Community

Maesto wrote:

I think the point is moot - Consecrate Spell requires a good alignment, and if you're good aligned, you can't get evil descriptor spells anyway...

You can as a wizard Jolyon, surely maesto would know that...

Massive derailment, but it's tangibly relevant...

Lupo wrote:

"we-hate-it-that-we-cannot-play-evil-characters" players tries to get their way in the campaign.

Wanting to play evil characters doesn't mean that you're out to wreck the campaign, sow discord or disruption, or that you in any way mean harm to the table you're at or the campaign as a whole.

Lupo wrote:

and how many co-player's would have characters that will at least dislike yours to the point of non-cooperation? at least five out of my six characters would simply attack yours! including my neutral/chaotic druid and my lawful/neutral monk.

And if I played a worshipper of Pholtus I'd have perfectly justified in character reasons to kill your chaotic druid. Suddenly it's not so fun is it...

I find that this is not the fault of any player or player type, but a fault of the 3.5 gaming system. I know in 4th edition the game makes a point of saying that, since you can be unaligned, if you have an alignment you have to deserve it. There is (significantly less) grounds for "shades of grey"; shades of grey exist in the unaligned alignment, but if you're Evil with a capital E, that's it- you earned it. You eat babies and drink the blood of the innocent and there's just no debate about that. In v3.5, however, there is.

For example, here's what the SRD has to say about "Lawful Evil":

Spoiler: Show

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts."

I've found plenty of adventurers who fit this bill. In fact, almost all of them. They take whatever they want (typically by force), but they have a code of conduct which basically says, "Only kill evil creatures unless they attack you first, have money or are in your way."

"He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life."

When an adventurer betrays the party, it's a huge deal. Huge. Most of the time, those adventurers won't adventure with her again. Obviously they care about loyalty. Further, the CR system ensues that PCs care about order, too- they want their fights to be fair and equal, because they don't spend their time in the woods hunting CR 1 orcs. Instead, they seek fame and glory out in the world.

As for freedom, dignity, life... well. When was the last time an adventurer spared the life of an animal out of pity? It happens occasionally, but almost always the attacking creature dies. Same when encountering bandits, thieves, muggers- when are their motives ever analyzed? When was the last time any adventurer went, "This guy's just stealing to feed his starving family." and gave him cash. No, instead, he and his band deserve death. Since when do adventurers respect the dignity of the dead? Almost all my characters have robbed a tomb or two, most of them have robbed heaps. Does the dignity of the dead have no bearing on the conscience of your characters? On the subject of conscience, do any of your characters ever have doubts or regrets about those they've killed? (And to get to high levels, you've had to have killed *hundreds*, if not directly then by aiding and supporting those who do). How can you claim to love life if all you do is kill?

When was the last time a demon's freedom to exist was ever questioned? When did you stop and say, "Hey, freedom of religion, baby. He's free to do what he wants as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." Often, a particular type of creature (orc, goblin, evilly aligned human) is considered "unworthy" of life and is attacked on the spot, massacred to the last. Adventurers are very rarely respecting of the freedoms of others.

Therefore, I submit that most adventurers in the stereotypical sense are Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil (see what Neutral Evil has to say about it all; you'll find similar things to LE). I further submit that the casting of evil-typed spells is completely fine and should not be cause to have one's character removed from the game, especially when evil-aligned spells can be used for good.

Puggle Halfwine wrote:

Massive derailment, but it's tangibly relevant...

Wanting to play evil characters doesn't mean that you're out to wreck the campaign, sow discord or disruption, or that you in any way mean harm to the table you're at or the campaign as a whole.

Ah yes Puggle, thou dost trigger my treatise on why Evil parties don't work in a LIVING campaign. Just because that may not be the case does not mean that *won’t* be the case in a few situations – oft enough to ruin an entire campaign, from an enjoyment perspective as well as administratively and legally.

*places his soapbox on the ground and heartily climbs aboard*

Disclaimer: wall of text to follow...

1.    In a living campaign there is a suspension of disbelief that PCs are willing to adventure with each other. Whilst there are often issues on the law versus chaos axis, there is one assumed binding characteristic: That the PCs have a mutual goal to work towards.

This goal is inherently assumed to be one of the following:

a)    We all want to save our region/organisation/general patriotic leanings
b)    Direct financial reward
c)    Helping out a friend/trusted NPC
d)    It’s the right thing to do.

With an evil party there is greater chance for this to break down. Whilst people can be from different creeds and ideals, it is generally assumed that good PCs have something in common with other good PCs. However that cannot be the same for evil. Two good gods may often work together but two evil gods have little to no compunction because their ideologies are based on one simple thing: being selfish.

As such Evil parties can only adventure successfully without undermining each other in a few circumstances:

a)    They ALL share the SAME beliefs (E.g: all LE)
b)    They all agree it is better to work together than to screw each other over (this rules out CE from being a true party member)
c)    Mutual Financial gain (something that is rare and relies on NE or LE to pull it off)

As such the suspension of disbelief breaks down. An evil party may work in a home game, but two evil LG characters that have never met before are not bound by ideals of working together, and as such the dynamic would come apart. This is even if one role-plays the alignment correctly.

2.    Evil Players on a whole are reasonably selfish. In LG the odd selfish PC exists, however they can at least be motivated by financial rewards or some other goal. In order for evil to be played accurately, the PC needs to either be:

a)    A fanatic
b)    Sociopathic
c)    Psychopathic
d)    Machiavellian.

Non of these psychological tendencies lend well to the random adventuring parties of a living campaign, and what’s to stop Bob, my PC screwing over Shawn, someone else’s PC at a random con slot? One could argue an overarching power could be called in but then you are restricting everyone to play a certain kind of evil – which offers fewer options than just “non evil” This brings me onto the third point.

3.    Evil PCs do not survive selfish/immature players or contact with unknown PCs. Whilst in a home campaign with seasoned gamers, evil PCs can provide that Jungian escapism that one so dearly craves – however you are in that situation gaming with a group of people who are reasonably experienced/you are comfortable with. Some people are only ok with ‘diet coke’ evil; others favour the slightly more bizarre. As such it would be an administrative nightmare and adventures would take twice as long just to ensure the party doesn’t off each other. Let’s not take into account that one random smartass player that wants to steal all the loot or knife everyone whilst they sleep. Would you like to see that happen to your 14th level PC? This brings me to my final point (for tonight)

4.    Evil in a campaign creates a world of hurt with lobby groups, people with certain views, and also with some people who are just not ok with people role-playing trying to gut their little kid who is trying the game for the first time. It creates legal, moral and other issues not least with any conservative movements and as such should be best left NOT in the realm of the Living campaign world, but rather in the safe demesne of the home gaming group.

Just my 1.5 cents, plenty more where that came from but I am tired :P

_metz_ wrote:

*places his soapbox on the ground and heartily climbs aboard*

I disintegrate the soapbox. Just because my character plays with a pholtian fire and brimstone-style cleric a decent amount of the time, and he's tired of the stupid thing. :D