The Gaming Den

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Looking back on old threads about evil on the Den, I found this fairly relevant quote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Absolutely nothing. In fact, when I played through The Red Hand of Doom, I did so as an Evil character. Most of the rest of the party was also Evil. We still fought for the human team because we got more money that way, and we even took mercy on defeated enemies whenever possible on the grounds that as soon as we won we were going to be running the show and therefore more living goblins was more peasants under us at the end.

The mechanical effects of being Evil, thus, were that we were allowed to use zombies, poison, and evil hobgoblin henchmen in addition to using curative magic and Giant owls. Being Evil allows you to be "big tent" and actually much more culturally tolerant and merciful than being "Good" does.

In the ways I care about - doing the most good for the most people - you can be a better person with the word "Evil" written on your charcater sheet than you can with the word "Good" written on your character sheet.

Evil is just a political party. A political party whose core value is selfishness and which is actually unconcerned by the actions of others. Whatever people at the Chicago School of Economics tell you, that's not actually good for the economy and the world - but it is better for the world than Good (a political party whose core value is helping people who share your core values and killing people who don't), Chaos (a political party whose core value is doing things other people don't want you to do), or Law (a political party whose core value is telling other people what they should be doing). Evil is just capitalist libertarianism - a defensible but ungeneralizable modern ethical and economic system.

Good is essentially indistinguishable from radical Islam, that's not an improvement.

Having Evil neighbors kicks ass over having Chaotic or Good neighbors.

-Username17

That's generally how I play evil characters.

Man I really agree with frank here and I KNEW he'd written something like this somewhere, which is why I was so suprised his response in this thread was somewhat different. Meh, this pretty much surmises my views on it to.
Belkar...
Roy...
Uhmm... O o t s?

Yes. Belkar being a indisputably evil halfling (bordering on Psychotic Evil, but its mellowed to a more realistic 'meh, I'd still rather kill you than pay you money, but people are watching' evil recently.

Roy is arguably Good, which actually seems to translate to him acting more or less like an ordinary guy who doesn't tolerate misbehavior from the shadier characters. I'm not entirely certain the character has actually been morally challenged, but then again I don't really read it often. I'd actually forgotten it until I made the post earlier.

I'd maybe not want to live next door to belker, in a modern suburban setting, no.
However, if we are a part of the same "in group" and we needed to defend or get rid of any other "out group", then yeah belkar, all day everyday twice on sundays.
Further, by some of the definitions given in this thread Oots wouldn't work, overtly... Belkars evil (or at least was evil for a good while), V (turned quite evil, evil brand, demonic pact and a genocide) Haley was borderline evil, Roy, the Dwarf, and Elan are ostensibly "good' but the party keeps on rolling, and really thats how it should be. Though according to what some of the chuchhill-its up above, Allowing an evil dude around makes you evil. I know thats not your posistion but, yeah its just a damn political party and totally anyone should be allowed to use poison, or zombies, or insane definance (vile feat) if they want. Barring that then take the freedom of choice out of it get rid of evil options completely I think 4th did that didn't they? Yeah.

Spike, don't respond to that crap.

It's just considered 'deep' and 'edgy' lately to pretend that the Bad Guys are the good guys and the Good Guys are the bad guys.

This kind of inversion (barely) works for D&D because the story it is based on is so fucked up and it was the 70s. It gets retarded when you try to apply it to, say, Order of the Stick.

Av, this goes for you and anyone on these boards. If you want me to respond to your posts, bring it up in the topic. Not in PM. Otherwise I'm not going to respond out of principle.

Av wrote: 1. In backstory, PC really didn't like something that was way more dangerous than them. So they murdered their family as part of a fiendish deal to get evil power with which to beat this thing up, and didn't really regret it afterwards. Since then, they've been acting like pretty upstanding hero-types, but if the party faces an enemy above their metaphorical weight class, the PC will bring up horrifying sacrifices to fell powers as a weapon of last resort. Will happily accept alternatives if they've got a decent chance to work.

