Why the fuck do people clamber to make Evil characters, even in games without alignment...

Barring a thorough geneology, of course.

> Because only dumb morons play good people who follow the rules in a game about fantasy.
Find non-morons and go play with them, because you're as bad as the perma-white-knight, maybe worse. I'll stick to mercenary behavior, thank you.

> You can fucking go outside and swing a fucking sword and get "good" at it so why are you fucking doing it in a game?
There's no magic sword/armors in the real world. There's no fighting dragons either. And chances are that if I try to gain any real-life XP, I end up shot by the police. And I ain't even black!

> If you're doing shit you do in real life like respect authority other people and that shit then why are you playing a fucking game aren't you suppose to be doing shit you can't do in real life?
There's a whole world of gray between those two extremes, omae.

>implying it's possible to do great deeds in real life instead of just being fairly decent
>implying people aren't regularly fucked over every day

I'm glad you're sheltered enough to think being evil is part of escapism instead of being good

> Lawful evil is the only flavor of badguy that can operate within the confines of a party of adventurers.

> Neutral Evil
Adventuring is an excuse for you to kill anything that doesn't share your skin color (and some that do). And a front. Scheme on the side.

> Chaotic Evil
Play a character that is less powerful than the current leader and a bit of a coward (too much in fact, to want to be the leader).

Bam! You can play team players in a non-evil group. Be the one to suggest torture / killing off prisoners and other easy ways. Never insist because you fear being thrown out of the group. Obey orders. Done.

Ive dipped my toys into that pool, partially at the DM's behest. I ended up becoming a minor villain that the party hated on a very fundamental level.

It can be fun, especially in collusion with the DM. A great way to prep a party to HATE the antagonist.

Nothing like sudden yet inevitable betrayals to pave the way for an emotional connection!

Dante assuming you mean Dante classic is as good as it gets though.

Because sometimes people are just horrible and want to live out being as much of an inexcusable turd as possible while having the excuse "It's what my character would do" to hide behind.

Because someone honestly believes "It's okay if my character is evil, it's not like the rest of he party will mind my character being a sociopath".

Largely because of the idea that having an "Evil" under your alignment field automatically makes you a puppy-raping psychopath is absolutely retarded. It's easy to play Evil and still be a team player, in fact, sometimes it's easier than playing good and being a team player.

Evil does not mean that you act on every impulse with no regard for the consequences as you murder, rape, and pillage your way across the countryside. Evil is being capable of making the tough decisions without having a moral breakdown. Evil people can still care for their friends and family, Evil people can still act selflessly in some situations. Evil is slitting the prisoner's throat because they pose a potential threat. Evil is launching the preemptive strike to destroy the orcs before they attack the kingdom. Evil is stabbing the Goblin children after you kill their parents to prevent them from growing up to pursue revenge.

I think the problem comes from players who take fantasy ideas that only really work in books and movies and try poorly recreate them in a tabletop rpg without realizing they are different mediums.

The idea of ruthless assholes who are extra murdery or extra backstabby work in a book or vidya game and can be somewhat enjoyable because a turncoat can serve as a nice twist or set up a cool fight.

When you bring that into a group rpg is when things get hairy. Without some level of skill you just come off as a dull or stupid, and when the player tries to pull that kind of shit off on another the flow of the game is disrupted and everyone is going to start taking every thing really personal. A new player or someone who lacks self awareness isn't going to think about that going on, and is probably why a lot of chaotic stupid rogues exist as baby's first D&D character.

Bullshit. Find better players.

NE: You understand that to get the loot/bitches/both/genocide/whatever that you NEED the party of do gooders, and that you can easily manipulate them into most of your evil plan with the right "spin" so that your evil plan appeals to their "sense of good", but you have to know that your most evil of evil shit has to be done on the DL, or else the jig is up, as the kids say.

Fucks sake man, think a little.

Freedom.

What makes me scratch my head is why don't campaigns just lock-off certain alignments to begin with? And whoever dips into these forbidden alignments will suffer some consequences that will probably end up killing your character off. It sounds like a shitty thing to do, barring off something from the players, but at the same time it makes fucking sense. You'll inevitably get fags who constantly harp on other players for playing anything remotely not good and even ostracize evil-aligned campaigns for some reason after another despite it being potentially fun to cut loose.

Problem players exist in all flavors, not just people who roll bad guys.

>I'm just flabbergasted that people think making an intentionally evil and backstabbing character in a group game is any fun at all.

Are you a babbycore piece of shit?

what the fuck is wrong with you autistic pieces of shit?

