Some friends and I were discussing this the other night and we've been kicking around the idea of an evil campaign...but we've found a slight problem.

If you try to play an evil character in D&D, it seems like it would be hard to be evil without venturing into the "Dude....what the fuck?" territory or just being comic book evil and becoming ridiculous. It seems like it would be difficult to find a middle ground between Batman villans circa 1950 and Ed Gein.

On the occasions I've played Evil characters in D&D (because I think every group tries it, at least once), I've mostly just been selfish. I've never been a Blackguard or other motivated-to-do-Evil-by-an-otherworldly-power type, just generally a sellsword, assassin, or thief type -- but it's just been a matter of caring about yourself more than others. Someone's gonna offer my mercenary more money fighting for Zhentil Keep than the Dales? Sign me up. Someone wants a goodly noble ruler killed, and is paying me a lot of money to do it? Okay. That temple has magical treasures squirreled away that are supposed to be used to defend the faith, but I'm good enough to steal them? Yay, treasures!

Being evil doesn't necessarily mean being Evil. Just like in real life, half the time being "a bad guy" just means ignoring common decency and giving in to the uglier parts of human nature.

I dunno. I think that if you're just a "bad guy" or selfish... That's Chaotic Neutral, most of the time.

The thing most people don't understand about D&D these days (Or don't want to understand) is that Good and Evil exist as a Force, as a Entity (In many cases, literally, with the gods and their personifications). Evil simply is Evil, because it's Evil. Much like Fire is hot, because it's fire.

Humanity traditionally traditionally represents Neutrality in D&D worlds because humans have a fluid nature. They may veer into evil, or veer into good, but mostly, we're selfish.

Of course, I'm also an old school D&Der. I like my D&D to be classic Good vs Evil, stomp the monsters and loot the bodies type of gaming. If I want to play a game that examines the human condition, or to play fantasy world politics, or any number of other ideas... There are better games out there than D&D.

Plus...

D20 causes cancer.

Bull

QFTW

I think it partially just comes down to what you mean by "an evil campaign." Small e-evil is...well...everyday selfishness, greed, and lack of empathy. Viking raiders torching monasteries after murdering and looting, then running off with all the young women from a nearby fishing village, is small-e evil. Those Viking raiders doing so while beating human-skin drums, eating the flesh of the dead priests, and being led by a CE cleric of their storm god...gets a little closer to big-E Evil.

It all depends on how "D&D" your setting is. If you're going for epic good guy versus bad guy action, or focusing more on the grittier, lower-fantasy, aspects. Artemis Entreri is (early on, at least, I have no idea what shenanigans Salvatore's been putting him through more recently) a cutthroat, killer, assassin, and businessman, who's every bit as "Lawful Evil" in alignment as, I dunno, Fzoul Chembryl, the high priest to Bane, the dark god of Tyranny and hatred and stuff.

Artemis is what I'd consider small-e, Chembryl more big-E...but in the end, they're both considered Lawful Evil by D&D's alignment system. A Paladin will hit Entreri just as hard as he will Chembryl, despite the scope and scale of their evil.

In order to play evil characters, you really need to actually role-play. Most gamers tend to be a mix of altruistic and selfish. Rescue the princess, kill the dragon and loot the sweet sword? Sure! Sign me up! The characters are after fame, glory, and phat loots. Things that the players tend to want as well.

If you want to play evil, you need to think evil, and really get some characterization going. You still need goals and motivation, you can't just go around kicking cute kittens are calling it evil. You need to understand WHY you're evil. The easy way is get angry. Angry at the benevolent king who cast you out of his kingdom for loving his daughter. Angry at your father who beat you as a child. Angry at that other hero who always steals your glory. Then you subtract the whole 'rules and morality' thing, and go from there.

Most Evil are simply people without morals. Neutral being more indifferent, out for themselves types. Where Neutral might be Bull's idea of selfish, Neutral can and does choose to go the other way just as much. They act without regard to good or evil. Evil folk are just as at ease going against moral norms. Where a Good character might kill someone in defense (self or something) a Neutral will kill if there's reason, and an Evil will simply kill. It doesn't have to be a motive or an end in and of it's self. But they have no compunctions against it.

I'd suggest, especially with an evil party, to keep in mind that Evil characters can and do still have ethics. The order in which they live their lives and interact with the world. To use Critias' examples, you could have The Joker or Darth Vader as Chaotic and Lawful Evil. Or on a smaller scale, you could have somone like Kaiser Soyze or the british captain from The Patriot.

We could run around all day with "who's evil in the movies". A better idea is "who's evil in the world?" They don't all have to be Hitlers to be valid examples. Think about how , for example, criminal organizations work. Too often, people confuse alignment with common sense, and turn on each other at the slightest provocation.