This is in the category of 'would you shoot fifty babies in the head to disarm a nuclear explosion in a crowded city'. I suppose that Good characters would put up with it, but that level of grimdark 'ha ha you're forced to let a murderer go free or someone else will kill even more people!' bullshit is on another level. See: Killer Gamemasters who railroad paladins into doing evil things. Or PCs overlooking the actions of their sociopathic/stealing/Leeroy Jenkins-ish teammates because they'd rather derail their characters than not game tonight.

2. When an obviously evil force offers to collaborate with the party in exchange for them overlooking some of its nefarious stuff, the PC will clearly indicate that he/she doesn't particularly care about the evilness of this potential ally, but will abide by the group's decision.

Depends on how bad the PCs need their help. If they really don't need the evil person's help, then overlooking it is favoritism or laziness and they don't deserve the Good title. If they do need the help, then they're being railroaded into doing or tolerating evil things for the greater good. See above point.

3. When another PC expresses sorrow over killing stuff, the evil PC will confide that he/she enjoyed it, and suggest coping measures to deal with the guilt. Will attempt to sell the idea that if doing horrible stuff "seems necessary", you might as well enjoy it so that someone is happy.

Saying that you like killing isn't evil in of itself if the killings weren't evil. Not even if the only way you can get an orgasm is from killing. Granted, you should be naturally suspicious of anyone who enjoys killing enough to brag about it but it's not like a crime was committed in of itself. If the only way you can cope with the violence that comes with doing your duty is to enjoy it, then as long as it never leads to unnecessary killing what business then who gives a shit?

But again, this is Disney Anti-Hero crap. You can find all kinds of unabashed heroes who love fighting and injuring opponents. The show will make a distinction between 'bad' hurting (and even killing) and 'good' hurting (and even killing) but won't portray enjoying it as a bad thing in of itself. Unless you go overboard, but that's a lesson of excess.

4. After the party corners a villain the evil PC considers particularly suave or stylish, the evil PC will argue for mercy towards them on the grounds that the evil PC considers this villain "cool" and does not care about most of the victims, but will grudgingly go with the group's decision.

One: This isn't a trait of evil characters. You'll find that Good characters--as in the sickeningly sweet maiden who is a friend to all living things--will do something just as arbitrary. 'Aw, spare him because he had a bad childhood!'

Two: If the PCs killed villains before and didn't spare them because they weren't sufficiently cool (and that's the mitigating factor), then either A) the villains they killed in the past didn't deserve it or B) this guy really does deserve it and you're letting them get off easy over some arbitrary reason--it's really no different than giving someone a lighter punishment because they like the same books as you. In either case, this is clearly not the actions of a 'Good' person.

5. Evil PC will adopt a cute animal, and then jokingly suggest that the party leader should prove their ability to make hard decisions by kicking said critter precisely 2 times. Will laugh whether the party leader follows through or not.

If they're joking about it then they're not being evil. That's just them being snarky, like if I jokingly threatened to kill you with a spoon. If the leader follows through on it then they're not good, depending on your views of wanton animal cruelty and/or how badly they need this person. But whatever. This again falls into the category of 'I'm only putting up with you because more people will be hurt if I don't let you get away with some unnecessary evil'.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Spike, don't respond to that crap.

It's just considered 'deep' and 'edgy' lately to pretend that the Bad Guys are the good guys and the Good Guys are the bad guys.

This kind of inversion (barely) works for D&D because the story it is based on is so fucked up and it was the 70s. It gets retarded when you try to apply it to, say, Order of the Stick.

LOL interesting argument style. Dismiss what you don't like and persuade others to not address the issue. you espouse groupthink like an american politician.

Further, lets say you're correct... what troubles you so about people wanting thier characters to be "deep and edgy" and do so in a way that appeals to them? Especially, if that is the current trend. Its like all those people who made drow rangers with scrimitars. Drizztclone3845, there are some people who WANT to play thier favorite hero and will literally try to make wolverine with whatever game system they have to play. It really selfish and dickish of you and other people who take that stance like "Fuck that, you're doing it wrong" seriously .

