A problem with Team Evil: D&D

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:02 am

Darth Rabbitt wrote:Evil characters can use Good things, but Good can't use Evil things.

First of all, like good and evil, the notion of "good" and "evil" things are somewhat silly. Unless the thing has sentience it really is neither good nor evil (only how it is used).

I've never had to encounter this in a campaign but I could really fuck up an evil player who tried to use a sentient "good" item of any real intelligence and power.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:39 am

Oh, I'm not doubting that a experienced DM couldn't handle it well, I'm just talking about most that I've experienced.

I was mostly talking about poison and zombies and crap like that.

I fully expect any that any even somewhat competent DM can make it so that any artifact of Good will cause some crap comparable to what the One Ring does to the Fellowship to Evil parties that use it, and cause them to find a way to corrupt or destroy it.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:21 am

Darth Rabbitt wrote:I was mostly talking about poison and zombies and crap like that.

You can never really get away from 1E mentality so poison never bothered me as it did with the lame-o-excuses of 3E. Back in 1E, the only classes that were prohibited from poison were "non evil" clerics and paladins; everyone else could use poison, provided the "referee" so allows. (Flaming oil, on the other hand could be used by everyone but monks.)

I've never had players who wanted armies of zombies. I'm not sure how I would handle such players, but not from the good/evil POV. Zombies are undead piles of walking undead flesh. (As opposed to skeletons who are animated dead bones.) There is a yuck factor there as well as a death/decay/disease angle that you don't get from nice old bones.

I have had a character play a Newhon Ghoul (not undead but eats anything it kills even humanoids) and that was far less disgusting (mostly because she had the secency to actually cook her food ... with herbs) but I just can't see zombies sanitized and divorced from lice and maggots and disease carrying insects.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:24 am

Soda wrote:
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.

If a DM is discontent with an idea for any reason, it WILL disrupt the game.

The DM has to deal with something they do not want in the game, and this will....holy fuck the same thread on two different forums....

The DM has to deal with stuff they don't want in the game, their disinterest or even dislike of this will show through in their DMing.

The DM doesn't owe the players shit. Don't like the game leave. Stop being a whiny ass bitch over some trivial feat.

There is more that can be played than this one stupid fucking feat.

Still nobody has yet tell me what is so good about it? What it will add to the game? Except one player will stop throwing their temper tantrum like a 4 year old.

You claim it won't take away from the game, but you don't know that in advance.

Well in your defense of it, what the fuck will it add to the game for ALL players, rather than the little brat crying to his mommy for another cookie?

Soda · Post by **Soda** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:55 am

It seems to me that the DM would be the one "throwing their temper tantrum like a 4 year old" over "one stupid fucking feat". You're right. How could a feat affect the game that much? Why can't the DM just help his players have the most fun possible?

shadzar wrote:The DM doesn't owe the players shit. Don't like the game leave. Stop being a whiny ass bitch over some trivial feat.

Do you know how low my opinion of a person would sink if they seriously said that to a player who was only asking for a slight reflavoring of a feat?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:40 am

Soda wrote:It seems to me that the DM would be the one "throwing their temper tantrum like a 4 year old" over "one stupid fucking feat". You're right. How could a feat affect the game that much? Why can't the DM just help his players have the most fun possible?

shadzar wrote:The DM doesn't owe the players shit. Don't like the game leave. Stop being a whiny ass bitch over some trivial feat.
Do you know how low my opinion of a person would sink if they seriously said that to a player who was only asking for a slight reflavoring of a feat?

This has gone well beyond only asking as it has been cited to be more than a single DM that was the cause of this thread.

So again, there must be some common ground. The problem seeming to stem from the player wanting this feat. It is the only same factor with all the DMs.

So maybe rather than blame the DM for not wanting stupid shit in their game, just pick something else.

I gues you would be one of those people to claim the DM saying find someone else is peer pressuring the player into not using the feat, while the player isnt doing the same to the DM?

It is no wonder someone crying over one commonly disallowed feat is having to go through so many DMs, because obviously the DMs get tired of the problem player.

Still what is this fucking feat?

Again get your priorities straight. Do you want to play a game, or bitch and moan about one fucking feat?

Obviously since many DMs are involved, then it isnt a want to play the game, but bitch and moan about the feat, so what difference does it make why the DMs wont allow the feat, since the person doesn't even want to play the game, they are already playing the game they want. Bitch and moan about the feat, in which only they can win because only they want to play.