Easiest way to run an evil game is to find some sort of uniting cause. Sometimes it's just money, a religion, political motivation, things of that nature. But with an evil game it is more important to have something to unite them. Also, you should have a good understanding of who's the power in the area. More than likely ,they'll consider over throwing them/ robbing/ killing / rising up in rebellion. In my experience, Evil characters are much more proactive than Good, as Good tends to be more reactionary.

Well, for Evil to work in an extended campaign, it needs a plan.

You need to figure out early on what your character wants out of life.

"Taking over the world" is a common plan. If a bit cliched.

"Becoming a god" is another.

Really, most variations of "I want power!" are pretty decent.

Otherwise without a plan, you end up just doing random petty evil and it gets silly and boring.

(as opposed to silly and awesome, which a plan can give you)




-k

Play a character that constantly raises the hopes of children, then drops those hopes from the top of a cliff onto some jagged rocks.

<Insert your name here> the Hope Ender.

Also, I tend to feel that the "Means justify the ends" is a far more acceptable reason for Evil characters than Good characters.

I think as soon as you get a "plan" or group together with other like minds, that having a Chaotic Evil campaign falls apart. The way I see it, if you are a group, you might band together for short bits of time, doing "evil" acts for fun, or to create more chaos or because something rubs you the wrong way, but you also are going to worry about the next strongest guy in your party and if he gets a little too strong, you want to kill him.

I see an evil campaign having each player going through a lot of character sheets and maybe having other party members band together to take the top dog out when he is too strong and then just rinse and repeat. I could see that being okay with a certain group of guys for a short-term campaign, but I'd see a lot of in-fighting and backstabbing going on as well.

Evil, ironically, is not always Chaotic Evil. Just ask the Red Wizards of Thay, or Zhentil Keep, or the priesthood of Cyric, or any of the other Lawful Evil organizations in D&D lore. Yes, there's a certain amount of infighting even there, but it's perfectly possible to have a group of lawful or neutral evil people united behind a common goal (usually world domination or some variation thereof).

Of course, and the destruction of hope, over and over and over and over, is a very good way to keep your slaves down. Let them get a little hope, then crush it beneath the heel of your steel greaves.

True, Evil doesn't have to be CE, by any means, but I think most other types of evil just end up being a normal campaign with semantical differences. I mean, there is not much difference between banding together to rid the land of all evil and become powerful demi-gods and banding together to rid the land of all things good and rule the world...in gameplay, I mean. You are still playing the same game, doing the same things, wanting to get more power and do it again.

Now, in between, you may go into a happy town and burn it to the ground killing all the women and children after raping them, but that's not too much different, besides the words being used, then going into a town of undead and slaughtering them, maybe collecting their ears or wearing their skulls as hats. I mean, the only difference at the table is that you have a party killing stuff that is supposed to be "good". That may be fun for a while, and some players may end up acting out some more evil acts for fun, because they are trying to be evil, but the overall gameplay is pretty much the same. And if you wanted to switch things up, then I think this would be a short-lived way to do it.

You can have some fun turning the "usual" on its head. Things like interacting with "good" characters who the Evil leadership appreciates because they've done things like slaughtered orc tribes in the name of goodness.

"Yes, we killed all the orcs!" could easily include killing all the orcs, including women and children. or watchign a tribe slowly die off, because all the orc women were kept in their village as nothing more than breeding stock , and without their male warriors/hunters, the tribe simply doesn't have enough to survive. Maybe interact with some of their older "good" characters and take a look at where they dip into evil acts simply because the setting says that the guys they fought were "evil" and therefore its ok to slaughter them.

Good times.

Heh, that orc slaying reminds me of a certain character... (Start around 25 seconds)

lol

Undead are pretty much evil by definition. Why not run an undead campaign where the players take over the world while managing the logistics of an undead army?

Also, you could do a Blue Rose parody where the players are the patriarchal bad guys and they have to assasinate the magic deer or what have you.

Dances with Orcs!

Evil is often caricatured with phrases like, "Up with Evil!", "I revel in my Evil!" "Evil wins again, Mwahahahaha!"

Truly evil characters don't think of themselves as evil. Either they don't give a damn at all about the concept, being either callous or sociopathic, or they feel as if the world has done them wrong, and are owed, big time, no matter the consequences. Such characters are much more delicious than the caricatures like Batman's opponents.

I think Bull is right about how D&D is set up - the bad guys will actually call themselves "Evil", and run around killing kittens and whatnot.