Edit: Something else... I'm baffled as to what Lago thinks evil characters SHOULD be doing. Eating babies all the time or some such? I'm having a real hard time getting your position without just looking at you negatively.
Maybe our definitions are slanted.
So let me see if I can illustrate evil people in real life.
Politicians who use government money for kickbacks
All those cops who beat the hell out of people they stop...
...and the investagators that kinda let them get away with it.
Dudes who beat thier wives.
People who molest kids (though really thats some moral relativism because there's a big portion of history when there was not problem)
There are others too, but no means does that means that these dudes don't do anything heroic ever, or can't.
In D&D land there's that jack baurer thing you mentioned too "no mercy" etc.

Midnight_v wrote:Dismiss what you don't like and persuade others to not address the issue.

I meant that this viewpoint was not worth dignifying with a response. I'm sorry if it came across as censorship, because it's not, but I do believe I'm entitled to say 'that was so stupid that you're wasting your time thinking about it'.

Midnight_v wrote:Further, lets say you're correct... what troubles you so about people wanting thier characters to be "deep and edgy" and do so in a way that appeals to them?

Deep and edgy is around quotes because it was sarcasm. There's nothing deep or edgy about it. It's a shallow, puerile way to look at morality while pretending that you're all smart and crap by being all post-modern. I dislike this viewpoint because it's pretentious and ruins storylines, like in Goblins and Order of the Stick and Chrono Cross.

There's nothing really bad about "deep and edgy" characters. At least nothing worse than a player going on and on about how beautiful their drow in chainmail bikini is and how their breasts blah blah blah.

Midnight_v wrote:It really selfish and dickish of you and other people who take that stance like "Fuck that, you're doing it wrong" seriously

Hey, if you want to play someone that's Informed Attribute Evil (like Frank's RHoD character) or a Disney Anti-Hero (like you seem to want to do), go ahead and do so. I don't have anything against Drizz't clones who whine and angst about their evil heritage and dress in dark clothes and brood and go on and on in how they were trained in evil arts but don't actually do anything evil.

I'm just telling you that if you think you're actually playing someone Evil--as in the actual moral descriptor and not just as some cool title--you're only fooling yourself. And nothing in this thread has convinced me that you actually want to play someone Actually Evil In That They Inexcusably Hurt People, you just want to dress up in black clothes and call yourself an assassin and get the snarky lines. Because Evil Is Kool.

1. A big part of my issue is that there's a good portion of feats that no one lets you play because its "EEEEEVvvillll" and thats dumb, most recently I wanted to use insane defiance and several excuses were made why not but ultimately it was something like "Leave Vile feats for the bad guys. They will be using them often, so let them have their tricks." even when my initial premise was that I reflavor it to some barbarian feat or whatever, there are a few things like that and it irks me.
... oh and by the way... I find this response reasonable and I can communicate with this type of thing and even see your side of it, thanks for that.
2.

Deep and edgy is around quotes because it was sarcasm. There's nothing deep or edgy about it. It's a shallow, puerile way to look at morality while pretending that you're all smart and crap by being all post-modern. I dislike this viewpoint because it's pretentious and ruins storylines...

I can see that, in some ways but then I know it doesn't really ruin storylines, the whole WoD is steeped in that type of wankery and not that its "good" but it does seem popular. I suppose many people want to use the sliding scale of evil or some such. Like yeah the bugbears are evil and will try to eat us occasionally, espcially when all this is over... but those ...those THINGS out there are trying to extinguish the sun.

3.

I'm just telling you that if you think you're actually playing someone Evil

I kinda touched on that above. I don't think theres a moral descriptor absolute, but I can see why you feel that way, really I can. I actually deal with real honest to life evil mother fuckers daily, and they've done these horrible things, but when they're not being monsters, they're civil, and largely charismatic people... if a bit unsuccesful at what they really want to do.
4.

Actually Evil In That They Inexcusably Hurt People...

Now we both know fully well that all D&D characters do that, anyway.
Hence your popular thread on the front page.
5.

You just want to dress up in black clothes and call yourself an assassin and get the snarky lines...

