Playing Evil Characters & Factions

[Darvins]

Mar 16, 2017 0:34:50 GMT -5 Fire Wraith said:

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?)

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) 

[Edge]

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

[Mystic Warden]

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.

[Deleted]

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.  

[Arya]

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

[Deleted]

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.

[Arya]

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

[trylobyte]

Mar 16, 2017 12:29:27 GMT -5 Darvins said:

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) 

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!

[TheGuyThatPlaysAsJames]

Mar 16, 2017 17:37:32 GMT -5  @belladonna said:

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.

Evil acts don'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.

+1

[Deleted]

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

[Fire Wraith]

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. 

[Arya]

+2 to what FW said.


Sincerely,
Arya

[Not Batman]

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.

[TheGuyThatPlaysAsJames]

Mar 17, 2017 17:26:08 GMT -5 Fire Wraith said:

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. 

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.

[Garage Trashcan]

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