The trouble is, it makes a pretty lame campaign when you play those kind of bad guys. It turns into a pubescent gross-fest really quickly. So I think the small "e" evil works better in an actual game, even if that goes against the grain of D&D. Not that that's a bad thing - the D&D alignment system is pretty illogical and contrived, and is best chucked to the wayside.

The thing to remember about D&D alignments and RPing in general is playing to the qualities of your character, and keep these 2 (3) points in mind:

A) If your character is intelligent (IE 10 or more in Intelligence) then you should avoid doing stupid evil. Killing people "just cause" and stealing "because you can" and other things are just going to get you in trouble for little gain, doing those things would be stupid, and your character is not a moron.
B) Playing in an all evil campaign does not give you an excuse to go at each other's throats. I've seen it happen over and over and over again.
-B.2) Evil does not equal "Blatant Asshole". If you feel that the only way for you to express you character's evil is to be a dick to everybody else in the group, well, then an evil game probably isn't the best choice for you.

No. Some D&D bad guys will do that, in some settings. Not everyone with evil in their alignment is a crusading anti-Jesus, just like not everyone with good in their alignment is a hardcore Paladin.

I'm old school too. I like the idea of good vs evil, and in general, prefer the game where our entire party is Good or at least oriented towards that. But I've been involved in evil characters in campaigns as well.

From what I've seen, how well the campaign goes is dependent on the Evil-character's player and what type of evil they're playing. In this sense, I'm including CN as 'evil' as invariably in my gaming experience, the guy that plays CN is the guy that's playing it cause he wants to play evil but the GM said "No evil alignments". "I'm just rping my character guys!" as they use their CN alignment, which I eventually renamed Chaotic-Douchebag, to be an attention whore, campaign derailer, saboteur and well...douchebag.

We've had best experience with the LE character, who tended to be played with by a guy who took the Punisher, Judge Dredd, Darth Vader, Dr Doom approach, principled but bent. A character that could plausibly work with a good aligned group towards a common goal without ALWAYS betraying them. Otherwise most of the guys I've seen try to pull off the Lawful Evil at least had the benefit of being decent players that wanted the whole group to have fun. Not saying this always happens, but my lucky experience.

Here's some thoughts on why evil (everybody is evil!) campaigns may not always work.

1. Its hard to be special in an evil group. For some odd reason, being party leader in a 'good party' isn't that big a deal, but I've seen big issues when you try and come up with a party leader in an 'evil party'. Some guy always wants to be the Lex Luthor or Dr Doom. Unfortunately, there's usually more than 1.

2. Some Gms don't really have experience running an evil campaign, consequently you end up with an evil party more or less following the same storylines as a good party.

3. Related to #2, but both with gms and players, it can be hard to gauge consequences. In the good aligned game you usually stroll around smiting evil, and people love you for it. In an evil game, you usually devolve into smiting good populations as well as bad, and theoretically everyone should hate you, and you're only like 8th level so why wouldn't some higher group come around and kick your ass for being evil schmucks? The game can get derailed by metagaming arguments about how consequences aren't fair, or 'how would they know' or various related things.

4. What constitutes an 'end game' for evil campaigns? Usually as #2, its not much different from good ones (forge a kingdom, acquire power, whatever), unless you're playing the annihilation campaign which turns into HEAPS of fun (wheee.) when you've basically killed all the NPCs in a 1000 mile radius. Great, ruler over a barren apocalyptic world.

5. You end up at times with players thinking they can 'out evil' evil powers themselves.

The rule is that undead are evil. There are a few exceptions to this (like that special elven lich) but they're the exceptions that prove the rule.

--



These three are all related. Look through the monster manuals. How many creatures in it are described as a good/neutral/evil alignment on the Good/Evil scale? The answer is that it's tilted towards the evil side of things. Sure there are good creatures (dragons, celestials, etc) but those are in far fewer quantities than devil, demons, undead, abominations, base race flavors (like drow [fuck you Drizzt])....

What you're kind of forgetting is the rich set of gods that can exist in D&D (this is also why I don't mind using Faerun's deities for non-Faerun settings). You're in a world where the gods interact with the mortal world. Evil vs evil makes sense, especially when you think it might be a LE god vs a CE god. Bane vs Cyric?

I've done more than a few evil games in DnD (lately all I have done is evil games, better RP I find), and for them to really last any longer than a few sessions at most you have to do away with treating your characters like the gm does the bad guys in a normal campaign. One big realization is that just because you are evil doesnt mean you are evil to everyone.

