Cormyr and the Dalelands

I think it is a great idea but what is really needed to make it happen is DM support. Playing evil against other PCs is very hard, due to the OOC courtesy that we should not ruin other players' fun -and evil is about making life not fun for others. The most typical way evil PCs can be really evil is against NPCs -henceforth, DM support is a must to give proper targets for the evilness.

Thought #2: if we have a haphazard bunch of evils they ought to get evil with each other, too. Probably duking out with each other to determine the rank in hierarchy will happen at the beginning and from time to time. I think the players involved should accept that PvP, even permadeath might be the result of joining the baddy club so make it at your own risk and do not get too attached to those characters.

Thought #3: if we are accepting that the lifespan of our evils might be limited due to internal conflicts, we can expand on this concept and the group (or certain members of it) might actively put forth evil agendas which will naturally involve a counter-action from the good (and some neutral) PCs. How awesome would it be when the adventurers in Arabel got a hint about some evil cultists trying to summon a demon or some ancient evil, hurry to the location -and instead of some general NPC enemies they find some very familiar faces ready to stop them from interfering. All the surprise, the emotions and the events happening and unfolding would give an enormous amount of material for RP for everybody involved!

Some ideas of my own.

#1. Not all evils are super PvP prone. There are antihero sort of evils or even conflicted hero sorts (though borders on antihero there). Mind, these may come with a few 'neutral' leanings, but still a valid concept for evil. Mind, I do admit villainous was mentioned here, and that is definitely the important part of the discussion.

#2. Hope to hear from JamesDude soon about this! I think he generally puts a lot of thought into these things before making a post. He might have a lot of nice ideas already to start.

Sincerely,
Arya

I have a drow bard who is evil!  But I also have some things to consider for the group.

1)  PvP.  Bear in mind that some people don't like PvP on an OOC level - It's a very controversial subject.  It was summed up best by a friend of mine from Ultima Online - PvP is guaranteed to cause conflict but that conflict is not guaranteed to stay in-character.  I've seen threats of PvP completely destroy quests in progress and cause DMs no end of headaches in the past, and I'd hate to see any project or idea die on the vine because PvP gets involved.  PvP also has a way of taking a lot of the fun out of running an evil scheme - It's no fun to be foiled by someone 10 levels higher than you right-clicking on you then left-clicking the sword icon, just like it's no fun to not be able to counter the evil scheme because they'll do the same to you.  I happen to be one of those people who dislikes PvP, so if it becomes expected or even allowed I'm probably out.

2)  It's tough to form a singular evil group with a diverse cast.  Simply put, evil doesn't get along well.  Good guys can always rally behind doing good deeds and helping people, but evil is more complicated and more goal-driven - A pirate who wants to loot and plunder a village, a corrupt nobleman kidnapping people and selling them into slavery, and an assassin for hire are all evil, but they don't have any reason to interact with each other and even if they did, no reason to work together.  Many times evil actively works against other evil - If two groups do have the same goal they're probably enemies because they both want the same thing and they're not the types to share.  If you do want to make an evil group then you need a reason for them to cooperate.  In the past this was generally done by making a group of evil PCs that have some existing reason to work together (a group of Red Wizards for instance) but this hasn't tended to last.  People leave or make new characters and then it just falls apart.

The problems are the ones already noted. Either the character has no group to do evil with and eventually has to develop non-evil to be involved, or... They have a group to mingle with but it is hard to get a bunch of evils to confide anything to each other since they are their own worst enemies. A mercenary/contract group from the OP is a nice start, mind, and blackmail is still on the table. ;-) For better or worse, -mild- but productive and non-harmful metagaming where people are talking to each other on the need-to-know OOCly in advance is probably okay, too (note disparity between competitive/harmful metagaming and "lets-talk/ask-in-tells-to-meet-and-RP-together" metagaming; like this thread). So, I am happy that we have so many interested in this! It feels like it can actually work for a while.

The evil activity comes and goes, really. Sometimes, the entire server is evil or neutral. Other times, less so.

In the past, I played evil for almost a year actively (an antihero/conflicted hero evil) but said character ended up developing away from it due to having more goodly connections and events that eventually changed that. I have consciously kept my existing evil character I mentioned away from those scenarios at this point...so I do not have a repeat or a bleed into the same sort of character concept. That, and I see nothing that would pull that person toward that direction anyway, with the way they developed.

Redemption stories are good and I have a very soft spot for them and encourage them, but with a character that would never, ever go there at all, there is no roleplay with this current cycle for him/her to keep playing them. I would like the environment to start playing them more. :-)

Sincerely,
Arya

I've tried and tried and tried to go evil PC stuff on CD and every time it gets shut down, typically from me literally being told "don't do this". The problem is PVP, inevitably there will be PVP, inevitably there will be some metagaming, for christ's sake, I've had OOC punishments dolled out on me because of simply ENGAGING in PVP before (Honestly, it was more forced upon me, but the fact remains I have been KICKED FOR SIMPLY BEING IN PVP). The ultimate problem that I had was that anytime I'd ever attempt anything evil, people take any form of IC drama or conflict as an OOC attack on them. I have had to engage in 30 minute long discussions, constantly repeating myself over and over that "IT IS IN CHARACTER ONLY" when my character even so much as calls someone an asshat.