4 pages because someone wants this feat so badly, they wont try something else? Holy shit see someone about your obsessive disorder.

As far as flavor is concerned, maybe no matter how you skin it the DM just doesn't like the flavor.

Just pick another damn feat, and right Chaotic Neutral on your fucking character sheet.

For all that people bitch about the DM having to allow everything as it is all made for the game, they sure as hell have no problems changing it as player wanting to reflavor it, but itch and moan when the DM does.

Grow the fuck up and realize the DM is a player and a person, not your babysitter.

Just pick a different fucking feat.

Insane Defiance, for example, lets you redirect mind-affecting spells to somebody else as an immediate action, and that target takes -4 to his save.

Found this, is this the fucking feat all this shit is about? This is what it does?

Does the DM even have those fucking Elder Evils in the game to work for?

The info I found on the book all seems to point this is a DM resource, not a player one. WTF?!?!?!

Maybe it has nothing to do with "evil" but DMs tired of assholes just digging through every book trying to min-max a character since the encounter rules are a pain in the ass in 3.5 figuring out the CR/ECL/WTFever.

It was a pain in the ass in AD&D people trying to jsut add an use anything, so stick to what the DM allows, and everyone will enjoy the game more.

I still just see it all as bitching and moaning cause someone cant have one feat amongst the probable 1000s of them. that exist.

So wanting to play an "evil" character was a lie, just about wanting to play a feat the DM doesnt want the players to have access to.

Seems 1000% reasonable to me. No DM wants to have to have everything in the game, even if some dry.

Have sought out similar feats for this craptacular system with a feat for everything thrice, so someone will likely return a feat someone more knowing of the game can find that would serve to replace the "need" for this evil one.

Gods_Trick · Post by **Gods_Trick** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:30 pm

A topic that made me punch in my lurker ticket. Damne.

I like playing evil characters. Why? Because I fucking love roleplaying redemption. Its my RP horse.

But evil =/= Evil. as a lot of people put out there, PC's are insanely violent and amoral. By our morality, Evil.

Alighments work exactly like political parties. Minorities hide and manipulate, or get beaten down. Doesn't matter is its the lone Necro in the Good aligned party, or the lone Healer among the wolves. Might makes right.

We call this 'beat down' intraparty conflict, or 'don't be douche, you're spoiling our fantasy trip'. Which is kinda cool if your party likes to RP, good material right there. Another point is, Good is reactive; Evil, not so much. Most Gm's can't handle a proactive PC.

But this has nothing to do with what Mignight asked. How to put Evil on your character sheet without being hassled?

Hate. Hate some obscure race in a splatbook. You're a hardcore rascist who goes out of his way to wear their guts - when she finds 'e. They're obscure, so they ONLY show up if the DM puts them there.

Greed. You won't cheat a party member, but thats because they will kill you if they find out. So what, the most money is made screwing over NPCs.

What else? If you have a mature group, have something squicky, which is hinted at, but never brought up. But sometimes your eyes glaze over when you see griffons ...

So, murder, sexual depravity, and larceny. As long as they are morally against the parties code, but never interferes with their fun, you should be able to write Evil Fucker on your sheet and still play in peace. Or war.

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:00 pm

shadzar wrote:
-snip- Batshit retarded autocratic bullshit

Why oh why do I keep clicking View Post?

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:25 pm

Yeah man, once you realize he's something like 0/N (where N is any arbitrary number) for decent posts then you lose that curiosity quickly.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:28 pm

Gods_Trick wrote:But this has nothing to do with what Mignight asked. How to put Evil on your character sheet without being hassled?

The problem is for some, or many they have met, you don't.

Plain and simple. The DM decides what they will allow the players to have access to for whatever reason. They were chosen to make the game and make it work, therefore you don't want them to do it, then run one yourself.

Hate isn't evil because no one can have it if not for love...

Greed isn't evil, just a Christian sin. Christians aren't in D&D.

Also when asked "why do you want to be evil" the answer given finally after some lies about "no more paladin builds" was because this feat requiring evil was the reason. That isnt about getting to be an evil character, but how to get this feat.

Even after suggestion of the reflavor, it wasn't allowed.

So it wasn't evil that was wanted but a feat that requires it.