One useful tool is having the gm make it that you aren't the top dog. Have an evil master.
-If you're drow, this could be the house you are in, and trying to either break free from or rise in the ranks and make the house more powerful
-If you need an evil lord, have it either be a Cleric of one of the gods they worship, a cabal of sorcerers, a dragon or anything that is much more powerful than them and can keep them in line can easily be used to give them goals to work towards and to keep them in line so the infighting is at a minimum

Also, if they/you decide to go solo and do the whole take over, remember, evil can hate evil as much as neutral or good, sometimes more so. The whole "this town aint big enough for the both of us" comes to mind. Maybe they clear out the mine of orcs for the miners, not just because they were asked, but maybe so they can manipulate the minors into working for them, or because the mine is theirs now and the orcs were disrupting the mining.

And finally, not all evil leaders are hated by their minions, they could be seen as the strong armed saviours, or the leaders of national pride. They could be the hitlers and stalins of your little DnD game.

If you read OOTS, then you've recently been treated to a wonderfully non-cliched evil character recently.

The character has built up an empire on an entire continent, but he doesn't actually have just a single empire. Instead he and his cohorts control 3 or so empires that are constantly 'at war' with each other. He figures this way no opposing powers will attempt to topple his big single empire if they think it is several smaller ones that aren't actually a threat. Similarly people can't really rebel effectively, because the only support they could get would come from one of the other empires that he controls, so the empire would be overthrown, conquered, and 'new' leadership put in place. It's like monster of the week except for empires.

Of course that is just non-cliched conquest plans. He is also non-cliched in that he doesn't really view himself as evil. He takes more of a 'well, if I wasn't doing this, someone else would, so why shouldn't I be the one to reap the benefits?' sort of stance, along with perhaps a 'if I didn't control this, there would be all kinds of war and death as the empires fought, so I'm really helping out'. Of course, he is also clearly evil. When slaves attempted to make a break for it (set free by heroes) and were recaptured, instead of simply putting them back to work, he formed them into giant letters and burned them alive to act as a (well intentioned) message to someone. Yes, he used burning people alive to try and send a positive message to someone, and didn't see the problem with that.

I believe that is Evil, and it is an evil that would work very well for a D&D game. It isn't that he went out and killed the slaves for the sake of killing slaves. They tried to escape and so he wanted an example made of them, and he wanted to express himself with giant flaming letters. Two birds, one stone (Oil is expensive people). So the characters don't go around killing off towns just for being there, they maybe kill someone who slighted them, and then maybe a couple people who tried to attack them for that. Then they pay their bill and go on their way. The corpses are someone else's problem (Or new servants if you have a necromancer). And yes, they paid their bill. Why? Because they're Evil, not total asses. All not paying a bill does is save you a couple silver, it doesn't make an 'I'm so evil' statement. It makes an 'I'm so poor' statement.

Also of course keep in mind that in D&D there is always someone more powerful, and if you go around flaunting that you are evil, you're going to get bigger powers to come crashing down on you. But if you aren't flaunting the evil, what's with the killing earlier? Well, he insulted you, gravely, and you gave him a chance to properly apologize, and then it came to blows. Just so happens that your blows where much better and (unintentionally of course) deadly. Then you simply had to defend yourself when you were attacked after that. And hey, even after being accosted by other customers, you paid your bill. You're obviously not that evil if you paid your bill. It's the little things that lead to a level 20 paladin not showing up to say hi.

I like to call it "Practical Evil".

I had an "exiled Drow" D&D character like that. Ended up with a high political position in the nation she lived in, headed up a globe-spanning spy network, and had everyone eating out of her hand, because she early on figured out that Information Is Power, and set out to become the ultimate information broker. Either she had the information you needed, or information you wanted kept quiet. And for the particularly rude folks, well, her being a 27th level archmage helped.

That kinda high politics game only works in a setting with a structured political system, though.



-k

What? No Spymaster levels?

She had at least 7 different classes/prestige classes, one of which was indeed Spymaster.

She was primarily an Enchanter build too, specializing in mindscrews and manipulation. Not much into the "direct confrontation" thing.

Commonly heard quote: "So, how much is your employer paying you? Would you like to double that?"






-k

If you want a good and nuanced Evil game, you've got to realize that Evil isn't really a moral alignment. It is a Cultural alignment.

More often than not, Evil characters come from Evil societies.


In the Real World, both cultural relativism and moral relativism are good and true. Plenty of cultures have practices that Westerners would find barbaric, that doesn't make them evil.

But in the D&D world there is objective morality. Cultural relativism still holds true, to a degree, but moral relativism does not. Because of this, there are cultures that are objectively Evil.


More to the point, the Ultimate Creator-Gods of D&D who made both Good and Evil Alignments were university-educated American Liberals from the 70s.

D&D's objective morality is Western Liberal morality. And knowing that gives you a lot of wiggle-room for designing Evil characters and Evil cultures.

