on.
People seem to agree that playing good characters with flaws is nearly a neccessity. Sometimes evil is merely a matter of those flaws carrying one over a moral line....
Rune
Once A Fool
Why I play good characters
I dunno, it just seems to me that I get enough of being evil behind the DM screen. When I finally get to play, I always find myself playing good characters--usually lawful good. I also tend to play classes that are often more neutral (or evil) in most people's games. For instance, I'm currently running a neutral good rogue (which would have been lawful good, if my concept hadn't changed). It's more fun, because, sometimes, doing the right thing is a challenge. Especially if your DM's last character was killed in your last game.
I dunno, it just seems to me that I get enough of being evil behind the DM screen. When I finally get to play, I always find myself playing good characters--usually lawful good. I also tend to play classes that are often more neutral (or evil) in most people's games. For instance, I'm currently running a neutral good rogue (which would have been lawful good, if my concept hadn't changed). It's more fun, because, sometimes, doing the right thing is a challenge. Especially if your DM's last character was killed in your last game.
Similar Threads
