What constitutes as "good" and "evil" in D&D? The rulebook for fourth edition didn't really give much information on it. I'd like to know as, because of the lawful and chaotic allignments, i assume merely breaking the law is not what makes the distinction between the two sides.
Has it something to do with intent of your actions and, if that is so, what kind of intentions would they have to be to be considered as evil?
@TheOriginalBoman You are correct; law does not factor into Good and Evil; however, many evil acts are outlawed. Put most simply, an Evil act is one that makes others suffer for your personal benefit. A Good act is one that benefits others at your expense. Intent does play into it, yes. Good question.
Indentured cooperation is definitely a good solution for more than the alignment issue. A group of PCs that belong to a greater organization is more likely to work together, regardless of alignment. But even with full party cooperation, I prefer running without alignment, it feels too restrictive in my opinion.
@lorrdyn6 Running without alignment is an interesting idea, I guess i've been doing that for a long time without even noticing it. Unless required by my class my characters are always some form of neutral so my alignment is more shaped by actions while playing then before the game starts. Of course, im generally the helpful hero but if im really roleplaying a mean person I may require reward for everything I do, or let a person I dislike suffer thru my inaction. Dark grey but never really black.
I've seen campaigns implode because of one or two evil PCs where the rest were good or neutral. When I ran an evil campaign I put in an in game failsafe to help them to cooperate. It was a Blood Pact that they were all forced into doing by their boss. This Blood Pact could do all sorts of nasty things to them if they stole from one another, harmed one another, or even plotted against the other PCs with hired retainers as the ones who would do harm to them. It was all about intent, and I used it
i Have a question, i have a player in my game who believes that they are truly role-playing their character and end up attacking their own party members. anyway that i can reverse that?
@Rhykker because, a party member used dragon breath to kill the boss, but did 18 dmg to one pc. if he wouldnt have done that the party would've died, and the pc that got hit goes on a rampage and kills the whole party!!??!?
@WIERDgameFREEK If he's a barbarian who goes into a blood frenzy if wounded, it can make sense from an RP standpoint, but it's not very fun for the other players. How did he kill them all? They couldn't stop him? While you can find in-character ways to resolve this, if it's a real problem, I'd just talk to the player, explain how his behavior is detrimental to the group's fun, and politely ask him to stop. If he doesn't cooperate, then your group is likely better off without him.
This is always a messed up topic. I have run Evil specific campaigns in the past and though they ran well enough it is not my cup of tea. My players have never asked to play an evil campaign again. I do allow any alignment in my games but to be honest I find my players all seem to sort of become a unified alignment as the game progresses. Good players push to help, neutral complain and help and the evil complain and deny but in the end get coerced/bought into helping/coming along. /shrug
@TabletopTitan I think if I had new players I would restrict them. If I had seaonsed player I would probably make a judgement based on what Iknow of them. I don't like the idea of mixing alignments in groups. It makes no sense to me. Obviously I don't mean everyone is chaotic good. If I know a guy who is a dick, I am sure as hell not going to hangout with him. A CE, LG and TN characters walk into a bar. Doesn't make sense, To me of course, but I am old.
@masterofflowers Why does an evil character have to be a dick? Why does a good character have to be nice? You dont know someone's alignment unless you cast a spell on them, and that represents a form of suspiscion and affront to personal space that makes even a lawful good character questionable. A character can be friendly, charming, or sweet, and still think or perform wicked actions. Perhaps people are just playing it wrong.
@masterofflowers It seems many players have a desire to try out an evil campaign once, just for kicks, but I like to believe that, deep down, we're all good people and don't truly want evil to prevail in the end.
Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one man. At least in my game, that kind of threat is real. A game should feel real, it should feel natural. Evil and similar shades of gray are part of any reality, fantasy or not. Outlawing or policing your players is, as a bearded man would say "A jack on all of them". Your job -in my opinion- as DM is an impartial referee, not a line of rails for players to ride on. And I cant stand 'NPCification' if you're evil, but a player needs to be mature.