Don't you have any human values? Don't any of you have a single redeeming quality among you?

Why the fuck do you peck at each other? Why do you treat each other like garbage? Is this how you treat your friends?

It's cool, we bond and patch things up on penis inspection day.

Why do you treat each other like fucking animals? Don't you have any self respect? What good can come of this?

Just cause someone removes the knife from your back doesn't mean it won't leave a scar.

You somehow think that because being good your life is sometimes filled with suffering that being bad is going to somehow make it better?

Holy shit, isn't it way past your bedtime?

>Implying I'm good irl

Dante is soooooo not evil. Like, at all.

The problem is, while it can be done, that's not what ends up happening.

Playing a NE/CE character in a party of mostly good characters is like playing a Kender.

At best, you're tolerable but if you're THAT GUY, you end up being a distraction to the rest of the party.

I don't bitch around when I play a pretty evil character and the party doesn't trust me. I expect it.

Depending on the party structure it's also possible to give your party a failsafe that assures your loyality.

For example Ducky the Dwarf was one of my Shadowrun characters. He's a rigger that specialises in sensory and surveillance tech.

And he had his creepy van and torture cellar straight out of chargen.

The little guy was pretty much focused on his fetishes, all of them. I downloaded a list of sexual fetishes and made sure that Ducky knew each and every one of them and would use them whenever.

Now how would they trust Ducky with their plans?

Our GM and me formed a plan. Ducky came recommended by the fixer who had quite a lot of blackmail material on Ducky. If the dwarf misbehaved, the party could call the fixer and he would made sure that Ducky would meet quite a lot of enemies that wanted to have a chat with him.

Ducky complained but in the end made the best of the situation. He wasn't allowed to touch the party (no, not even when they are sleeping) and he could only use cameras and microphones with permission of the party. As far as enemies and missions are going. He was free to employ all his skills.

And boy did he use them...After interrogating some courier the party asked Ducky to dispose of him... 3 Sessions later they wondered who the new guy in the gimp suit in Duckys torture cellar was.

Because if done right, it can be fun to mix things up to have a group of villians/terrorists/bad guys rather than being the heroes all the time.

Not every group has to be a bunch of fucking Mary Sue lost princes

You can play an evil character and not be a psycopath, but the real issue is when the DM punishes players for being evil in over the top ways like
>steal car
>10 minutes later the mob shows up in three cars filled with armed men to take it back
>dm says it's because I should learn a lesson about stealing cars
>in a game where you play criminals
It needs to stop

Having an Evil player character doesn't automatically mean that they'll go out of their way to be difficult for the party. Doesn't mean that they'll stab everyone in the back at the first given opportunity either.

It's a certain talent of the non-dead, non-imprisoned Evil people in our world to keep a low profile when committing whatever heinous act they can dream up. Either that, or they work themselves into otherwise Lawful (and/or Good) institutions as a means of protecting themselves from retribution. If I'm some shiteating rogue who wants to keep on rogue-ing for a good long time, I'll take time to let a Good/Lawful party know that I appreciate having them at my side. This could either come in the form of the occasional act of restrain, or doing my very best to obscure my lower nature from them, or even vouching to preform tasks that a 'Good' player character might consider themselves above. Truth is, I could do these things out of the little goodness that exists in my heart; nothing stops an Evil character from having people he feels attachment to.

Play your cards well enough, and you could have the group you're working with start to see things your way, which is a fountain of narrative and roleplaying potential. You just have to be smart about it, same as having a character that's exceedingly Good. And I'm saying all of this as a fan of paladins, clerics, knights, and such.

A lot of people don't seem to realise that if you're being a dick to the Characters you're also being a dick to the Players, they seem to think that there is a barrier between the game and the players that doesn't exist. But Good/Evil isn't necessarily a precursor to being a dick to other players, a Character could be evil but care for and even go out of their way to help and protect the others in the party for example. Something like Walter White from Breaking Bad for example.

Would a warlock mercylessly killing people that wronged a person so badly that his patron, being a god of wrath, puts them on their bucket list to derve justice upon be Lawful Evil or something in the Neutral range?

They'd be a warlock of justice, so maybe even on the good spectrum? But definitely chaotic for the "mercilessly" part.

>Because if done right

Way to invalidate your fucking argument.

Lots of shit can be good if it's "done right," the problem is that most people are idiots who don't know how to do shit right, so you end up with a lot of fucking morons who think they're doing it right, only to end up ruining the concept through poor representation.

Which is why most people just remove the option entirely than trust people not to fuck it up and ruin game for everyone else.