Sadly, the most successful (really stretching the use of that word here) evil characters (Bass, Voss, Mouse) they all tried to be evil and got everyone to hate them, but it also resulted in some of the biggest OOC storms I've seen on CD, partly because enforcement is not a thing. I can see how some people will be really slow to embrace, or ever even attempt to embrace the possibility of evil PCs purely because of how badly it has been done in the past. So really, I've tried time and time again, but the simple IDEA that there might be IC drama/conflict has generally had people tell me to step away from trying anything "evil".

Just my own experiences here.

The problem is really that effective evil is not really visible evil. So to truly play evil successfully, it has to be relatively unknown ICly with the primary problem being metagamey jerks who OOCly know about an evil or morally grey faction trying to sink it because "lol evil who cares." And yes, unfortunately, a lot of the known evil characters have been problematic.

This can work if the players are smart, and if they can count on all involved members working to make the group succeed.

Not every evil is going to be a "behind the scenes" guy. To every Red Skull (non-visible evil) there is a Sabretooth (Visible evil) or a Magneto (Visibile Anti-hero) who -wants- to be seen, heard and get their hands dirty. We cannot just say "Well, if you go evil, this is the path we want to see", it needs to be open to all forms.

See this is where i think the Underdark can come in for those who want to be open evil...it should be utilized more....

This just creates a secondary sand box that is exclusive to evil PCs. You can't hide it away and expect it to be effective, it has to be mingling and embraced by the whole. If all the evil (or even just a majority or portion of it) is confined to the Underdark, what difference does it truly offer?

Never said they would or should. The problem is that other forms just by the nature of the beast are less successful. Starting a visibly evil faction that openly does evil things is going to run into the issue of being on a server that has characters that have existed nearly a decade.

"Hi, I'm a lvl 3 Banite cleric."
"That's cute. I'm am epic paladin." *smite*

Is it fair? No. But it's likely to happen. I never said subtle evil was the only way to go. Just the easiest. You yourself called out the openly evil characters as problematic. I was agreeing.

Your previous post implied the opposite, Ladybug. The level spread problem is something that I've pointed to on more occasions that I can even begin to keep track of. As I see it, Evil cannot exist truly on CD until a few things are dealt with.

1) More expanded areas to suit these characters.
2) The stigma against PVP needs to be examined.
3) The stigma against IC conflict needs to be examined.
4) There needs to be DM support.
5) People are so paranoid about metagaming and the like that there will inevitably be the one person who tries to control what every other evil characters does/says/and who they RP with using both IC and OOC means. This needs to be discouraged.
6) The fact that most evil PCs we have had in the past led to massive OOC drama (and worse) means that evil PCs are going to need to be watched, but not discouraged. This will be a hard balance for people to meet.

I personally disagree with the necessity of that list, as none of that stuff is necessary for the things I have planned.

Just because it does not relate to your plans and ideas does not mean that it is not relevant, nor that these problems do not exist or have existed in the past.

I do not see the derailing, people are still offering constructive input that we should look over and consider before moving forward if this is to work. So far I've not seen anything making this into a less than tame discussion.

A second sandbox for evil characters could be a good start. Even if not a final or best solution, at least it would give some possibilities for evil PCs to be evil. Because right now we have practically nothing, that initiated this whole discussion.

We could make the Undercity and the Underdark area a kinda "hardcore" difficulty, with PvP allowed, with proper OOC warnings in the game, too. Go there on your own peril, if somebody does not like it, no problem, he can stick to the surface areas and Arabel. Of course that means that the Underdark areas should be enlarged to give enough room to play for the evil characters. And/or some ways for those evil PC groups to reach some of the existing dungeons for raids, like teleports or some extra cave exits/entrances to facilitate easier travel.

To further emphasize the difference between the surface and the Underdark, some changes in the shops could be done, too. Like removing all evil and necromancy related items, scrolls, etc. from the shops in Arabel and in the other cities. Liesel could also refuse to buy such items, while the Kelemvorite temple would buy them for a nominal fee to destroy them (it would be possible to sell those items there, but it would just vaporize, like items thrown into a trash can, not appearing as buyable in the shop at all). On the other hand, the pawn shop in the Underdark would not have such restriction and would pay full price. What's more, the shops down there could outright offer evil items for sale, contrary to the shops on the surface.

One quick correction: Necromancy =/= Evil, and the magic stores everywhere would know that. Let's stop spreading that stereotype.

Carry on.

Just as a reminder, there's absolutely nothing against PvP on the server.  But if you PvP in a city, expect consequences.  (Yes, that includes the Undercity which is Neutral-leaning-evil.  Just don't do it in front of the guards and you're fine.)  Unfortunately, you can't limit items bought by "evil," only by overall type.  Only way to mimic this would be to mark all evil items as stolen.

As a player with evil characters, I only have one that would go to the Underdark at all.  Hence my lack of interest.

And that really is the core of the problem with the "Evil Server Center" of CD being an Underdark city - just because you're evil doesn't mean you want to go down there. The Underdark is a bad, bad place, and just because your sheet has an E on it doesn't mean you're going to be necessarily comfortable and/or welcomed down there. There is a very specific subset of evil that can thrive in the Underdark, and not everyone playing evil fits into, or wants to fit into, that limitation.

Back before the Banite takeover, Stonehaven was the sort of place that was better for this kind of thing, but unfortunately marred by stigmas associated with certain players. Once the Banite plot is over, it might be able to be that sort of place again, depending.