@TabletopTitan I'm all for shades of grey -- I love campaigns full of morally grey issues and antiheroes -- but I personally don't run campaigns with fully evil PCs because I don't want my campaign to turn into an outlet for players to unleash sadistic fantasies of rape, child murdering, and any other morally reprehensible behavior that evil opens the door to. (con't)
@TabletopTitan (part 2) Video games get away with letting you be evil by limiting what you can actually do -- you can't attack children, for instance. In D&D, there are no such limitations beyond DM fiat of saying "no" to certain actions. Rather than have to police specific character actions, I'd rather disallow evil alignments and let PCs take an evil action now and again. (con't)
@TabletopTitan (part 3) Encouraging evil acts, even in a fantasy setting, is something I'm morally uncomfortable with. I believe I'm generally fair in giving my players liberties, but I draw the line when it comes to issues that offend people's personal beliefs. As I mentioned in the vid, if everyone at the table is comfortable with evil characters, then great -- it could be a fantastic campaign. But no one should play a game that breaks their code of ethics. Thanks for sharing!
@Rhykker There's always the option to fade to black. You never have to go that deep down the rabbit hole. Evil PCs (Evil, not evil as an excuse to play chaotic stupid) should be just as 3 dimensional as good players. Evil is not an excuse, it is a shade that adds effect to a piece of work we call the character. Every GM is free to run his games as he prefers, so my arguments are void. But I play a neutral good character who is cold and calculating and distant, and a lawful evil character who is-
how do you deal with evil pcs? you get a mac lol
WATOKALA 1 month ago 5
@WATOKALA Hahah awesome, thumbs up.
Rhykker 1 month ago
What constitutes as "good" and "evil" in D&D? The rulebook for fourth edition didn't really give much information on it. I'd like to know as, because of the lawful and chaotic allignments, i assume merely breaking the law is not what makes the distinction between the two sides.
Has it something to do with intent of your actions and, if that is so, what kind of intentions would they have to be to be considered as evil?
TheOriginalBoman 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Rhykker
@TheOriginalBoman You are correct; law does not factor into Good and Evil; however, many evil acts are outlawed. Put most simply, an Evil act is one that makes others suffer for your personal benefit. A Good act is one that benefits others at your expense. Intent does play into it, yes. Good question.
Rhykker 2 months ago
Indentured cooperation is definitely a good solution for more than the alignment issue. A group of PCs that belong to a greater organization is more likely to work together, regardless of alignment. But even with full party cooperation, I prefer running without alignment, it feels too restrictive in my opinion.
lorrdyn6 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lorrdyn6 Running without alignment is an interesting idea, I guess i've been doing that for a long time without even noticing it. Unless required by my class my characters are always some form of neutral so my alignment is more shaped by actions while playing then before the game starts. Of course, im generally the helpful hero but if im really roleplaying a mean person I may require reward for everything I do, or let a person I dislike suffer thru my inaction. Dark grey but never really black.
sparrowhawk901 2 months ago in playlist D&D Quick Tips
@sparrowhawk901 Shades-of-grey-characters are my favorite. I'm a big fan of Dr. House.
Rhykker 2 months ago
@lorrdyn6 I like how 4e essentially renders alignment useless. I agree; alignment is often used as a straight-jacket rather than a roleplaying aid.
Rhykker 2 months ago
I've seen campaigns implode because of one or two evil PCs where the rest were good or neutral. When I ran an evil campaign I put in an in game failsafe to help them to cooperate. It was a Blood Pact that they were all forced into doing by their boss. This Blood Pact could do all sorts of nasty things to them if they stole from one another, harmed one another, or even plotted against the other PCs with hired retainers as the ones who would do harm to them. It was all about intent, and I used it
Samwise7RPG 2 months ago
@Samwise7RPG Great way to prevent campaign collapse.
Rhykker 2 months ago
i Have a question, i have a player in my game who believes that they are truly role-playing their character and end up attacking their own party members. anyway that i can reverse that?
WIERDgameFREEK 2 months ago
@WIERDgameFREEK Good question. What is their reason for attacking their own party members? Is it just, "because my character is evil?"
Rhykker 2 months ago
@Rhykker because, a party member used dragon breath to kill the boss, but did 18 dmg to one pc. if he wouldnt have done that the party would've died, and the pc that got hit goes on a rampage and kills the whole party!!??!?