In D&D, the Muslims Drow are Evil, not because they're baby-eating monsters, but because their cultural norms accept things that Western culture deems evil. Those individuals who are not Evil change their alignment by abandoning their native culture and Westernizing themselves, keeping only those aspects of their cultural heritage that agree with Western sentiment.

This Modern Western Liberal moral paradigm is also why you never see Paladins taking up the White Man's Burden. Though making the ignorant Devil-Children see the light would be a Good thing, Imperialism and Conquest are objectively Evil according to the established moral paradigm (this is a paradox caused by basing an absolutist moral system on a mostly relativistic moral paradigm, they do crop up here and there and should be expected in D&D).


Keeping this in mind, the only thing that is necessary for justifying Evil characters is that they come from an Evil culture. They accept and take for granted things that Modern Western Liberal Morality deems wrong.
This doesn't mean that they accept everything that Western culture rejects, just that the things they do accept are sufficiently defining to plug them into the Evil category.

For example, pre-Civil War USA is capital E Evil by the D&D standard, particularly in the South. Characters from that era are Evil because they accept slavery as natural and proper. They aren't evil because they abuse their slaves. Far from it, many of them will treat their slaves well and the vast majority will never own slaves due to their high cost. They're still Evil. They're still Evil because they accept that this Evil institution is right and proper. All Good Southerners of the era will be Abolitionists, in heart if not in deed. Just like all Good Drow rebel against the Matriarchy.

And as I said, cultural relativism is still at play. No one thinks that their own culture is evil, after all.

And now someone is going to ask how that works when Detect Evil is so easy to cast.

Someone?

Anyone?

Thank you.

Detect Alignment and the existence of objective Cosmic Good and Evil make things more relativistic on a cultural scale, not less. Evil doesn't necessarily mean evil and Good doesn't necessarily mean good. What it means is that some things I agree with are aligned with one inhuman cosmological constant and other things I agree with are aligned with the other.

For every divine authority that says Good is good, I can point to another god that says Evil is better. In this way I, as a mortal, have nothing to arbitrate lower case good and evil but my own cultural prejudices. Lower case evil is defined by things that I the D&D character don't like, not by things that game designers on a planet that I never heard of don't like. This is why most humans are neutral. Their cultural prejudices are mixed, some Good and some Evil. And most people are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Most Good mortals hold some prejudices that qualify as Evil, just not many. Only the truly fanatical dedicate themselves wholly to the ideals of an Alignment.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to have characters who are Evil and proud of it without being evil and proud of it. They hold cultural prejudices that are predominantly aligned with the cosmic principle called Evil. That doesn't make them bad people (or does it?).


The question you should ask your players is simple, what defining cultural beliefs does this character hold that Modern Western society would define as evil. One Big Evil prejudice is sufficient, though many Little Evil prejudices can add up to shock the conscience.

Examples taken from real world cultures.

Slavery: Slavery was once very common. Today it is considered evil and in D&D it is considered Evil. The relationship is not necessarily abusive, though it is inherently exploitative. Even if abuse is outlawed and non-existent, slavery is still Evil. This applies to all forms of chattel slavery and indentured servitude.

Misogyny/Misandry: The great crime of the Drow. You don't need unwavering faith in unisex restrooms to be Good, but the belief that one sex is inherently inferior is Evil.

Racism: Discriminating against Orcs because they're Always Chaotic Evil is Good. Discriminating against Orcs because they're Orcs is Evil. Good uses Detect Alignment to judge people, not skin color. Again, this is about believing that other races are inherently inferior. It isn't about looking in the Monster Manual and deciding that hiring a Troll nanny is a bad idea.

In fact, the systemic dehumanization of any class of people is pretty much Evil. It is also extremely common in human history. If you consider any group of people to be inherently inferior to you, then you're Evil. This doesn't mean that Good can't judge groups by past deeds, of course.

Pederasty: Now this is a good one. Buggering boys is Evil, not because it is gay, but because of the inherient power difference. At least, that's how a Modern American would see it. An Ancient Greek would say to that, "Wha'chu talkin' bout, Willis?" The Ancient Greeks will tell you that it is a mutually beneficial and mutually pleasurable relationship. The key is the power imbalance. If you consider sexual relationships with massive power imbalances to be normal, then you're Evil.

Torture:There was a time when courts wouldn't consider testimony to be reliable unless it was extracted via torture. That time is long gone. If you believe that torture should be a standard part of the judicial system, then you're Evil.

