Community

Dec 31, 2012 -- 3:15AM, Uncle_Bupkis wrote:

I think I have to agree with Salla when it comes to alignment, it really does work better as a suggestion meant to help people understand your character as opposed to a binding straitjacket that governs everything you do.

As to the debate on whether evil characters can worth with a mostly unaligned or even a good party, well, I think it personally does depend on the quest. If it's an obviously well-meaning quest without much real potential gain for someone who isn't just in it for the sake of helping pepople, it's harder to justify being involved in it as an evil character.

But then, for those of you who have played Mass Effect, think of the Renegade/Paragon divide with Commander Shepard.

For those of you who haven't played Mass Effect, the divide is basically this:

Paragons were people who were sensitive to other cultures and races, tried their best to minimize civilian casualties, protect the innocent, and help people who needed it. A Paragon was someone who was conscientious and was inclined to giving second chances, even to people who might not necessarily have deserved it.  A Paragon would stop to help someone even if they had nothing to offer in return

Renegades were people who took a "my way or the highway" approach to other people, and generally took the approach that the ends justified the means and that whatever needed to be done to get the job done, would be done. The Renegade also was not averse to taking self-serving actions or ones that enhanced their opportunities at the expense of someone else. A Renegade got the job done, and so long as it was done, the Renegade really wasn't all that concerned about what had been done to accomplish it.

Fundamentally, both of these people had the exact same goal and the same journey to complete, they just completed it in very different ways. Both sides had reasonable points, and it's very hard to make an argument that one approach is exclusively right, or that the Paragon option was always the "good" (in the sense of morals or what benefits everyone the most) one. A Paragon would probably see a Renegade as an ignorant, blunt sociopath who was little better than the people he or she was fighting. A Renegade would probably see a Paragon as a naive, high-minded idealist who wasn't willing to make every last sacrifice to complete the mission.

In other words, I think in the right circumstances (and most importantly with a mature player) an evil character can co-exist fine with the other characters, without feeling the need to knife everyone in their sleep and without finding every available opportunity to do little evil misdeeds for no real reason. The problem with evil characters is you just need one who goes too far and gets the entire party in trouble by doing something stupid or worse yet turns against the rest of the party to sour one's view of evil characters as a whole, the rotten apple spoils the bunch so to speak.

In reality, a smart player doesn't go out of his way to be evil, he's just the guy who goes well beyond the pale when it comes to what he's willing to do to achieve whatever the party is looking for. He doesn't mind letting the city guards die fighting the dragon while he goes up and takes the artifact they need from the dragon's cave. Or he can just have self-centered motivations, in it for the gold, or for the chance to shed some blood or win personal glory no matter what the cost. There's plenty of motivations people do for heroes that are perfectly capable of being twisted to bad ends. A Paladin who fights with a zealous desire to uphold good and good values might not be the sort to strike a bargain with a villain even if it might mean lives are saved or that violence is avoided.

In other words, good is a point of view, it's subjective, and everyone has their own personal view on what precisely defines good, and there are plenty of classic archetypes that people use for adventurers that really aren't that well-meaning or "good" as a whole. An adventurer as defined by DnD is basically a mercenary by another name. The adventurer who is a warrior seeking to bring honor to his name or for a truly challenging fight might be seen as an ideal figure in one light, but a bloodthirsty killer in another. And is the Paladin in all his zealous commitment to his or her cause really all that right to go around imposing views or beliefs on others? Is any viewpoint so infallible that it should be held up as unchallengeable? Are all "monsters" really completely that, or are some of them just looking to be left alone?

Beautifully said . The mindset of Malgarron is that sometimes, to achieve the greater good, one must walk with a small bit of evil(that would be our halfling thief ). In the end, good ultimately will triumph.