Just here, putting my two cents:

1.)  I played on various Rp servers on Ultima Online and it was done with incredible ease, and the general rule was, "It happened, it goes."  And the rules were hardcore.  Now, I dislike the server due to OOC Drama, that other people made for me, regardless of any actual facts, stupid really.  But, the evil core?  They communicated with the good side, they made sure the drama was cut down, did everyone do this?  No.  Were there moments where favours and, could you please, not do this?  Yes, and we did those things, was I granted mercy?  Yes, and no.  Were there moments where a word or two would've helped?  Yep, and they were given, and there were altogether bad examples.  But, the point is, This is truly important. Communicate!

2.)  If there are moments where you are scared, and get nervous OOC, take a step back, and realize it should be fun for you, as much as it is for them.  This blends with the first point, but don't feel bad about stepping back.  Letting me or anyone know it's not cool, whatever is happening, can stop for a quick chat.  (see what I said about first?)  On this server, we did that, and other times, we set who was involved in at first to limit drama, and every so often outside players got involved adding more fun.  In the horrible situations, you are put into a terrible situation and you have to roll with the punches, it's just a silly game, and yes your character got evisercated, but you'll be remembered well, maybe get a gravestone.  A eulogy, or a funeral, players remembering your character, maybe a revenge plot?  There's moments where the results can be opportunities too.

3.)  Bottom line for me was...  It was cool.  And it made a wide expansive world, scary.  And while that's not everyone's cup of tea.  It may be for some, and you can step back and move on if that's your fancy.  Or you can totally get involved.  For me, the mysterious and dreadful, made more secrets to find, or to avoid.  Making choices, conversations, quirks, weaknesses, and talents, more viable when facing evil, or realizing the evil in characters we did not know existed before.  

All of these things inevitably add and take away from an Rp server.  You all can pick and choose what is what.  It should be pretty clear though.

love ya guys

As a resident non-PvP guy, paranoid wreck, and also one of the server's bigger rules lawyers, I can say that making any area a free PvP 'hardcore' zone is going to push people away and result in problems.  Remember that this is an epic server and the playing field is certainly not level.  While I'm not saying the players would do it I can point out that it'd be perfectly IC for characters like Elf, Aelie, Elzevir, or Kimbell to simply go down there and annihilate any evil PC that's offended them lately and they can do it so quickly and so thoroughly that they will never be caught.  You probably won't even ICly know it was them, so you can't even retaliate without metagaming, which is precisely why those characters would operate like that.  This is, from past experience, asking for trouble, especially since Shindig is also a starting city.

Remember that the good guys and antiheroes have a decade-long headstart and there are very few evil characters who could stand up to them one on one let alone in a group.  This makes open PvP a generally bad idea.  I know most of you guys and generally trust you, but I've seen this sort of thing far too many times to ever trust it.  PvP is competitive and competition brings out the worst in people.  Seen too many cases where rules were forgotten, ignored, or 'creatively reinterpreted' to let people get away with scumbag maneuvers and seen just as many instances where flagrant violations weren't punished because the people responsible for punishing it didn't have the power, will, time, or evidence to punish it.  So yeah, color me skeptical, and I will avoid any open PvP area like it was radioactive and I'm highly wary of any sort of PvP in general.  It's just not fun for me.

I have to respectfully disagree completely. My first DM application was denied purely because I engaged in PVP (I was attacked in a way that violated the rules, yet I got thrown under the bus). I've been told not to run certain events purely because they -might- encourage PVP. I have been told NOT to run events that require consent and sign up because they had PVP elements. PVP is a very touchy subject on NWN as a whole.


Servers like POTM, Sinfar and few others I could name all have some form of areas or rules where open PVP is permitted. POTM sees TONS about monster or Dark Power 5 characters who gain immunity to PVP rules, and a lot of the time start chain killing low level characters with their level 15 werewolf, or whatever or just a player in an open PVP area. I agree completely with Trylo that open PVP at ALL is a terrible idea, regardless of how limited a form. With places like Sinfar that have entire areas with open PVP, there is inevitably the one person who just camps in there and attacks everyone they see, which results in sore feelings when someone is just trying to move through the area to either visit a dungeon, shop, what-have-you.

A real den of evil would have its own epic level characters, able to match the power of the above mentioned PCs and making such a "simply go there and annihilate" attempts futile or very questionable at best. (Especially considering potential collateral damage of innocents which should restrain good characters somewhat from taking such reckless action.) First those would be NPCs but in time, PCs could take over those positions. Providing such NPCs is one example of the DM support the idea needs if we want to go through with it. If we want a little garden of evil, it needs some help to grow at the start.

The trick would be finding a DM willing and interested to do so who the evil PC players would trust to do the job.

More importantly, we have made a policy in the past of not providing powerful NPCs like that, one i am very loathe to consider breaking. The instant we give evil PCs powerful NPC protectors to fight on their behalf, we have to explain why they get that but we denied a paladin's request for a legion of church knights to raze Darkhold with. (Yes this is a serious request we once got.)

You also give powerful Good PCs targets to go after.  You'd have to make them extremely powerful indeed, or give them Plot Armor +5, to make epic PCs not consider ways to screw with them.

Yep. CDs loot especially is not designed with pvp in mind. Each of those NPC protectors would need to be like Lady Wyvernspur or Hogger or Yolanda in power and design to even last a few moments against epic good PCs. It would not at all be like making an NPC version of a high level PC.