Human Sacrifice: That's fairly common amongst churches of Evil gods in D&D. It also wasn't particularly uncommon on Earth. Sometimes the victim is willing, seeing it as an honor and a privilege. Sometimes the victim is an enemy or a criminal who would be executed anyway. It doesn't matter. It's all Evil. The point is that your character won't see it as 'mha ha ha' mustache-twirling villainy. Characters who participate in such sacrifices will see them as profoundly sacred, holy, and beautiful acts. Such ceremonies are reasons for joy for characters who believe in them, not horror.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

The point is that your Evil characters will have beliefs that are alien to your Western or Western-influenced values. They will take these beliefs for granted and act according to them. That's what makes them Evil.


Your Evil PCs shouldn't be puppy-raping evil. "I like murder" is a perfectly valid motivation for a villain, but it is a crappy motivation for a villain. You can get one session of fun out of playing Ted Bundy, serial killer; but the sky's the limit when you're playing Robert E. Lee, Confederate General.

The great thing about this perspective is that Evil characters can work with each other, and with Good characters, with few exceptions. Your villain protagonists will not be antagonistic to all Good things all the time, and can easily share goals with the designated heroes.



My suggestion: The PCs grew up together in an Evil city. They know it's an Evil city because they have Detect Alignment Spells. But they don't care. It's their home and they love it, they accept it for what it is, and they embrace its values. As a result, they pretty much see nothing wrong with things that Detect as Evil. They also have slanted values that make them Detect as Evil.

Bonus points if this Evil city is in Baator.

Anyway they grew up, and they want out of their humdrum peasant existence, so that take PC levels and apply for menial jobs with the local government. Lets say the Infernal Bureaucracy, assuming that they grew up in Baator (it does suck when entire towns get planeshifted). There is a minor crisis that requires someone with PC levels to handle (say collecting a soul that tried to cheat its way out of Hell by gaining immortality, assuming that PCs are employees of Baator's Bureaucracy), and they're stuck with it. Their job, of course, takes them out adventuring, and they're adventuring for an Evil cause. And they see nothing wrong with that.


The social norms and standards that they grew up with will inform their every decision, and will likely freak out Good people (and Good people will freak them out a little), producing some interesting values dissonance. But because they're not Chaotic Stupic Soulstabber McKillshitters, they have little difficulty working around this values dissonance and don't get into fights with every Good character they meet.

An interesting and thought provoking essay, hyzmarca.

This one point suggests a question. While our modern liberal west espouses equality in principle, in action and fact there is no human society that does not practice this 'evil'. Would we all Detect as Evil, then?

Hyzmarca wrote the most entertaining read I've had all year.

I agree, this was a most interesting essay. And quite enjoyable to read, so thank you, hyzmarca, for taking the time to post it.

As for would all humans detect as evil, I would say, without a doubt, most would. I know that I believe that the sexes are not equal. There are certainly qualities that make one sex inferior to the other. In fact, I don't think all humans are created equal, some have advantages and disadvantages right off the bat and their potential is limited through no fault of their own.

And as someone not at the bottom of the totem pool (in many regards), I am perfectly fine with that. Granted, I'm not at the top of any totem pole either, but I don't mind.

Neutral, most likely. Though Good is still a possibility. Incidental discrimination doesn't make you Evil. Unintentional incidental discrimination certainly doesn't make you Evil. You don't become Evil by failing to completely uphold Good ideals. You become Evil by rejecting Good ideals in their entirety and embracing their Evil counterparts.

In Drow society, the fact that males are inferior to females in every possible way is taken for granted. Every good Drow knows that discrimination against men is right and good and proper. This is what makes them Evil. It isn't that they discriminate by accident, it is that they embrace discrimination as an ideal to be upheld and perpetuated.

Real World examples include Saudi Arabia and certain backwoods polygynist cults. (Polygyny isn't inherently Evil, but treating women like commodities is.) And possibly the 1950s.


Furthermore, it is also a matter of degrees. Minor discrimination is Evil, but accepting minor discrimination won't necessarily make you Evil. The Alignment system is presented as a series of absolutes, but it is better represented as a sliding scale with a big chunk of Neutral in the middle.

Believing that the Strong should rule over the Weak is Evil. But just look at the game world. It is a collection of Iron Age city-states masquerading as Medieval kingdoms ruled almost entirely by magically-empowered strong men who became rulers because they were the best at killing things.

Your Paladin can slay the red dragon, marry the princess, and become king without falling to the dark side. Merely being a strong guy who rules over the weak doesn't make him Evil. The circumstances in which he gained the kingship are incidental. Embracing the rule of the strong over the weak as an ideal to be perpetuated, on the other hand, would make him Evil (or at least Neutral).