Yeah. That'd really be nice for a change of pace y'know?
Now lets say you totally want to do that... and in some way that is a reasonable want, cause thats a pretty popular archtype... and no one wants to let you do that, not because of you but because:
ITS EVIL! or "The last time well let someone play evil... stuff... so sorry no" or Worse "Fuck you, no." It should really be allowed without all the damn hand wringing. Of course thats if no ones actually doing weird and evil shit in game to squick the other players, thats just another type of dickery. People just want thier character to NOT be Elven swordmage 3452, and knight in shining armor 12... let them have thier snark.
So I guess I see why 4th got rid of alignment and let pally's be neutral etc... if nothing else it cuts down on talks about morality.

Midnight_v wrote:I'd maybe not want to live next door to belker, in a modern suburban setting, no.
However, if we are a part of the same "in group" and we needed to defend or get rid of any other "out group", then yeah belkar, all day everyday twice on sundays.
Further, by some of the definitions given in this thread Oots wouldn't work, overtly... Belkars evil (or at least was evil for a good while), V (turned quite evil, evil brand, demonic pact and a genocide) Haley was borderline evil, Roy, the Dwarf, and Elan are ostensibly "good' but the party keeps on rolling, and really thats how it should be. Though according to what some of the chuchhill-its up above, Allowing an evil dude around makes you evil. I know thats not your posistion but, yeah its just a damn political party and totally anyone should be allowed to use poison, or zombies, or insane definance (vile feat) if they want. Barring that then take the freedom of choice out of it get rid of evil options completely I think 4th did that didn't they? Yeah.

The problem there is we have every indication that Belkar would just as happily murder people on his own side for the lulz if it got him something he wanted. So, no, I don't think you really would want him on your side even if you were in some dispute with another group... though I could see appreciating his skills, certainly.

Haley is probably neutral, given that she almost never just murders someone, and the only time I can think that she did, it was incredibly justified.


Essentially it seems to me that the prevailing view is that any single act, taken without any context, is enough to make one evil, full stop. I am aware there is support for this position, but I prefer not to consider everyone a paladin, who falls just because he failed to murder a pickpocket in the face or whatever. Of course, if you DO think that it just takes that one act, debatable or not, then OF COURSE you might as well write 'team evil' on your sheet and be done with it. Not only are you bowing to the inevitable, but you can do away with all that pesky 'moral dilemma' crap on the way, and HEY! Since everyone is eventually going to be evil, with the exception of a few saints and fools, no one will judge you...

Meaning now you NEED a scale to differentiate between a Haley, who murders a bitch in the face for a pattern of trying to murder her and her friends in the face, a Belkar, who spent a stretch of the comics wearing an enemies severed head as a hat, and who doesn't even pretend to care about people (see interactions with a lover for three hundred, alex), and a... um... lich, who regularly commits genocidal acts, torture, and is actively working to unravel the world.


To be honest, you keep referencing those Vile feats, which seems to make this threat nothing but one big bitchfest because the meany GM did not let you make the character you wanted.

Midnight_v wrote:1. A big part of my issue is that there's a good portion of feats that no one lets you play because its "EEEEEVvvillll" and thats dumb,

Ah DM making excuses. Everything is the DMs fault. Maybe you just have to strong attachment to wanting to use those feats, or maybe you should try using them form the proper side of the screen.

Quit being a dick to DMs, and run a game yourself to use those feats. Then you decide what is in the game and what isn't, and you get to use ANY feat or whatever you want to!

Obviously you are looking for a different type of game than the people you are playing with. Have you tried changing groups? Are you so single focused on using these feats you cannot play without them?

If all DMs you come across won't let you play your evil character, then maybe you should stop trying and find something else to try. Get over your irrational need to use this one feat when there are so so SO many more "options" in the game.

If your problem really is you want to use a feat or anything else the DM doesn't allow, then the problem is you, not the game, not the DMs.

You are playing with people you don't have similar enough playstyles with and should find a group more to your liking. If you just really wanted to try this out, then leaving a group to do so may make it hard to return after they continue without you.

Ask yourself the important question all players should ask. Is playing D&D more important, or using ITEM X to play D&D more important?