Another thing.  With NPC guardians you'll also run into the 'City Guard problem' a lot.  The City Guard problem states that so long as DMs are either not online or all busy, players are free to ignore the city guards because they know the guards need a DM to possess them in order to enforce any laws.  This can be very taxing on a DM's time if they need to keep someone always on call to deal with potential problems since they need to react to the players instead of the players reacting to them.  And there are a lot more players than DMs.

Oooooooooh yes. This is already something we have a HUGE problem with right now. Definitely do not need anything further to exacerbate it more.

Generally I think we want to avoid encouraging open/random PVP. We want character conflict to be about stories, and mean something, not just random engine-based squishing. This goes for good aligned PCs as well as evil, regardless of who's using it as an excuse to go after the others. I would much rather see people scheme and plot and such, punctuated by the occasional killing as appropriate.

I think overall the best route to playing evil, or good, is to focus on achieveable goals, going after NPC targets, rather than feeling like you have to mercilessly take out your fellow PCs in order to prove how good/evil you are.

I do think that NPC factions should have appropriate heft to them, just not in ways that players can use. There's a difference between how defended the Underdark is against attack, and those NPCs being given to a player's command, just as there's a difference between having lots of good-aligned NPCs in Cormyr who would fight back if someone invaded, and letting some PC take command of them to go attack a place like Darkhold.

And for that matter, the Underdark does have guards, who are supposed to provide that sort of protection (generally). Paladins and their ilk aren't supposed to be running around openly there, much as evil types aren't supposed to run around openly in Arabel.

What I would overall suggest is to get a faction going - one that is general enough that it can encompass many types of self-interested evil characters, not just hyper-focused on one evil deity/etc. Lolthist Drow are fun, for instance, but a faction like that largely requires play of those Drow who worship Lolth. We could probably come up with something better that, as an organization, doesn't care about the rivalries and all (and perhaps encourages some within/among its members, on the side), as long as the goal remains focused. (Money? Power? something like that?)

Which then runs into the problem of 'Why are these super powerful evil guys protecting the weak and puny evil pc's instead of ya know.... ruling with an Iron Fist, Evil Town'

The Black Rose group that was started a few years back was a great model I thought a shame the DM who ran it had real life take over, but it held potential, a evil fixer as it where, providing neutral ground for evil folks to swop and share resources and advance their own plots and plans. For whatever their neferious purposes are (Maybe having folks who owe them favours, in places of power when they want to call them in, because sooner or later when playing evil it's time to pay the piper in some way or other) 

That sort of thing is exactly what i am currently working with people to get started thanks to the thread that spawned this discussion.

This "evil fixer" is also a very good idea and I would love to see that happen. However it is also not immune to the "epic good guys storm in and kill him" problem.

I think at the end of the day we have to make an OOC compromise here, for the sake of playability and fun. Something we have to do with some other things, too, due to the limitations we have enginewise, resourcewise, etc. Just for example, that Liesel is buying any amount of loot is a bit absurd, but it is comfortable for the players on this way and serves an important OOC purpose, so we accept it. We also make an OOC compromise by accepting re-spawning of the same mobs, especially named bosses in the dungeons. Normally, most of them should not return to their lairs once dead, and even if they do, they would change it, beef up defenses, etc. Of course, the DM and admin team do not have the time and resources to re-make the dungeons with new opponents, new traps, new layout, etc. We accept this, OOCly, because if you think about it only ICly, it just wouldn't make sense. The Escape from the Underdark server even had a rule about it, which stated that even if you grind the same dungeons over and over, you should RP all of them out as if it was your first run. It is a compromise, a little bit of break in immersion, but for a very good reason behind it.

I think that whatever evil nexus we come up with, be it only a fixer's shop or the whole Undercity the only way to protect it is to make a bit of an OOC compromise and to make everybody accept that it can't be attacked by the epic good PCs. Than we can come up with some IC reasoning, like "there are too powerful evil guys there, we couldn't beat them" or "that shadow broker covers his tracks too well, nobody can find him unless he wants to be found" etc. etc. which can provide an explanation, why the epic good PCs do not try to do anything about it, so at the end of the day, everybody is happy with the status quo.

We have a handle on the NPCs part, that's the DM's job.  However, I think the primary concern was those who want to be openly evil (a.k.a. Stupid Evil or Blatant Evil) will always face the fact that there are epic good guys around.

Remember, not all evil is "kill all the babies, kick the puppies, and yell in the square about murder and mayhem when a DM is on."  The most successful evil characters might even be suspected/known to be evil, but cannot be touched due to legalities or proof.  

Not to mention there are antihero or conflicted hero evils, though those kind of have bordering neutral tendencies commonly. Still, it is a legitimate sort of evil concept and works very well when people are concerned about "antagonizing" evils. Not all evils are about screwing over good guys "just because they are evil and should."

One evil person in fact could be the type who is very vehemently against baby-killing savage types of evils, and may cross the line into evil when they are punishing or hurting neutral people who they see as part of the issue (ignorance no excuse, etc). Otherwise, they are actually targeting other evils in their work (even while accepting collatoral in the process). A LE Hoarite exemplifies this sort of angle well.

Others are simply self-serving and may sometimes be generous to friends and family. Simply selfish but not completely on the vile darkness side of things (e.g., Mask). Different flavors and all.

Amanda Waller in Suicide Squad could be argued as a flavor of evil. She killed all those interns during an operation for simply being a loose end. Not usually being "nice" in her dealings in other ways, too. Beyond that, she was and is serving a non-evil or arguably goodly organization while doing so. Not to mention the other factors that came up.

