why we can't be evil?

[Antheal]

It would just give n00bs an excuse to "legitimately" grief other players by "roleplaying" their alignment.

[dodger72]

That is because that "Lich" as you call it, is not undead, it is a Pale Master, a Arcane who has chosen to study the necromantic arts but not let them corrupt them into believing they are undead.
Not believing they are not undead....to the point that the "dis-belief" forgoes incoming healing...and they have differnt forms for this "non-belief"....Zombie, Vampire, Wraith, Lich....all of which disallows them to believe that positive energy spells would heal them...and instead rely on dark arts of Harm and the like to keep them un-alive.
Necromatic arts can be viewed in one of two lights:
1. Necromancy is inherently evil
2. Negative energy is a physical property outside of the realms of the metaphysical of Religion...and therefore only a power, such as force, fire, earth and so on....(this I can buy into).

What many players here fail to realize is that Evil is not Good from some other perspective. Evil is an absolute in Dungeon and Dragon, a fixed alignment. not dependent upon circumstance or situation.
No...I'm not failing to realize that. In PnP I've played the gambit of alignments and really annoyed many GM's because I do take it to that extreme. Evil, is not an absolute in Dugeons and Dragons. No more than Good is an absolute. Neutral evil will work with good alignments and the like because there is a benefit. As will Lawful evil because those actions are part of what makes up that society. And yes....it is dependent on circumstance and situation. Stormreach is under attack....Businesses, Guilds....ways of life are at the point of being lost to higher powers. One example would be the Lordsmarch chain. Half Orc armies are attacking....some side with them....others won't. Who is to say that ALL evil will side with them when valuable business would be lost? I daresay not all, if only very few. Bad for business if you see the big picture of getting squashed out by another entity coming in and destroying your business.
Like it or not....all toons on this game are mercenaries...not directly associated with any house. Hence...Guilds.


Evil is not about some warped idealism from reading too many comic books and thinking that Evil people really are good at the core, they are not. They are evil, they laugh at your pain, they mock your suffering, they are not just in for the wealth, they are in to subjugate and win.

You want people to risk their life saving the world against something like the Stormreaver, better call a hero, Evil People do not risk their life to save the world, because even if they loose they still tried, you need good suckers for that fools errand, and evil people are not mercenaries either, that is what neutral people.
I won't quote comics...this is DnD. So...that being said, and I shudder to go this route, but look at Artemis Entreri; is this a "good" character? Over time, one may think so. Not really....he's still Neutral Evil. Same for Cyric, who later became a god in FR....always was Neutral Evil, but....was out to save the world and was a city guard. Had friends (Kelemvor was considered Lawful Neutral) and protected them....because it was in his best interests to have friends with such power. Both of these characters were mercenaries....and later gods in the FR pantheon.


Evil as an Alignment is not about being a jerk, like most people might think, it is not about being cool, and it is not about being the good guy in disguise.
Correct....being evil is just going out and getting what you want. The cost depends on the morality (Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic) and what "other" means are used to get there.


An evil player is the type of player in Purging the Heretics, goes in and rapes the survivors, tortures them slowly, and watches them bleed begging their god to save them, for the sheer joy of hearing them grovel. The fact that the evil player could do such an act while under the sanction of the Silver Flame would just feed their sick power trip and if they got caught, they could blame the inquisitor for anything they did.
You are confusing "player" with "character" here. Additionally you are referring mainly to Chaotic evil in this instance. A Lawful or Neutral would do the same as any good aligned....and more than likely more efficiently.


An evil player, is not about pretending to be good or playing heroics to fit in.
Yes....they are. Again....look at Cyric or any thief casing out an area for breaking in.


