|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 8:05AM
#1
|
|
|
No I am not about to preach, more like yell, but not preaching whilst yelling.
So you have a player that wants to act evil, play evil, be evil, do evil acts or just enjoy an 'evil campaign'. What part of that is impractical in the extreme is too lacking self evident to comprehend?
God I am sick and tired of reading about people needing to be evil in a game designed for heroic deeds. Are you dense?
Levels 1 through 10, ever wonder why they call it the 'Heroic tier'? It's because your PC is attempting to become a hero.
Not a selfish, greedy little snot, only interested in themselves, certainly not the group. It's not about
'what's in it for me', it's about save the day, the damsel in distress, the world even maybe.
But nope, some people seem to be so incapable of grasping what should be bloody obvious.
If you need to play a self centered power infatuated me centric persona, maybe you should play Vampire or something designed for it eh.
So you have an 'evil' PC and you don't like the doo gooder Paladin wanting to kill you... tough! Deal with it.
So your players want you to rescue their idiot evil PCs. Tell them sorry, I just run the game, I'm not actually in it, or responsible for your ill advised decisions.
I'd only have one thing to tell a player wishing to play evil in one of my games. Enjoy your PC, it's on it's own and I won't be doing thing one to ensure it survives the session. Dumb is dumb.
I won't go out of my way to save a PC and I won't go out of my way to kill one.
I'm just the referee. I keep the game honest. Nothing else.
Evil is a stupid choice in 4th edition regardless of what alignment system is inside the game's mechanics. And no I don't care if you CAN run an evil game, it won't change the fact the game was not designed for it.
I don't play 4th edition D&D for Wizard's sake I play it for my sake.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 8:14AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2007
|
I sometimes run a purely evil campaign just to satisfy those bloodlust players. But I won't tolerate a mixture of both at the same time. Why can't 4e be played with evil characters at all? The mechanics don't restrict it. In fact, paladins can be evil if they want to or even total opposite of their god and still have their powers.
If you are frustrated, why not just houserule your campaign that no evil or even unaligned PC are allowed.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 8:37AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2010
|
If I recall, the alignment is "Evil", not "jackhole". I hate players that think being evil is a license to be a jerk. I like players who realize "evil" means you can actually function in the world of "good".
My next campaign will actually revolve around how The Raven Queen is actually actually "evil" and Orcus is "good." He is trying to dethrone her because SHE is the one that is messing things up. SHE usurped his throne.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 8:40AM
#4
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
- Sesquipedalian
Date Joined:
May 20, 2001
|
What's scary is all the "Is this evil?" topics that pop up from time to time. If you have to ask, then chances are the answer is YES.
Spoiler:
Show
Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinon an absurd effort at best considering the topic!).
It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. (AD&D) is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek the use of imagination and creativity....
In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which an fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously.
For fun, excitement and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed.As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe or even as a reflection of midieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the later must search elsewhere. - Gary Gygax. 1e DMG.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 8:54AM
#5
|
|
|
I find myself both amused and confused by the people who insist evil PC's are inherently impractical and don't fit the game. It all seems very Pollyanna with her knickers in a twist. So really, are you playing D&D or The Sound of Music?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 9:21AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
If I recall, the alignment is "Evil", not "jackhole". I hate players that think being evil is a license to be a jerk. I like players who realize "evil" means you can actually function in the world of "good".
My next campaign will actually revolve around how The Raven Queen is actually actually "evil" and Orcus is "good." He is trying to dethrone her because SHE is the one that is messing things up. SHE usurped his throne.
I love this idea. Especially since 4e no longer has alignment shift penalties and Detect Evil/Good powers.
Although I do miss being able to punish Lawful Good PCs for not being jerks. Generosity? Neutral or Chaotic act. Standing up for the weak? That's what the Law is for, so the weak can stand up for themselves. Being tolerant of others' differences? That's how evil creeps into the world. Non-evil free-willed Undead? Gotta be a trap of dark powers. Infernal Pact Warlock? Expect to meet an unfortunate accident.
I hope the OP sees where this is going.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 9:29AM
#7
|
|
|
You do not need to be playing an evil alignment to be a "jackhole". What I find more amusing are the rationalizations that people put on the actions of their characters to show how they are not "evil' or "good".
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 10:07AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
I find myself both amused and confused by the people who insist evil PC's are inherently impractical and don't fit the game. It all seems very Pollanna with her knickers in a twist. So really, are you playing D&D or The Sound of Music?
QFT.
I agree that the game may not have been designed for evil characters, but there's tons of concepts the game was not specifically designed for but handles quite well. I also have a hard time believing that the devs didn't know that players would want to play evil characters. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.
It's not evil characters that ruin games, it's douchebag players that don't know how to play evil characters. And on that note, there are probably almost as many players that don't know how to play lawful good either.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 10:13AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
I find myself both amused and confused by the people who insist evil PC's are inherently impractical and don't fit the game. It all seems very Pollanna with her knickers in a twist. So really, are you playing D&D or The Sound of Music?
Really?
D&D is set in a world where the characters are heroically fighting for the survival of civilization against the forces of an opposing force that care only for conquest and wealth. Why would a character in a group feeling empathy for the enemy and working against the other characters not be a problem?
The Sound of Music? A musical that is about a failed Nun being a governess to rowdy children in Australia in the 1930's. A sappy film that has won 5 oscars and has absolutly nothing to do with D&D. What exactly are you trying to say here, that the group wants to all play the "goody two shoes" Paladin or that the DM should not care about OOC arguments durring the game?
Maybe one would think that more mature players would be able to play evil alignments and still get along with the group, but most that play a character of an evil alignment uses that alignment as an excuse to work against the group and do things that serve no other purpose than to benifit the character instead of the group or the people they are trying to help. That is neither helpful nor fun for the other players.
Look the PHB for a second. The Good Deities are there, but there is only a brief passing over of the evil ones. This is just one example of the slant for Players to play a "heroic" group of characters.
The Sound of Music? Really?
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 18, 2010 - 10:28AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2008
|
I find myself both amused and confused by the people who insist evil PC's are inherently impractical and don't fit the game. It all seems very Pollanna with her knickers in a twist. So really, are you playing D&D or The Sound of Music?
Please tell me you're not serious...
This sounds like those people who think EVIL is the right way to play. Read : team jerk is the right way, if you're not "EVIL", you're a goody two shoes.
One of my former players whines to no end about how D&D is meant for evil players, and that hasbro "bowldlerized" the game by making it heroic 
You remind me of the people who rage on about "moral***" on certain messageboards :/
|
|
|