Sincerely,
Arya

I think you have to be very careful with the idea of "anti-hero as evil" concept.  Most anti-heroes are neutral with evil tendencies, based on my observations client-side.  If you're primarily NOT evil, but only act evil in certain occasions (not looking after your own self interests, etc etc), then you're not really RPing evil.  You're RPing neutral.  Though I will note that being selfish and self-serving is in the description of CE.  

The occasional evil act doesn't make you evil, just as the occasional good act doesn't make you good.

Also, Amanda Waller is flat out lawful evil, not anti-hero.  Just because she's doing something "for the greater good" doesn't make her an anti-hero.

But alignment RP/debates are endless.

I never said she was being an anti-hero. ;-) I fully agree there.

But yes. Many anti-heroes and conflicted heroes do fall in the neutral with evil leaning category. I was just saying it was a flavour! Even if a fine line. And I do agree that occasional good/evil acts is not sufficient for crossing into any other spectrum. It is really just about degrees and quantities.

Agreed on the endless debates. There are a lot of debates. Honestly, I both like and dislike the alignment system just because some may not always agree on it, even with their background in D&D. I like the alignment system for, at least theoretically, being more sophisticated and with degrees to it in Neverwinter Nights. Cookie-cutter blatant CE is not the only way to play CE, or tyrant Banite LE is not the only LE (though common). Just as not all LG are about smiting everything evil - I can present an example of that in my vault. 

However, with complexity sometimes comes strong opinions as well as debates. Then some who may act they are superior for their own views over it. My only gripe about nuances in the system - not all like them. They also make these debates messier sometimes.

Sincerely,
Arya

The Red Briar used to be a bit like this as well.  Perhaps not classified as puppy-kicking baby-eating evil, but certainly shadier than a redwood tree on a summer day.  Could it be again?  You'd have to talk to the new management of the mercenary division!

+1

That should have said "The occasional evil act".... whoops.

Probably worth noting that what sort of acts we're talking about matter. You can get away with an occasional act of minor malice, but an occasional genocidal obliteration of an innocent village probably isn't going to go over so well with the celestial powers. 

+2 to what FW said.


Sincerely,
Arya

D&D's alignment system is frankly crap. I've always been more in favor of the Bedlam Axis manner of determining alignment. That being said, a few examples of how common tropes fail when applied to D&D.

As per D&D, Wolverine would probably be considered True Neutral, a lot of the bad things he does, he enjoys. He'd gone on berserk killing sprees tons of times because of [insert any damn reason ever], and just acted out on what he wants to do. Wolverine has always been a good guy, but he's just emotional and not mentally equipped to deal with a lot of the things he's gone through.

Magneto is another great example of an anti-hero that muddles up in this system. By the book, he would be considered Lawful Evil, when really Magneto is always forced into the "Evil" acts that he commits, and even states that he only accepted the name "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" because it allowed the X-Men and Xavier to play the heroes, drawing positive attention to the mutant plight. Magneto is LN, really.

Xavier on the other hand is considered...practically a paladin, the system would define him as LG. When you look at what Xavier does at times though, like robbing people of free will, changing who they are at the drop of a hat with his powers, sending children off to their deaths, being so selfish in never even THINKING that there is any other way than his way, and that stubbornness leading to the deaths of more people? Xavier borders on evil a LOT, but I'd still say he is LN as well.

Now we have Sabretooth, someone who would be categorized as CE. This does not take into account that Sabretooth is a slave of his biology and his upbringing, he's as much a victim as any other member of the X-Men. Many times Sabretooth talked about wanting to be good, aspiring to be good, wanting to be more like Wolverine, but there's this sickness inside him that is either a mental problem or a part of his mutation that does not allow him to stop killing (even though he has been doing a great job of holding that off). Sabretooth is really hard to define alignment wise, he is a rather complex character.

The problem that D&D faces once it tries to talk about morality, is that it forgets that there are many ways to judge it and simply saying "From the viewpoint of a bystander" doesn't work. If that DID work, there would not be centuries of philosophy debating what is and is not evil...and even then, they all look through the reference point of their own philosophy in relation to another philosophy. What is evil to an Existentialist is not necessarily evil when viewed through the eyes of a Theologist. Xavier stands as a good example here, Xavier has good intentions, he does, but it comes with such a massive body count, wouldn't the 'good' path be to lessen the thousands who have died because of Xavier's vision? Xavier is evil if judged by...say...a utilitarian.  What about Magneto? Magneto never throws the first punch, he does not initiate fights against humans, he does try to talk to people a lot like in the UN/Genosha storylines or most recently when he was dealing with the Hellfire club. Magneto, unlike Xavier, also really does not want to take a mutant life and avoids killing mutants unless he has no other option, and he ALWAYS grieves those mutants he kills after the fact. Xavier just bottles it up and moves on. And even at the end of the day, less people have died for Magneto's beliefs than Xavier's...by a MASSIVE margin. There was a rather potent scene when sentinels were burning down Genosha where Magneto did not wish to be saved, and instead die fighting alongside his fellow mutants, but the citizens of Genosha demanded that he hide and survive in order to bring some form of justice later on...and that surviving DESTROYED Magneto.

So when we're looking at how anti-heroes fit into this equation of "evil or not-evil", think we should look at it like this instead. Are they like Wolverine who weigh their options and only kill when they have to? Or are they like the Punisher style who just gun the hell out of anyone?