An evil player is first self serving and then sadistic. Sure, IF they have a high enough int and cha scores they hide their true intents from the masses, but even then, they are not going to play hero at the risk of their own life or limb. get some other fool to do that, in fact they would extort the "quest giver" and then take advantage of the Hero to get one of those goodly fools to do their bidding, like, oh... the quest givers in the Sands.
Self serving, I agree....not all evil is sadistic. Lawful evil has a code of honor, and conduct. Neutral evil doesn't go out of it's way to kill children and rape and pillage....not in their modus operandi. Would an evil character try to have the "goody-good" do the work for them? Sure enough. Then again, would they play the "hero"....well...what's the price? If the price is right....anyone can be bought with the right amount of gold, items....or power.


Evil is not an available alignment. Because in DDO is has only one place, and that is the alignment of the named idiot in the quest that just died at a hero's hand.
I won't comment further on this...

Any of the nine alignments could be played in this game, with minimal change or without changes at all. The most difficult would be the Chaotic Evil, by far, because of the unpredictability, though the alignment would thrive well because of the chaos of battle and bloodlust of death that surrounds this game. That's what happens in every quest....something dies...and usually a lot of somethings.

Keep in mind....there is the ability to create unholy weapons and evil weapons in the game already. I know...I've made them. And they do work quite well in the correct instances and at the most opportune of times.

[Vordax]

1. Necromancy is inherently evil
2. Negative energy is a physical property outside of the realms of the metaphysical of Religion...and therefore only a power, such as force, fire, earth and so on....(this I can buy into).

The Aeranal elves are ruled by the undying court. A group of good undead., so I would go with #2.

Vordax

[Niv-mizzet]

They are evil, they laugh at your pain, they mock your suffering, they are not just in for the wealth, they are in to subjugate and win.

You want people to risk their life saving the world against something like the Stormreaver, better call a hero, Evil People do not risk their life to save the world, because even if they loose they still tried, you need good suckers for that fools errand, and evil people are not mercenaries either, that is what neutral people.

An evil player is the type of player in Purging the Heretics, goes in and rapes the survivors, tortures them slowly, and watches them bleed begging their god to save them, for the sheer joy of hearing them grovel. The fact that the evil player could do such an act while under the sanction of the Silver Flame would just feed their sick power trip and if they got caught, they could blame the inquisitor for anything they did.

See what you're mostly describing in there is actually what a lot of people refer to as "chaotic-stupid."

Any creature with intelligence (even animal intelligence,) regardless of alignment, values its own life, barring excessive mental damage.

This means when you find out the guy down the street will blow up the world in 30 minutes, and we assume that you have found out the following:
-It is possible to stop him.
-You participating or bowing out could turn the tide.
-There is no other escape for you aside from him being stopped.
Then if you are any alignment except chaotic-stupid (a non-existent alignment used to describe badly written or roleplayed characters,) you are going to go down the street and help stop the guy in the best way that your int score can let you think up.

Now here's where alignment comes up. The good guy will focus on the whole "save the world" thing. He may go through with a plan that looks grim for himself, but has a high chance of saving the world.

The truly evil aligned would ALMOST never go through with a plan that calls for their own certain death to save others. They would desire a plan that saves the world AND themselves.

Remember that everyone has SOMETHING that really gives them their "jollies." It could even be fame from being called a hero and the like. In which case you could have a character who is doing a hero's work not for the sake of others, but solely for his own sake and how famous he could become. This character, if played as an evil aligned, would most likely ignore plights involving small villages, monsters in sewers or off in some ruins. No. He doesn't care how many people die off in some countryside hamlet while he's in the tavern.

When a messenger comes rushing in shouting about a dragon that the character thinks he can beat, and this dragon has decided to kidnap the princess of the realm and intimidate the populace King-Kong style from the roof of the castle where half the capital city can see?

"OH MAN I am so THERE!" says the character. Yep, save a princess, slay an evil dragon, get called a hero, probably get a ton of reward.....EVIL. Not because of what he did, but WHY he did it.

[ProdigalGuru]

They are saving Evil Alignment for a P2P expansion when they run out of ideas.

That way, they can copy/paste most of the work, but change the dialogue and objectives so that the characters are working against the good of Stormreach instead of for it.