It really seems to be boiling down to player trying to exert themselves over the DM. Seriously pick something else and wait for a group that will let you play your ITEM X in it. But don't blame the whole of gaming because you have your panties in a knot because you can't play this one thing.

Sorry Lago, but Hell yes do I want to play a character that is evil with a capital E.

Achilles fits the "Complete Monster" trope pretty fucking well - he turned down a successful, happy life with his wife and family in order to go to war and eat people. He once murdered an amazon warrior, and while he grieved over losing such a beauty, somebody made fun of him for this, so Achilles punched him in the face so hard that he died. He came close to committing genocide multiple times, and promised to make somebody's afterlife a living hell for thinking that they'd killed him, before desecrating his corpse when he went for a victory chariot ride. He sabotages a war effort because his favourite rape victim got taken away from him for a bit. He even rapes a young couple to death, and is still regarded as a legendary hero.


And he's also a great character, adventures just fine alongside other characters in a party and is so popular that he gets actual, real life temples built to him, all the way up to being the central theme for a palace built in 1890. He is a fucking amazing mythical character who is only slightly less popular than motherfucking Hercules, and if I said I wanted to play a character based on Achilles then it would be a shitty dm and a shitty party that would be unable to deal with one of the most serious and legendary heroes in the history of human achievment.

The Illiad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, The Ulster Cycle, The Arthurian Legends, the legends of Uruk and Japanese mythology and blah blah blah all feature similar characters - they're more evil than half the shit in the book of vile darkness, and yet they are capable of adventuring and so on just fine. Even in the dnd videogames, characters like Edwin and Korgan and even motherfucking Sarevok can adventure alongside Aerie and Imoen and Keldorn and Mazzy and still not have major, party ruining conflicts. People can be actually evil(Korgan and Sarevok sure were) and still adventure just fine. To say that they can't is to say that pretty much every mythological cycle and dnd videogame never happened.

Spike wrote:I just like Frank claiming he'd prefer to live next do to Belkar than Roy.

Two things:

1) When I first read this, I recognized OOTS because of Belkar, but I was somehow unable to think of Roy form OOTS and thought of Roy, the guy who posts here. And then I thought, "what alignment is he?"

2) Well, going by Frank's definitions of alignment in that post, a better OOTS representation of Lawful Good would be Miko, not Roy. Similarly, you can have Evil characters that veer far from his "libertarian" Evil and into "eats babies" Evil. So simply saying you'd rather live next to an evil guy than a good guy is a bit misleading.

Midnight-- Why not play a Neutral rogue in black leather with snarky lines?

RobbyPants wrote:

Spike wrote:I just like Frank claiming he'd prefer to live next do to Belkar than Roy.

Well, going by Frank's definitions of alignment in that post, a better OOTS representation of Lawful Good would be Miko, not Roy. Similarly, you can have Evil characters that veer far from his "libertarian" Evil and into "eats babies" Evil. So simply saying you'd rather live next to an evil guy than a good guy is a bit misleading.

Yeah, my group calls Lawful Good Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Evil Chaotic Stupid.

Because both are generally defined and played really stupidly.

There is an underlying point to Frank's words.

Evil is predictable. All you have to do is keep it in the Evil guy's best interests to not bother you, and he won't.

Some Good guy might leave you alone, or he might get it into his head that you're Evil for one reason or another, even if you are not.

In the D&D world, where both sides are Murdering Hobos but one kills green skinned ugly people and one kills white skinned pretty people there's some real fucking merit to his words. You can predict when an Evil neighbor will be a threat, but not so much for a Good one.

Now if you use the terms Good and Evil to mean what they actually mean and not some bullshit definition that falls apart. But D&D has never used those words for their intended meanings, so real world morality falls short.

So in D&D, Frank is absolutely right. Evil neighbors are better than good, and LE neighbors are better than CG neighbors.

Vnonymous wrote:He even rapes a young couple to death, and is still regarded as a legendary hero.

This is based on some heavy, unsupported speculation by Graves that "Troilus dying in Achilles' embrace" is evidence of a sexual encounter.

Every other version of the myth (scarce though it is) has Achilles beheading Troilus because he refused Achilles' advances.


...