The other problem we have is that there is a massive misconceptions drifting through NWN about how alignment is determined on the Lawful/Chaotic standard. A lawful individual can be lawful and not adhere to local or government laws, Batman is a great example. Batman has his creed, he does not break from this creed, but he also operates outside of, and without concern of the laws of Gotham and the US in...practically every issue ever printed. A chaotic individual can certainly be someone who does not care about laws, has no morals, but follows the law because it makes like easier. Honestly, I think the problem would be better if "Lawful" was replaced with "Order" (Kind of like how this is depicted with Master Order and Lord Chaos in Marvel). Not all who are 'Orderly' are paladins or cops or boyscouts, and not all who are 'Chaotic' are LOLsoRANDOM! We further see the problem when we remember that this is a setting where manipulation, mind control magics, and brain washing are a common thing. Actions performed under mind-control/insanity/blahblah don't really play into the alignment of that character in most cases. Wolverine for example was one under the control of The Hand, they sent him out to try to kill a ton of superheroes. Does this give Wolverine evil points? No, he had no way of resisting or even knowing what he was doing. Now, Spider-Man for instance was INFLUENCED by the Venom Symbiote for YEARS. The symbiote never MADE him do anything, but just encouraged him to do things that he would normally resist doing. How does that play into alignment? Honestly, I think it shouldn't. Part of the alignment system is resisting what you do not want to do, no matter how hard it is. If you get drunk and punch a baby because you're acting like a dumbass, that doesn't mean that you really hate babies. It just means you're a drunk moron, essentially.

As Bella mentioned before, the "Tendencies" system is one that works very well, and one that I have been using for at least a decade when I can't convince people to go for Bedlam.

TL;DR: Alignment system in D&D is stupid. We should more carefully judge and measure alignments.

The clip is what makes this a beautiful post.

And yeah, totally agreed. Though I think the spirit of Bella's post was that minor act of malice shouldn't be weighed just as heavily as the genocidal obliteration of an innocent village. But both points are right on the money.
I mean, unless it was my village, and this village had the nerve to not pay their taxes for the third month in a row. They're practically begging for genocide at that point, let's be real.

That being said, I will take this opportunity to give another +3 to Bella's post, capping her at the 4 points any post on the internet is allowed. For posterity, FW's post will be given +2 as well to reach this cap, and I will award myself the cap of 4 internet points for inspiring this discussion in the first place.

Was I just looking for an excuse to use this image after binging clips from the show on YouTube for an hour in my pajama pants? C'mon, don't be silly.

We can only hope that what we get is more along these lines...

The morality system in DnD works with -for lack of better words in my vocabulary- "absolutes" or "objectives", instead of relative moralities. There are absolute or objectively good beings like angels and there are the opposite devils and demons. You _know_ that those are good or evil and that's that. The same is true for the PCs. It is a bit like Star Wars: you know that Obi-Wan is good and Darth Maul is evil, full stop. Why is this important? Because it is further cemented in by the spells and abilities which are working based on those alignment categories like 'smite evil', or 'protection from good/evil/law/chaos'.

If we try to bring in a relative morality system than all of those rule mechanics should be ignored, re-written, bringing silly results, or even more debates. What would happen if an anti-hero character got targeted by a smite evil ability? Or the above mentioned rampaging Wolverine? Would it work on him or not?

Because of these rule mechanics we can't ignore the categories and have to work with them, regardless how we love or hate them. We can play around with some relativities or flavors or colors but at the end of the day we have to put our characters firmly into one of those 9 boxes. Otherwise we have to throw out the whole alignment based chunk of the game mechanics, too.

At the same time, we must also recognize that alignment is fluid, and a character's alignment may shift and change regularly through their lifetime. Someone who was one alignment may not be so a few days, weeks, months, years later.

Which is why people throwing fits when a DM gives an alignment shift has always rubbed me the wrong way so badly. Those shifts are a necessary and important part of the system.

Yet the good vs. evil can be muddied up even in D&D.

Book of Vile Darkness goes into some scenarios where people who mean well can accidentally cause collateral damage due to a short sight on their end. This in itself is not evil, though they as goodly sorts would feel bad and try to make up for it. On the other hand, when someone anticipates and knows they are about to do some collateral, that is when it becomes evil. When they do not care that the collateral happened.

Book of Exalted Deeds mentions also that trying to redeem someone is a good act. Though some people, including some goodly sort, will be afraid of such people getting corrupted. It may not always be wise to try redeeming, of course. However, it is considered one of the purely good acts out there.

Intention should not be the main factor, but as demonstrated in the BoVD example, it plays when someone knowingly does something bad. If a person uses a relic and does not know it would cause contagion, they may not get those evil points (unless the relic magic-induced shift). When they know it does, though, boom. Evil.

Again, though. As demonstrated in previous portions of the thread, a single small act of malice or otherwise is not enough to make a major shift. It's degrees and quantities.

On that point, this is a +2 to what Edge said. Quantities and degrees, again.


Sincerely,
Arya

Postscript:

Also, on the note slightly less related pertaining to objective good vs. evil in D&D regarding monster types: Planescape has a few examples of fiends and celestials who go against their types. However, these should be treated as incredibly rare and at best only epic level characters with extraordinary experiences will ever be exposed to such nuances. You will find information on such things in the books, including Faces of Evil and the game, Planescape: Torment. 