[Satinavian]

The Aeranal elves are ruled by the undying court. A group of good undead., so I would go with #2.

Vordax

If only

They made them positive energy driven "undying" instead of implementing a group of good undead to dodge this statement.



The official alignement rules have one serious flaw :

The alignement description is about intention only. Selfish people are evil, altruistic people are good. But at the same time alignmentshifts are exclusively determined by deeds. Evil deeds lead to evil alignment, good deeds to good. And to classify deeds we have hard rules like "casting a spell with evil discriptor is evil" which do not match intentions at all.

Which leads to beings where the system doesn't work well. Some priest casting "protection from good" each day to prevent mental controll or as part of his service should become evil even if he does nothing else but healing people for free (healing spelle have no discriptoe) and helping the citicens to the best of his abilities.

[Denegrator]

And another question I'm asking myself for several years now : What is the opposite of "un-dead" ? I and do NOT mean "living" ! Because the opposite of "dead" is "living" ! Therefore there must be an direct opposite to "un-dead", too ...

Interesting thought, super reincarnated maybe? Reborn? Transcendental existence?

Dammit, now I'll be thinking about this all bloody day.

[Ungood]

Going by comic book villains that you deride here, I bring you Dr Victor vonDoom. He is most unquestionably evil, having such lovely heroic acts as slaying the woman he loved, skinning her, and using that skin as body armor all in order to increase his magical power. He is the archetypical evil-doer, willing and able to do anything to achieve his goals. He might not laugh at your pain, but that's because he's too busy analyzing it to see what advantage he can gain from it.

Yet this same Dr Doom has fought to save the world on multiple occasions alongside the good heroes. Onslaught, Thanos, even fighting against Mephisto. He didn't fight under some secretive noblility or hidden good core; this is a man who would rip off a baby's head and eat it like an apple in front of it's mother if he thought it would give him any fraction of power (or prove him smarter than Reed Richards). He did it because you can't rule a dead world. Especially when you too are dead or enslaved.

So yes, a Stupid Evil like you expect all evil characters to be (say the Joker or something from Final Fantasy) might not fight to save the world... but that doesn't mean a lawful, neutral, or chaotic evil character won't. If it fits within their self-interest, which stopping the world from complete destruction usually fits in there somewhere. That don't mean that said character won't attempt to take advantage of the situation if the opportunity presents itself; Doom did try to steal the Infinity Gauntlet for example. But all but the most insane or worst written villains have stopped and joined with their usual foes at times to save their worlds in the comic book series. I think even the Joker has helped Batman, a time or two, even if it was just to make sure he's the one who gets to kill the Bat.

This is actually a very good example of misguided comicbook ethics infecting what people see as good or evil.

For example, Joker is a prime and very good example of Chaotic Evil. They would laugh as the world burned around them, with them in it. That is the embodiment of Chaotic Evil. Because watching the world burn means that one day, we are going to die in that fire, and it will be glorious. Keeping someone alive only so they could get the killing blow, or make them suffer longer, is another fine trait of evil.

In fact, the Joker is a great example of evil in every sense evil can exist. Chaotic Evil, but still Evil.

Doom on the other hand is a complex character, not to be boxed into something as simple as "Good or Evil". Doom may be Despotic, Driven, Vain and Egotistical, but those are normal human faults. That is just a person with personality quirks. And to be honest, Doom would watch the world burn to the ground with him in it, if it meant seeing Reed die first, But that is not also is not Evil, that is Hate. But at the same time Doom would save the world, not because it will make him more powerful, but because it would be the right thing to do. This is a prime example of people not understanding how Alignments work in Dungeon and Dragons.

But Evil, does not value life, in many cases they value their own, true, but that is because they do not want to die, however they do not value anyone else. In the case of saving the world. No Evil player would do that, risk their life for others? Do something thankless that even if you win, you do not get the rule the world after the fact, are you crazy? That is what good people do.