So the next question to answer would be "why is this feat so important?"

That should have been the thread topic. "How to get a feat with the requirement of being evil aligned?"

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:00 pm

Gnosticism Is A Hoot wrote:
shadzar wrote:
-snip- Batshit retarded autocratic bullshit

Why oh why do I keep clicking View Post?

I stopped that a long time ago. I already accidentally read more than I want when others quote him.

Soda · Post by **Soda** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:46 pm

Sorry, I'm new. I didn't know he was an idiot when I started replying to him. But I guess it's fitting for him to be here, he's pretty much exactly the kind of person we're trying to cope with in this thread.

Sorry I unleashed this on you, Midnight. Don't worry, the rest of us understand what this thread is about.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:31 pm

I'm a bit loss with all the side tracked argument. What exactly is still an issue here?

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:17 am

It doesn't matter... I walked away for a few days when I realized how paladins must feel about killing evil. I honestly believe, from what I've read of this guy ... the world is really better off without shadzar, not to mention D&D.
Damn, what if he was the first gamer you met?
I didn't ignore shad and I should have, but it really went to illustrate my point. There are a portion people who are actually NOT going to let you play what you want unless its what they want you to play... On some level I realize that it has nothing to do with "evil" in the game sense, and more to do with, something really being wrong with them.
If I'm writing evil on my sheet for disney evil as lago says (as thats the trend or if I'm doing it for optimization purposes (which is okay really cause there's NO feat that matches that next spell level) or if its Evil: the redeeming; people should really get to play the character they want. As long as its not with the intention of squicking or fucking over the other characters, that seems fine.
... and note I"m not responding to Shad with this...
but Honestly, mostly I'm the Dm.
Maybe I'm pretty open with the game, maybe I'm just not an asshole, but I've worked in a lot of shit for people that might not otherwise exist.
Once someone wanted to play and elf, however, It'd been a pretty established thing that well "they didn't fucking exist" but hey fine, cue "you're the last known elf".
Whatever the case, when we get this shadtypes fucking with people about character decisions, or as long as that shits allowed really there's a problem way bigger than whether or not Team: evil, D&D has a problem that Halo part X is a better entertainment descision. Guess I should put him on ignore. Fucking epic derail.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:24 am

Midnight_v wrote:shadtypes .

I prefer to call them tARds. I mean, we had Elennsar, Taharqa, Balthazar/Caldazar, and Shadzar.

It's a strange coincidence that hysterically unreasonable douchebags choose have a noticeable AR in their name.

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:37 am

Maxus wrote:
Midnight_v wrote:shadtypes .
I prefer to call them tARds. I mean, we had Elennsar, Taharqa, Balthazar/Caldazar, and Shadzar.

It's a strange coincidence that hysterically unreasonable douchebags choose have a noticeable AR in their name.

Elennsar... I do remember that guy... and you have a hell of a point. Still, that doesn't advance the cause of team evil. I recently gave advice to someone on BG's when he allowed and evil group, who suddenly became Chaotic stupid. I told him "let them be evil, rape pillage burn, whatever the fuck.... then out evil them. Start using the elder evil: Rangorra, that give them motivation to "hero" at all. Its hard to enjoy such things in the face of "Real world destoying evil" or whatever"
So, well basically, there are going to be a few brick walls. So that has to be a rule. Acknowledge there's going to be some unreasonable people. Iteresting stuff...

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:16 am

Midnight_v wrote:There are a portion people who are actually NOT going to let you play what you want unless its what they want you to play... On some level I realize that it has nothing to do with "evil" in the game sense, and more to do with, something really being wrong with them.

You forget that not everyone has fun DMing a "bring what you want" game. We don't even need to be touching Rifts to understand that the kitchen-sink fantasy is not to everyone's taste. Sometimes the campaign a DM wants to run does limit the kind of characters you can play. If you're playing the amoral mercenaries trying to survive and thrive in a civil war fought with magic then an unflexible lawful stupid paladin might be inacceptable.

Or people simply have no fun DMing for some kind of characters.

Midnight_v wrote:
If I'm writing evil on my sheet for disney evil as lago says (as thats the trend or if I'm doing it for optimization purposes (which is okay really cause there's NO feat that matches that next spell level) or if its Evil: the redeeming; people should really get to play the character they want. As long as its not with the intention of squicking or fucking over the other characters, that seems fine.