As to Arya's example from Planescape: Torment, Trias the Betrayer is perhaps one of the best D&D NPCs ever created. Planescape also shows us that even the Deva and Angels are NOT all good. They present an existential evil in that they wish a form of control that inhibits free will and life as a whole. Their constant "purgings" are an all or nothing deal and tons of innocent people are put to death because of minor crimes. This is something we have examined on CD in the past with why common folk are even weary of Aasimars and half-celestials because they fear that the celestial will see something like littering as wrong and "purge" them.

On the note of short sightedness and fluid alignment, there is an amazing example presented in Magneto issue 17. When Magneto is trying to build up a new Genosha, a series of mutants are murdered by a nazi who is taunting Magneto. It turns out that the nazi is an illusion of someone from Mangeto's past, Hitzig, one of the men who commanded Auschwitz during his stay there. The illusions are the creation of a young mutant girl whose powers are spiraling hopelessly out of control and without someone like Charles Xavier around (BECAUSE CYCLOPS FUCKING KILL HIM), there is no hope of stopping her powers from growing more and more powerful and more mutants dying because of it. Magneto HAS to do something about it, so he kills the girl to save ALL of the mutants in Genosha, and potentially the world. Now, Magneto did the right thing in a lot of peoples eyes. He traded one life to save BILLIONS. Magneto understood what he was doing. On the surface, this is an evil act, but when examined in the long term it is not. Ultimately, when I view whether or not a character needs an alignment change, it is because of their motivations with the facts that have been presented to them. A character cannot be held accountable for unknown consequences that arise due to their actions, that's not something they decided, but if they know FULL AND WELL what will happen, than the blame solely lies with them. If a paladin was in the same situation as Magneto, they'd likely have not killed the girl and it would have resulted in many, many more deaths.

Also, seriously. Read this series. It's amazing.

That's a rather limited and poor example, as once an angel or deva goes down that path, they quickly become a fallen celestial.  Those that are truly celestials ARE all good (as far as base mechanics go).  As far as the celestials go, fallen celestials are no longer considered truly celestial (much like paladins falling are not paladins without atonement).  Likewise, if a fiend rises, they are no longer considered truly a fiend.

+2 to what Bella said too, really, even if I brought up those examples (though I was thinking a favorite of mine in this). The ones who go against type are no longer that type eventually. And yes, they eventually have the good/evil/law/chaos/abilities/whatever properties modified and replaced with the new equivalents.

Malkizid when he fell from being a solar was a solar type, but then smacked with baatezu as an additional type. Also, he started to have features that showed his fallen status in his natural form, like his broken crown on his head that constantly bleeds. (Therefore his nickname, the Branded King.)

I do a lot of work with him topside and had a lot of experience on playerside with DMs running stuff involving him. I think he would have been a better example of the point. With the other considerations noted.

Sincerely,
Arya

That's the point I was getting at. Outsiders have physical changes that reflect their alignment and place on the Wheel. Asemodeus is another example of an outsider who has changed alignment and become something else and there are hints that the army that Asemodeus holds in reserve contain a great number of fallen celestials who were with him at the time of his fall from grace. D&D has many examples of this happening (Tons of Planescape: Torment), in every instance they gain a new type or gain the 'augmented' subtrait. This is reflected in characters such as O, as well who was a human who spent so much time on the Astral Plane that he lost his physical form and ceased being human. There are minor examples of this within the Githzerai/Githyanki culture with material that ranges from Core, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms and Planescape in the form of the many Illithid prophecies and the Pronouncement of Two Skies. The Hag Countess is another such character who defied their typical roots and ended up becoming something else entirely. The planes and those who can walk them are morphic and everything is fluid on the Wheel.

As for the rest of the example I presented, look to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels would view something as evil that another group might not either due to desensitization or what have you. A victim turned into a vampire from an unfortunate attack would simply be viewed as something needing to be purged by a deva or paladin, meanwhile more open minded people might try to help the newly turned vampire try to get back to their life or find some medium for them to feed on besides blood. There is another interesting example presented in the Book of Vile Darkness about two fiends who just want to be left alone and live out their life in married bliss, but the paladin who finds them has to decide between letting them live a peaceful and happy life, or just kill two "Evil" beings because they are evil. That kind of blind "kill it cause it's evil, there's no hope for its redemption" is a kind of evil in and of itself. It's kind of like how Batman can be viewed as the bad guy because he keeps up the stupidly pointless struggle with the Joker instead of saving lives and just ENDING the Joker already.

It's nice to try and simply morality and alignment, but it's just not something that easy. Hell, even Star Wars, which is viewed as the simplest and most effective form of alignment systems has some odd cases. Knights of the Old Republic II (Also by Chris Avellone) show Revan making a massive personal sacrifice and turning to the dark side because he NEEDED the power it brought to stop an even great evil when the True Sith would return and served as a potent villain in order to help strengthen the Republic so they can stand a fighting chance when the True Sith arrived (A good thing to do). Kreia who is a grey jedi uses the Dark Side and the Light Side in her quest to destroy the Force because she views the Force as the ultimate puppet master and robs everyone of free will (She is trying to do good here).

TL;DR Impartial viewing of actions on a moral scale is really impossible without examining it through multiple perspectives and evaluating the outcomes because we ourselves are biased creatures. Kantianism vs Utilitarianism.

For the sake of not spiraling into a thousand countless arguments and alignment debates - which I've spent more than enough time in on other forums - I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. We have extremely differing mindsets on this subject and your explanations really read to me like a LE character trying to justify why they're right and Good is wrong - which admittedly makes a lot of sense in relation to your earlier comments regarding Magneto, who is probably one of the best poster boys for non-empire-building Lawful Evil in my observation.