See what you're mostly describing in there is actually what a lot of people refer to as "chaotic-stupid."

Any creature with intelligence (even animal intelligence,) regardless of alignment, values its own life, barring excessive mental damage.

This means when you find out the guy down the street will blow up the world in 30 minutes, and we assume that you have found out the following:
-It is possible to stop him.
-You participating or bowing out could turn the tide.
-There is no other escape for you aside from him being stopped.
Then if you are any alignment except chaotic-stupid (a non-existent alignment used to describe badly written or roleplayed characters,) you are going to go down the street and help stop the guy in the best way that your int score can let you think up.

Can't you cut a deal with the person?
Talk some sense into them?

Or are they as you put it "chaotic-stupid"?

Thus the only time a "Evil" player would save the world is, if the world was treated by "chaotic-stupid" ?

So, really bad writing saves the day, again, misguided comic book silliness at play.

Sorry, but, no. Forcing an Evil player against an Evil player, using what is as you put it "chaotic-stupid" to force a clichhe' driven conflict, is.. lame.

Sorry, but No. An evil player to an evil player would try to cut some deals, a Hero charges in and tries to save the day the way they feel the day should be saved. An Evil player would be more in it to steal said dooms day device or perhaps have a better way to rule the world. In that case, it is two players fighting OVER the dooms day device and who gets to play the villain this time, as opposed to either of them saving the day.

Now here's where alignment comes up. The good guy will focus on the whole "save the world" thing. He may go through with a plan that looks grim for himself, but has a high chance of saving the world.

The truly evil aligned would ALMOST never go through with a plan that calls for their own certain death to save others. They would desire a plan that saves the world AND themselves.

Remember that everyone has SOMETHING that really gives them their "jollies." It could even be fame from being called a hero and the like. In which case you could have a character who is doing a hero's work not for the sake of others, but solely for his own sake and how famous he could become. This character, if played as an evil aligned, would most likely ignore plights involving small villages, monsters in sewers or off in some ruins. No. He doesn't care how many people die off in some countryside hamlet while he's in the tavern.

When a messenger comes rushing in shouting about a dragon that the character thinks he can beat, and this dragon has decided to kidnap the princess of the realm and intimidate the populace King-Kong style from the roof of the castle where half the capital city can see?

"OH MAN I am so THERE!" says the character. Yep, save a princess, slay an evil dragon, get called a hero, probably get a ton of reward.....EVIL. Not because of what he did, but WHY he did it.

No. An evil player, would go to of to make a fortune out of of someone else unfortunate event, if that meant cutting a deal with the dragon, so be it. If they were half intelligent, they would protect the dragon from the slew of goodly little knuckle heads that would be coming to kill it to save the princess, or make it off that they killed the dragon, with the dragon flying away, then extort the king/noble by telling them that if they did not pay a significant amount of coinage that their "princess" would be deflowered by a legion of undead if his demands were not met or is so much as a single hero was sent to stop him. Really.

The faulty idealism of what is Evil is almost staggering here.

Putting up with the societies rules on what is law and what is good, is vastly different then liking them.

Example you used. with the Doraam. that would be an ideal case were every non-good half-orc with an Int Score above a 6 would take a "Wait and See" approach, if the Dorram started to win. side with them, if they looked like they were loosing. oh well, stay out of it.

[Calebro]

They already said its not gonna happen

Exactly. This is an academic debate, because they said long ago and many times that we aren't going to get evil alignments as they aren't in line with the heroic nature of the game.

[Ganolyn]

And another question I'm asking myself for several years now : What is the opposite of "un-dead" ? I and do NOT mean "living" ! Because the opposite of "dead" is "living" ! Therefore there must be an direct opposite to "un-dead", too ...

un-living

[LongshotBro]

I completely understand the desire to have the option, just like in PnP. The assumption that having evil alignment makes you automatically allied with all others of same alignment is silly, just as unbelievable as all good aligned folks being united. Someone mentioned the level of selfishness being involved which I would agree with. A CE person might be despicable, but act completely normal like "the guy next door" to get what they want be it power, wealth, items, etc.