To put it another way, it is sort of Evil to automatically reject the Troll nanny on the grounds that Trolls tend to eat babies without bothering to check its personal alignment. But it's not so Evil that it would automatically change your Alignment without a lot of other Evil crap under it. It's an extremely tiny Evil, just a drop in the ocean compared to everything else that makes up your Alignment.

I suppose the easiest, most relatable evil for a player to play is the selfish/less than ethical version. I would imagine most of us would not easily be able to approach the 'complete lack of ethics' and/or 'no standards of right/wrong/justice', instead it'd be easier to look at our own critical thinking and ethical decision making processes and imagine, 'what if I were a little more bent?'

The Paladin king concept is an interesting one I've seen over the decades. Order of the stick handled it nicely, akin to the way ultimately my college group decided the only way a 'paladin kingdom' could run: a whole bunch of paladins, but the king is actually not one, he may not even be LG.

Opinions may vary, but the conclusions we drew were that being a sovereign implies both rule and need to compromise to achieve results. Something a Paladin may not be suited to do, and remain a Paladin, especially once you start dealing with the power-disconnect of the classes/social levels in something the size of a Kingdom.

You see, that's only true if your DM is an idiot. Paladins aren't Lawful Stupid and shouldn't be played that way. Their code prevents them from doing a few very specific things. They can't lie, cheat, drug people, willfully commit an Evil act, or hang out with people who Detect as Evil.

Some sadistic (and stupid) DMs will force Paladins into Sophie's Choice and then laugh as they fall no mater what they do. That isn't what "willfully" means. A Paladin will not fall because he made the best possible choice in a horrible situation. The gods are often stupid, but they aren't utter nitwits. They can understand context. Some DMs will declare that an innocuous action has caused Evil to happen and laugh as the Paladin falls. That is not what "willfully" means. Incidental evil is unavoidable, but the butterfly flapping its wings is not responsible for the storm half way around the world.

No, "willfully" means "I know this is wrong and I'm doing it anyway because I want to." He might have all sorts of empty justifications for his actions, but they're just that, empty. He doesn't really believe them any more than he expects anyone else to. A classic example of a Paladin willfully doing Evil is murdering a friend in order to seduce his grieving wife or to take his fancy magic sword. Less violently, it could just be using the services of a slave-prostitute, knowing that she is really unwilling despite the facade she is forced to put on by her masters. Paladins fall because they give into their own base desires, not because the tabletop god has it in for them.

The rule against associating with Evil people is also easily abused by stupid DMs. It doesn't mean that you automatically fall because the girl who took your order at Micky Ds is Evil. "Yes, I do want fries with that" is not association.
That rule doesn't mean that you can't talk to Evil people, or buy things from Evil people, or even work with Evil people on a short term basis. It means that you can't join the Evil League of Evil and it means that you can't let Lex Luthor into your permanent adventuring party. Paladins can't form friendships or partnerships with Evil people and cannot participate in organizations that are predominantly Evil. If Lawful Evil Guide #1 offers to take the Paladin's party to the hidden temple for 100 GP, then the Paladin is not bared from paying him.

The other three, lying, cheating, and drugging are very useful in an adventure. The Paladin cannot do these things, even when it would be wise for him to do so, because his code of honor forbids it. This is why the archtypical adventuring party includes a Chaotic Neutral Thief. He can lie, cheat, and drug people while the Paladin stays way back and keeps his mouth shut. Paladin's can't lie, but they don't have to tell the truth. It is perfectly permissable for them to say nothing at all.

When you remember that every Paladin-containing party should also contain a thief, and when you remember why this is, one fact becomes apparent: Paladins make great Kings.

You see, Kings make policy but they don't execute polity; they delegate. Your typical King will have a dozen people under him who run a dozen different massive bureaucracies in the King's name. The King sets policies, and policies set by a Paladin-King will be Good or Neutral as a matter of course. He cannot set an Evil policy and remain a Paladin.
Some of those policies will require deception and treachery to properly implement, which the Paladin is incapable of. But the paladin isn't the one implementing those policies. Those policies will be implemented by his cabinet, privy council, ministers, whatever he wants to call them. These are people whom he trusts to execute his will to the best of their ability, and who is gives broad discretion for that very purpose. And below them and thousands of others. A government is a massive organization composed of massive organizations.

He doesn't have to put his code in jeopardy at all. He just needs to trust that his subordinates are competent.

The Paladin King is, in fact, the only way an absolute divine-right monarchy can avoid turning into complete suck. So long as he remains above the temptation to abuse his authority, everything is golden. If he did turn abusive he'd fall, and his fall would be obvious to those around him.

I bolded the part that I feel causes a lot of issues.