WIERDgameFREEK 1 month ago
@WIERDgameFREEK If he's a barbarian who goes into a blood frenzy if wounded, it can make sense from an RP standpoint, but it's not very fun for the other players. How did he kill them all? They couldn't stop him? While you can find in-character ways to resolve this, if it's a real problem, I'd just talk to the player, explain how his behavior is detrimental to the group's fun, and politely ask him to stop. If he doesn't cooperate, then your group is likely better off without him.
Rhykker 1 month ago
Good topic.
WilhelmGuthstul 2 months ago
@WilhelmGuthstul Thanks!
Rhykker 2 months ago
This is always a messed up topic. I have run Evil specific campaigns in the past and though they ran well enough it is not my cup of tea. My players have never asked to play an evil campaign again. I do allow any alignment in my games but to be honest I find my players all seem to sort of become a unified alignment as the game progresses. Good players push to help, neutral complain and help and the evil complain and deny but in the end get coerced/bought into helping/coming along. /shrug
masterofflowers 2 months ago
@masterofflowers Evil is good flavor. If you trust in your players and their roleplaying chops, then you shouldnt have any problems.
TabletopTitan 2 months ago
@TabletopTitan I think if I had new players I would restrict them. If I had seaonsed player I would probably make a judgement based on what Iknow of them. I don't like the idea of mixing alignments in groups. It makes no sense to me. Obviously I don't mean everyone is chaotic good. If I know a guy who is a dick, I am sure as hell not going to hangout with him. A CE, LG and TN characters walk into a bar. Doesn't make sense, To me of course, but I am old.
masterofflowers 2 months ago
@masterofflowers Why does an evil character have to be a dick? Why does a good character have to be nice? You dont know someone's alignment unless you cast a spell on them, and that represents a form of suspiscion and affront to personal space that makes even a lawful good character questionable. A character can be friendly, charming, or sweet, and still think or perform wicked actions. Perhaps people are just playing it wrong.
TabletopTitan 2 months ago
@masterofflowers It seems many players have a desire to try out an evil campaign once, just for kicks, but I like to believe that, deep down, we're all good people and don't truly want evil to prevail in the end.
Rhykker 2 months ago
Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one man. At least in my game, that kind of threat is real. A game should feel real, it should feel natural. Evil and similar shades of gray are part of any reality, fantasy or not. Outlawing or policing your players is, as a bearded man would say "A jack on all of them". Your job -in my opinion- as DM is an impartial referee, not a line of rails for players to ride on. And I cant stand 'NPCification' if you're evil, but a player needs to be mature.
TabletopTitan 2 months ago
@TabletopTitan I'm all for shades of grey -- I love campaigns full of morally grey issues and antiheroes -- but I personally don't run campaigns with fully evil PCs because I don't want my campaign to turn into an outlet for players to unleash sadistic fantasies of rape, child murdering, and any other morally reprehensible behavior that evil opens the door to. (con't)
Rhykker 2 months ago
@TabletopTitan (part 2) Video games get away with letting you be evil by limiting what you can actually do -- you can't attack children, for instance. In D&D, there are no such limitations beyond DM fiat of saying "no" to certain actions. Rather than have to police specific character actions, I'd rather disallow evil alignments and let PCs take an evil action now and again. (con't)
Rhykker 2 months ago
@TabletopTitan (part 3) Encouraging evil acts, even in a fantasy setting, is something I'm morally uncomfortable with. I believe I'm generally fair in giving my players liberties, but I draw the line when it comes to issues that offend people's personal beliefs. As I mentioned in the vid, if everyone at the table is comfortable with evil characters, then great -- it could be a fantastic campaign. But no one should play a game that breaks their code of ethics. Thanks for sharing!
Rhykker 2 months ago
@Rhykker There's always the option to fade to black. You never have to go that deep down the rabbit hole. Evil PCs (Evil, not evil as an excuse to play chaotic stupid) should be just as 3 dimensional as good players. Evil is not an excuse, it is a shade that adds effect to a piece of work we call the character. Every GM is free to run his games as he prefers, so my arguments are void. But I play a neutral good character who is cold and calculating and distant, and a lawful evil character who is-
TabletopTitan 2 months ago
@TabletopTitan jovial, good-natured, and honest. I would be more concerned with a chaotic character than an evil one any day of the week.
TabletopTitan 2 months ago