Anyone arguing that Good and Evil are inverted might as well be wearing eyeliner and listening to the Cure and telling their parents they hate them. Aren't you over that shit yet?

Roy wrote:Evil is predictable. All you have to do is keep it in the Evil guy's best interests to not bother you, and he won't.

That's easier to say than to do.

One of the problems with Evil and Good is that not only is Evil badly understood and thus incorrectly played, so too is good. The common problem with good is the false notion that the purpose of good is to attack evil.

A strict understand of good would demand that the only reason why good attacks evil would be under the "just war" principle; that is to say good attacks evil to prevent evil from harming innocents.

So the trick is to not harm innocents directly (or harm them through inaction as opposed to action). You get extra credits if good then has to harm itself in order to help those innocents harmed indirectly or through your inaction.

tzor wrote:One of the problems with Evil and Good is that not only is Evil badly understood and thus incorrectly played, so too is good.

I think this is the whole thread. When a DM says No Evil, it's likely that most brands of evil would fit into the game. What they don't want is Chaotic Stupid. That's the kind of stuff that ruins games. I've played in No Paladin games too. It's likely a reasonable paladin would have meshed with the party fine. But Lawful Stupid is a whole 'nother problem.

It's not the Evil or the Good-Chaos-Law. It's the Stupid.

shadzar wrote:Ah DM making excuses. Everything is the DMs fault. Maybe you just have to strong attachment to wanting to use those feats...
Quit being a dick to DMs

Wrong. The DM was being a dick to him.
He wanted the mechanical ability of that feat. The DM made the game less fun for him by disallowing it. The DM failed to make the game as fun as possible for his players just because his own ignorance couldn't get past the tiny [Evil] tag.

I had an early experience with D&D that leads me to agree with the 'Alignment as political party' idea. One of the most compelling parts about that idea is that to most average schlubs, it is the public perception of a political party that matters, not the deeper philosophy of the platform. So it's a cultural thing.

My first experience in an 'evil' campaign was playing as a faux-Slavic viking-esque Paladin of a god that was somewhere between Chernobog and Odin. Lawful Evil. It hit me that D&D definitely had a Western European classicist "us-or-them" thing going on, and no matter how atrocious the acts of feudal white dudes, so long as it was "us", the alignment on the character sheet would be Good. My experience after that over time was that my characters were always Lawful Evil/Aberrant whatevers, violent foreigners who were nevertheless very concerned with morality. Anytime there was some psychotic freak who wanted to rape and murder, but would justify it with- well, nothing- those were Chaotic Good.

These things of course informed the writing of Antipaladin Blues- I wanted to have a multilayer 'evil' main character who wasn't just "Bad is Good, Good is Bad LOL". So I put in these layers: 1. On Team Evil. He's an antipaladin, that's his occupation. 2. He is a decent guy, overall, wants the average noncombatant schlub to keep on living his life in happiness. 3. Is actually pretty brutal and deep down enjoys stabbing people in the face. Now, who is in his "party"? A corrupt government wizard, a power-hungry alchemist, a mercenary warmage, and an incredibly ancient lich who easily occupies "Eldritch Abomination" territory but who makes it under "hero" categorization because he considers the world to be HIS, and doesn't want any other abominations to muscle in.

The antagonists were the same way- paladins and angelic aliens. Now, I'm not necessarily tryig to set myself up as being authority in this case, but simply suggesting that creating characters under this method is viable, and that certainly could go for gaming. I mean, a lot of us roleplay so that we can stab monsters in the face and take their shinys, but that doesn't mean it has to involve puppy-eating, or worse... having a flat story.

Roy wrote:There is an underlying point to Frank's words.

Evil is predictable. All you have to do is keep it in the Evil guy's best interests to not bother you, and he won't.

Some Good guy might leave you alone, or he might get it into his head that you're Evil for one reason or another, even if you are not.

By that logic, the Evil guy could just as easily deem you as a threat or otherwise attractive target for reasons that you can't predict. I don't see how Good or Evil have anything to do with predictability.

I could maybe see that argument with Law and Chaos, but no one really knows what they mean anyway.