Which is great as a character concept and in-character mindset, but not a standard I'd live by or follow as a DM, myself.

I think Elz is mixing up the Lawful and Good parts of the alignment in his arguments.  Celestials are not mindless purge-bots, but they do have codes and laws that they follow that may result in them not being shining paragons of super-awesome goodliness by our real-world standards.  Their default response to a minor transgression like littering is generally not going to be murder because they have enough intelligence to understand what disproportionate retribution is and enough sense to not commit it.  They're much more likely to grab the offender, give them a stern lecture (which may make the target wish they were dead), then make the offender fix the problem.

The vampire case is more complicated.  Yes a celestial is more likely to go right to killing even if the vampiric victim is innocent.  But there are logical reasons for that.  The celestial's thought process is going to follow a chain and come to the conclusion that killing the person, innocent though they may have been, is the best solution for everybody.  Remember, vampirism is hard to cure and in the time that it takes to find someone to cure it their 'innocent' vampire is slowly getting more and more evil, their soul getting more and more corrupt, and they're hurting more and more people just to survive.  Thus by killing them immediately the celestial is making the decision that sending their soul to its proper afterlife now is better for that person than going on a wild goose chase and potentially losing that soul to darkness.  The more kindly among adventurers might say 'But there's always a chance!' but the celestial has been around long enough and seen the situation often enough to know that no, for most people, there really isn't.

I did not mean to suggest that celestials might kill people for minor transgressions (Mass purges require Sodom and Gomorrah levels of screwed up), but from the eyes of an average townsfolk, this could be a valid fear when he suddenly is faced with a giant winged celestial being that is shattering his perception of the world. The vampire example was meant to show that it's really hard for us, as humans, to really be able to look at every situation and be a true impartial judge of morality without the tools I've stated previously and then some. Morality is a really tough subject and everyone will view it different because we all -are- so vastly different. That's why the array of evil characters we could see would be wildly varied and to best tend to it, one could be better equipped by understanding these moral systems and such. We as a species have been debating what is good and what is evil and why evil even exists in the first place since...Epicurus. Hell, one of the more popular debates in my circle of friends is "How evil is Batman? Is the Joker really a better person than Batman?" No, the Joker is evil as hell. Batman is...pretty evil too. That said, one of the best exchanges in comic history that is relevant to this conversation came from The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller.

Batman: All the people I've murdered...by letting you live. (IT'S A LOT!)

Joker: I never kept count.

Batman: I did.

Joker: I know. And I love you for it.

I read a very good advice to DMs long time ago which said: if the players try to logically explain to you, why their act was not evil than that act was evil. An absolute morality system, which DnD employs with the nine alignment boxes and representing those nine types with real manifestations of those forces (angels, demons, devils, alignment-tied special abilities etc.) is IMHO more about feeling than logic. Again, as in Star Wars, you simply feel if a character is good or evil. It might be colored, because not just the gray can have 50 shades to it, but the white and the black as well. But ultimately, when you come up with a character, be it a PC or an NPC you chose from white, grey or black, THAN color it to make it interesting. Because if you approach it from the other way you most probably will have issues about finding the most appropriate box for the character and can go into endless debates about why is he evil or not evil or chaotic or neutral, etc. etc.

Of course there are ways for all characters to change here, too. A minor shift means you simply change the shade of your white/gray/black. A major shift when you jump from one of those nine boxes to an other. Again the main thing is you have to feel what you want to accomplish with the change, then make it up accordingly. If an unexpected change comes (typically from participating on a DM event) you have to work/talk with the DM even after the event to make it all right and acceptable for everybody. As Edge said, if a DM gives +1 or +2 change to your alignment score it is a fine indication of his judgement of the situation, just giving you something to think about. Unless this would be the last straw to actually make the PC jumping alignment boxes it should not be taken too seriously, and if your character is at the border of jumping alignments than you already had a lot of such feedback previously. IMHO a DM should not modify the alignment score by more than a few points for each instance, unless some really earth-shattering happened, because than the player might feel he lost control over his PC somewhat and this is stressing. The same way we put character permadeath largely in the hand of the player, alignment changes and adjustments should be mostly a player decision, too. Exceptions might always happen, of course, but usually the above should be norm IMHO.

And speaking of exceptions, like earlier mentioned fallen celestials and reformed devils: we should not forget to filter out the distortion of the media. Like the question: really do more airplane accidents happen nowadays than 20 years ago or is it just the better flow of information and tragedy-focused newscasting making it seems so for us? Despite the many stories, novels, computer games, etc. which are about such exceptional characters, who were changed against their type, we should remember that it is a story exactly because it is something special. E.g for each Fall-from-Grace there are thousands of normal succubi who are doing their succubi thing just as expected. Their story would probably be boring, as we know exactly what they do, therefore it will never be a story. But they are out there! We should not let the exceptions with their better media coverage cloud our judgement about what is the normality and how things 99% of the time work when we put our arguments forward.

I'm pretty sure that falls into the same "exception that's an extremely minute percentile" as fallen celestials and risen fiends.

I know. Implied in the not likely to happen. ;-) I had a moment of nostalgia. I read Vampires of the Mist and loved it. :-D

Besides, it was a nerdy off topic point, hehe.  ^.^


Sincerely,
Arya