Paladins aren't allowed to knowingly and willingly hang out with people who are Evil.
Attempting to convert someone from Evil counts as hanging out.
Therefore, in order to turn people away from an Evil life, they must break the code as it is written.

Worse is that is a WILLFUL action on the part of the Paladin, so no getting away with it not being willful.

The paladin code is written in such a way that without context of a situation the player is forced to play the paladin as Lawful Stupid or if not Lawful Stupid, as a Stick Up His Ass paladin that makes life difficult for the party. If the DM wants to be a dick about the paladin code, that is the end result.

That is more of a problem of having a bad DM, rather than a rule problem. Sure the rules don't allow you to knowingly associate, even to "repent" the evil character, but any DM worth even a quarter of a shit would see that in the whole context of the paladin character type, they would readily be trying to bring them to the "light".

And looking at good and evil in the same party, personally (with the exception of a paladin), I could see alot of characters that are lawful evil and lawful good getting along great compared to a lawful good and chaotic good who in my mind, would be butting heads until they came to blows. Mostly because the lawful characters are autocratic, rigid hierarchical characters for the most part. While the lawful good may punish a thief for stealing a loaf of bread with 10 years hard labour, the lawful good would just publicly hang him, both irregardless of the fact he did it to feed his starving family, since theft is against the law. While on the other hand chaotic people are free spirits who shun stifling order, and may happily free a press gang who are working on some government project, irregardless if they are there because they are of the wrong race, criminals, etc, simply because that is so against their nature.

I lot of this discussion reminds me of an old Dragon magazine article that I really loved and implemented into my games at the time. It was basically a way to guide players in playing their correct alignment (that being what was written on their character sheets). From what I remember, every character had 7 or so facets of their alignment and they were listed in order (which could vary based on alignments and player choice). I don't remember them all, but things like Sovereign and Self, I can still remember.

As the characters leveled, they choose certain amounts of traits, which broke down into superstitions, codes and sometimes fears. The players were open to picking whatever they wanted to fit the basic idea, but the character would be much better served to choose things that happened through leveling. So, in addition to building out a more palpable alignment, they were also building out their character's personality and role-playing potential through in-game events.

I thought it was a wonderful system addition and it worked really well in the campaign I implemented it in. And what I remember finding was that as you gained more levels, you really didn't have to worry about playing to your alignment, per se, because you already had a bunch of traits that would guide your character. All you had to do was follow these ideals and traits and you were playing your alignment correctly. There was a system in place to govern changing alignments, as that was always looked as a penalty back in 2nd edition.

It was pretty interesting to see the character's interact and I thought it taught a few players just what some of the alignments really meant. It was common in those years for everyone to be Chaotic Good and feel like they had a free pass to do mainly as they pleased...

StealthSigma





Okay, that's a really crappy interpretation of Lawful (particularly Lawful Good). It is one that TSR and Wizards have accidentally propagated, but I very much doubt it is intentional. Because, really, that's not what Lawful means in practice, if you look at the game mechanics and the actual canon characters. That isn't what Chaotic means, either.


Simply put. Modrons are from Vulcan, Slaadi are from Romulus.

For the individual, Law and Chaos aren't about social structures, they're about emotional discipline. The Chaotic character is informed by reason and logic but acts according to his emotions. The Lawful character is informed by his emotions but acts according to reason and logic.

You can have a perfectly lawful society with no hierarchy whatsoever, and you can have a chaotic society with a rigid hierarchy. Many Chaotic societies, in fact, have rigid hierarchies. And many Lawful societies are collectivist and anarchistic.

Lawful Barbarians can't Rage. Why? Because a Raging Barbarian has act of completely discarded all emotional control and given and given into his fury.

Monks mucst be Lawful. Why? Because being a monk requires supreme emotional and physical discipline.

Bards can't be Lawful. Why? Because a Bard must be able to pour her emotions into her music without any impediment in order to properly channel magic.

Lawful Good isn't going to let a thief be executed, because that's Evil. Chaotic Good isn't going to free a bunch of prisoners, because that's stupid. The difference is far more subtle than that.

Lawful Good is Spock

Neutral Good is Kirk

Chaotic Good is Bones

If anything, a Lawful Good is going to sentence someone who stole a loaf of bread to labor to pay for the bread he stole - and probably keep him in a job so he can continue to buy bread and feed his family. Or to till the fields and grow his own, return the grain for the bread, and keep on growing for the Crown, and he keeps the excess.

A Chaotic Good would just be 'lolno' on punishing, and may just pay out of his own pocket.

A Lawful Evil would probably go with hard labor on the King's private lands, another criminal to improve his stockpile while he gets the barest bones of a meal.