RobbyPants wrote:

Roy wrote:There is an underlying point to Frank's words.

Evil is predictable. All you have to do is keep it in the Evil guy's best interests to not bother you, and he won't.

Some Good guy might leave you alone, or he might get it into his head that you're Evil for one reason or another, even if you are not.

By that logic, the Evil guy could just as easily deem you as a threat or otherwise attractive target for reasons that you can't predict. I don't see how Good or Evil have anything to do with predictability.

I could maybe see that argument with Law and Chaos, but no one really knows what they mean anyway.

It's nonsensical...because the evil guys primary interest may be to bother you. That may be what he wants out of life. There is no reason whatsoever evil can't be capricious, and it frequently is.

Ask some of the abused kids of the world if it was super-easy to prevent their parents from beating them, because all the had to do was just "do whatever the parent wanted". This ignores the fact that many evil deeds are not motivated by rational reasons, but simply because evil people like doing evil shit. Wifebeaters want to beat their wives...they may say it's because she mouthed off or dinner was burned or whatever, but they hit them because they want to hit them...and so it is not predictable when they're going to get hit, and there is no way they act that will keep them from being beaten.

Hell, do you seriously think most of the people doing time for murder were acting in their own best interest? They're in jail, and most of the time they knew that's where murderers end up. And they still committed murder, because people are often terrible at judging the true consequences of their actions beyond the immediate.

I think the problem here is that some people are talking about how they think Evil should be in D&D, and others are talking about how it currently is.

As is, the forces of Evil are actually more tolerant than the forces of Good.

Evil characters can use Good things, but Good can't use Evil things.

They can do terrible shit sometimes, but they can also just be people who are selfish assholes.

In the latter case, they're anti-heroes, and those are popular.

And they get some cool stuff at their disposal (like zombies), that some players want.

But if you want to make that stuff Neutral, and have the forces of Evil be unspeakably real-world evil, that's totally cool, too, and I can get down with that.

And I'm guessing that's what the anti-Evil crowd is suggesting, is that fair to say?

If not then I have no clue what they're talking about.

RobbyPants wrote:

Spike wrote:I just like Frank claiming he'd prefer to live next do to Belkar than Roy.

Two things:

1) When I first read this, I recognized OOTS because of Belkar, but I was somehow unable to think of Roy form OOTS and thought of Roy, the guy who posts here. And then I thought, "what alignment is he?"

2) Well, going by Frank's definitions of alignment in that post, a better OOTS representation of Lawful Good would be Miko, not Roy. Similarly, you can have Evil characters that veer far from his "libertarian" Evil and into "eats babies" Evil. So simply saying you'd rather live next to an evil guy than a good guy is a bit misleading.

Miko, in Oots Canon, fell precisely because she WASN'T lawful good. Of course, she died shortly after that and had her own paladin mount diss her as she lay dying... because she fundamentally did.not.get.it.

The other paladin characters, without exception, are better portrayed than Miko was.

The entire Miko arc was a jab at how so many people PLAY paladins, and Lawful Good in general.

Hell, I know that and I read the damn thing in batches about once a year, when I remember to log over and 'catch up'.... speaking of which, I'm overdue...

Soda wrote:

shadzar wrote:Ah DM making excuses. Everything is the DMs fault. Maybe you just have to strong attachment to wanting to use those feats...
Quit being a dick to DMs

Wrong. The DM was being a dick to him.
He wanted the mechanical ability of that feat. The DM made the game less fun for him by disallowing it. The DM failed to make the game as fun as possible for his players just because his own ignorance couldn't get past the tiny [Evil] tag.

So a DM has to let anyone use anything so some whiny-ass player doesn't throw a temper tantrum?

What is so special about this feat? In all the shitload of feats, was there nothing else that could be used? Was it some min-max combo it went with, what?

Seriously, what the fuck is so special about this one feat, that caused this much horseshit and an entire thread on it?

shadzar wrote:So a DM has to let anyone use anything so some whiny-ass player doesn't throw a temper tantrum?

So a DM has to let his players have fun when it wouldn't disrupt the game at all? Uh yeah.