Because the rest of the party are metagaming shits who know your character is evil OOC.

As long as you're subtle about your evil the players shouldnt find out.

here. Really, no. You just can't give that character to anybody, but well played, with real in-game incentives to collaborate, it can mesh superbly well.

Find a solid reason why "what your character would do" is collaborate over anything else and you're good to go. The worst that will happen is you being overzealous / simply proposing an easier (and less moral) way to solve issues.

Evil is not about the results, it's about the methods you're willing to take.

Most people are stupid? I guess you've met most people then? Doesn't seem reasonable that you could say that. I bet most people that play any type of TRPG And have played evil character went through fine and they had fun. Sorry you get mad at someone making a game interesting by maybe adding character developement ala back stabbing or betrayal. Go play a 2 player offline game babbygamer faggot

> Why the fuck do people clamber to make Evil characters, even in games without alignment, and then bitch and moan when the party doesn't want a psychopath to watch their backs?

Here: > most people are idiots who don't know how to do shit right

Personally, I think a lot of problems can be avoided by choosing better friends. That's why I said:

> You just can't give that character to anybody, but well played, with real in-game incentives to collaborate, it can mesh superbly well.

/thread

Yet most evil characters done wrong will basically torch an orphanage and rape a baby over something that's much more logically sound, just because they wrote a capital E somewhere on their character sheet.

Keep in mind, there are villains that I absolutely love that wouldn't work within the context of D&D due to how poorly written the abstraction of alignment is overall.

A thousand fucking times this.

There's a bit of psychology when it comes to people gauging whether they can do something or not.

If you have no experience and no idea what is involved, you generally think you can do it. That's why you have dumb fucks going "give me an hour and I can do what he just did" to any performance or piece of art/sculpture or use of machinery. This starts going down drastically the more a person is involved and trained in the craft. The long short being the less you know the more you think you know and thus the more you can you think you can do.

So you end up with two types of people who say they can do shit without any ill intent. The people who have done this for a while and actually have a good shot of pulling it off, and the people who have nearly no idea of whats involved in doing the process and will fail miserably unless the stars align. there is always going to be more of the second group.

> Most people are stupid?
> Doesn't seem reasonable that you could say that.

When I see what is targeted at the average voter, the quality of discourse of Veeky Forums, the race to being as dumb as shit monitored by racists/sexist activists, and the prevalence of Pathfinder/DnD, I think that's perfectly safe to assume, user.

...

Yes, that is why I typed:
> "You just can't give that character to anybody,..."
Stop making it sound like we don't agree.

And I'm sure that people have played Kender that weren't malicious kleptomaniacs or annoying cunts but I'm still going to ban them from my table, same with non-LE evil alignments and non-CG chaotic alignments.

Oh, my mistake.

I misunderstood you.

>As long as you're subtle about your evil the players shouldnt find out.

You rarely even have to ask 'evil characters' if they are evil, their players make a point of childishly rubbing it in everyone's faces because they're doing it for the attention and to 'be special'. If nobody knows and or can be 'offended' then they lose their motivation almost entirely.

Beats me, but I've certainly seen my share of that. "I like party conflict" is pretty up there in terms of red flags

imho, however, Chaotic Neutral being an excuse to lolrandumb is even worse. I self Identify as chaotic.

Also it is killing the den of bandits not for doing the right thing but because you don't like being threatened.

Being evil means looking out for your own group before anyone else.

This kind of relies on the idea that the other players are totally down with your character 'manipulating' theirs, which they might understandably have issues with.

Why not just play it straight? Perhaps the guy is evil, perhaps he enjoys killing shit and pillaging/looting, perhaps he doesn't ACTUALLY care about how much collateral he inflicts, but he doesn't want to upset the other party members because he genuinely values their friendship, so instead he makes a blithe comment, rolls his eyes, and holds himself back until he can indulge himself in a direction that the party approves of.

Some people confuse "evil" and "mustache-twirling villain who does the mean thing even when the nice thing yields greater benefits and lower risks". Being a sadistic reactionary with a boner for blood and guts is plenty evil, sure, but you don't have to be that way to be a bad man.

Hell, my most successful character was evil to the core and he was responsible for a lot of good things. He just did so knowing that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and that once in a while that meant you had to torture someone who had information you needed, murder someone outside of the kingdom's justice and pin it on someone else you need taken out of the equation, or simply allow the orcs to burn that village to the ground, kill its men and enslave its women and children in order to make the other towns realize just how much safer they'd be with you around.

But that image is Neutral Good

Evil just a religiously loaded word for asshole, user.

...