IIRC in Eberron it's not as cut-and-dry where hobgoblin=evil race and so forth. So for instance in Tear of Dhakaan you're not necessarily clearing out a foothold of evil beneath the city. It's more like so guy says "hey my tribe wants to control this area. Mind exterminating a village full of rivals for me?" I mean you slaughter them in their sleep while they're begging to be left alone. Not very "good."

Of course there's always the classic paladin justification that the world IS simply black and white and that all monstrous humanoids are evil, etc etc.

Anyway, I think they SHOULD have all alignments in the game. Someone who is Lawful Evil is more dependable and reliable that Chaotic Neutral for instance. Characters like Pale Masters would make more sense as evil too. Forcibly commanding the spirits of the deceased to do your bidding doesn't sound very good and noble. I bet they will implement evil alignments in the future, it only makes sense to provide complete experience and options.

[Calebro]

I completely understand the desire to have the option, just like in PnP.

But that's just it, even in PnP the option isn't supposed to be there. Some DMs allow it, but evil alignments aren't for players, as per the DMG.
It's even in the SRD, so I can link to it.

The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

So your argument that it should be like PnP fails. It already is like PnP.

[Ungood]

Answers inside quotes are annoying, just FYI.

That is because that "Lich" as you call it, is not undead, it is a Pale Master, a Arcane who has chosen to study the necromantic arts but not let them corrupt them into believing they are undead.
Not believing they are not undead....to the point that the "dis-belief" forgoes incoming healing...and they have differnt forms for this "non-belief"....Zombie, Vampire, Wraith, Lich....all of which disallows them to believe that positive energy spells would heal them...and instead rely on dark arts of Harm and the like to keep them un-alive.
Necromatic arts can be viewed in one of two lights:

Belief is not part of the plan here, nor is Religion, it is a Shroud, or Buff that modifies their body and makes it stronger. No different to the pale master then if they used masters touch, Stone Skin, Bark Skin, a ship buff, or a bard song.

An evil player is the type of player in Purging the Heretics, goes in and rapes the survivors, tortures them slowly, and watches them bleed begging their god to save them, for the sheer joy of hearing them grovel. The fact that the evil player could do such an act while under the sanction of the Silver Flame would just feed their sick power trip and if they got caught, they could blame the inquisitor for anything they did.
You are confusing "player" with "character" here. Additionally you are referring mainly to Chaotic evil in this instance. A Lawful or Neutral would do the same as any good aligned....and more than likely more efficiently.

Not at all. You seem to be confusing chaotic with being more evil, that is hardly the case, Chaotic just means a view on law and order, or balance. Chaotic players do what pleases them, but are no more or less evil in nature then a lawful or neutral character.

In that regard, I would wager that the most brutal and most vindictive people to go into that quest would be lawful evil, who would get the highest level of sadistic joy in the fact they get to torture, kill, rape, and punish followers of the sovereign host in the name of the Flame. In fact, the Lawful Evil black guards would be lining up around the block for their chance to make those people scream and have the sewers run red for weeks in their blood, especially the "leaders"

An evil player is first self serving and then sadistic. Sure, IF they have a high enough int and cha scores they hide their true intents from the masses, but even then, they are not going to play hero at the risk of their own life or limb. get some other fool to do that, in fact they would extort the "quest giver" and then take advantage of the Hero to get one of those goodly fools to do their bidding, like, oh... the quest givers in the Sands.
Self serving, I agree....not all evil is sadistic. Lawful evil has a code of honor, and conduct. Neutral evil doesn't go out of it's way to kill children and rape and pillage....not in their modus operandi. Would an evil character try to have the "goody-good" do the work for them? Sure enough. Then again, would they play the "hero"....well...what's the price? If the price is right....anyone can be bought with the right amount of gold, items....or power.