I'd change that to "as long as it does not squick or fuck over the other characters or players". Intentions don't matter as much as the actual result. Road to hell pavement and all.

Gods_Trick · Post by **Gods_Trick** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:20 am

Assuming we're saying retardation aside, a reasonable person/GM will let you bring any PC idea as long as it doesn't ruin the fun for other players. Does that follow?

Gods_Trick · Post by **Gods_Trick** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:31 am

Trying to understand the Shadazar approach.

shadzar wrote:
Hate isn't evil because no one can have it if not for love...

What does this mean? Rascism and gay bashing are evil acts in our world, despite knowing both perpetrators do love somebody, just not funny coloured or gay dudes.

shadzar wrote: Greed isn't evil, just a Christian sin. Christians aren't in D&D.

I'm not talking about acquisitiveness, I'm talking about Gordon Gecko if you're not my friend I will sell you a 5 dollar product for 5000 and btw its medicine for your sick child greed. Greed kills, just at a distance.

The Christians got a lot of things wrong, but I'd say this wasn't one of them.

But okay, its your worldview. So what is Evil in your worldview? If its conspicious child eatinge and infant eating, yeah I can see why you don't let anyone play Evil alignments.

Heres the kicker though. What if your PC wanted to play Palpatine from the prequels. Got a lot of people killed from his greed for power, but no one even noticed he was Evil till to late.

Yet PC's wanting to rule kingdoms and empires is an old and venerable trope.

So do you let the player play, or do you say, in my world, Evil is baby-eating, so you have to be Neutral to cause the deaths of millions.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:35 pm

Gods_Trick fix your quote tags! You have one too many (/QUOTE) tags.

Gods_Trick · Post by **Gods_Trick** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:20 pm

tzor wrote:Gods_Trick fix your quote tags! You have one too many (/QUOTE) tags.

Sorry man. Didn't notice till the thread updated.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:31 pm

So what happens when you set out to run a game of dnd, and someone wants to run a goldenboy? Or a game of Mage, with someone wanting to play a Solar Exalt?
I basically agree with you, but there's obviously a line somewhere.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:02 pm

Gods_Trick wrote:What does this mean? Rascism and gay bashing are evil acts in our world, despite knowing both perpetrators do love somebody, just not funny coloured or gay dudes.

It is very important to understand that good and evil have specific meanings and cannot be confused with general notions of good and bad. The basic D&D definition of "evil" is where you put the needs of the self ahead of the others. It it not sufficient to hurt the innocent; you must also be doing so in order for self gain.

The earthquake kills many innoconents: The earth is not evil.

The driver goes into "road rage" and creates an accident that kills people: That driver clearly did not do that because of his own self gain, therefore he is not evil for doing so.

Remember that under this definition "not good" doesn't mean "evil." Just because something isn't evil doesn't mean it's not bad.

Racism and gay bashing are clearly "not good" clearly "bad" clearly "wrong." Are they evil? Well, no actually. Unless you are using racism and gay bashing for personal gain, it doesn't really count as "team evil."

...

Now on to greed. Greed is "vague."

Gordon Gecko is clearly evil, as he will easily put his own desire for gain above everything else. However, his attitude is more than just "greed" and includes a complete lack of any morals.

Daffy Duck, on the other hand is massively greedy (he will run towards a pile of gold and chase everyone else away from it saying that's it is his and will also brutally assault the genie of the lamp because he thinks he is trying to get his "treasure") but in no way, shape of form anything remotely evil.

(Remember the Christian notion of "evil" is that which keeps us from doing "good." Greed is the same type of "evil" as "gluttony" and "sloth.")

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:19 pm

Thanks for explaining that for me Tzor.

Fuchs wrote:Or people simply have no fun DMing for some kind of characters.

Sadly some will not accept that, because they feel the DM has no right to have fun as they are a slave to the players.

If the DM isnt happy, then soon no one will be happy.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:33 pm

There was once a beautiful elven girl who's only real motivation, in game, was to murder homeless people with an ice pick. She was chaotic neutral so banning evil really does little to stop such things.

The Gaming Den

A problem with Team Evil: D&D

it doesn't matter...

Re: it doesn't matter...

Re: it doesn't matter...

Re: it doesn't matter...

Re: it doesn't matter...