An Evil character would as soon rape, scalp, and kill children, then rape and kill their parents women and men alike, then tie them up, put them in a pile and burn them alive, as any other Evil character would. You are misguided to think that Chaotic is more or less Evil then Neutral or Lawful. The line in the sand at what they will do, is at Evil, not the Prefix.

Allow me to give an example of what EVIL is.

[dodger72]

....and then, a portal in time opens and shows us the 1970's....a game was created that outlined what the allowed alignments would be.....thereby taking all arguments in this thread and making them moot and up to ONE person! The game master.....and in DDO's place.....the devs......

DA DA DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (insert clap of thunder)

I agree to disagree as to what should and should not be for alignments. There is no real winning this debate. Especially when you trump me with real life people, this is a game....let's keep it within the context of the game.

I'd say well done...but not really. Again...this is a game...

(golf clap)

[Ralmeth]

No, for many reasons:
1) We are supposed to be heros, battling against and defeating evil. From a RP standpoint you might argue that once in a while you would go on a quest for the loot or to save yourself, but almost every quest? That's a stretch.
2) Griefing. The game is made so that everyone works together as a team. If someone's evil then they'll just use it as an excuse to grief other party members.
3) Coding time. I think we would all agree that we would prefer new quests instead of developers spending time going back through all existing quests to add in some evil alignment dialogue options. Sounds like a project with no ROI (Return On Investment) so from a business perspective it makes no sense.

If you'd like to RP that you're evil in alignment I recommend starting or getting into a RP guild or static group. Just select one of the neutral alignments, but RP like you're evil...Done.

[Lithic]

Alignment has only 3 real effects in game.

1) Classes you can be. Unimportant to the why "cant we be evil" debate as an evil character is only bared from being a paladin, just like any other neutral character.

2) Items you can use. Moderately important. You can't use holy, but you can use pure good with an easy UMD check. Unless alot of really powerfull effects get added to end game weapons, evil will not be much of a hindrence. In easier content, you can even use holy and just suck up the neg level.

3) Monster effects used on you. VERY important. Evil characters would then be immune to pure evil, unholy, and the whole suite of evil-alignment spells (Blasphemy for example). As these effects get more and more common, it would soon be obvious that the BEST alignment to ensure survival would be anything evil. Soon all the minmaxers would be evil, as would anyone following their builds.

Now sure it wouldn't change much in game, but the rep of DnD would be "where the evil's at". That could cause problems in the long run.

[Ganolyn]

See what you're mostly describing in there is actually what a lot of people refer to as "chaotic-stupid."

Chaotic Stupid

[InsanityIsYourFriend]

Yes evil should be implemented
You are NEVER called a hero in DDO, you are called an adventurer, a mercenary
Mercenaries work for their own gain
Evil characters would yes torture a good character if they gained something
Evil characters would also torture an evil character if they gained something
Good characters would not torture an evil person, they would say that is wrong and make it simple
Good characters would not torture a good person, they would say that it is wrong

Chaotic means you dont like laws
Lawful means your like laws

so whats the point of being evil?
flavor just like everything else in this game, why do you want to do something? because its fun


thats the way this game is played in my person, for fun, and if it is funner being evil then i want to be evil

blackguards are just evil paladins, so if we are a paladin and we are evil then it is just a label
Besides does anyone know a class that must be lawful, and a class that must be chaotic OR evil? ~lawful evil would have new class combinations~
its all about why you do something, if i gave someone 20 $ one day and said that they could have it, thats good, if i gave someone 20$ one day and said that they'd owe me interest then im evil its all about personal gain ^^

[Ungood]

Besides does anyone know a class that must be lawful, and a class that must be chaotic?

Paladins must be Lawful Good.
Monks must be Lawful
Bards must be Non-lawful
Barbarians must be Non-Lawful.

[1jazzz]

no real reason to let the player be evil alignment, this isn't bioware after all