Why no Evil characters?

[Smokewolf]

It was never really clear to me why having a Evil character alignment was never allowed? Especially when alignment was a major part of pen-n-papers character development. Which had a ton of trickle down effects on everything from gearing to spell resistance.

Would hope that the Devs didn't omit Evil as a political / social choice in an attempt to appease someone's parents. Yet I've the feeling that is indeed the case here...

Anyone who knows more on the "why" behind this is welcome to constructively comment.

-Smoke

[Dilbon]

3rd edition PnP didn't want players to play evil alignments.

[thwart]

And 5th edition discourages using alignment at all.

[Marshal_Lannes]

We are the heroes of the story. Also, modern Dungeons and Dragons is moving away from alignment and race designations.

[Baahb3]

Also, modern Dungeons and Dragons is moving away from alignment and race designations.

As an almost 40-year vet of PnP DnD, this is the saddest thing that I have read in some time.

I don't play 5E so I don't know how they handle not having these but to 'move away' from such core role-playing aids is just disheartening.

As for Evil in DDO, the Devs have said that they want us to be Heroes, but I also think it is a way to avoid the inevitable griefing you would get by said players. "What, I am an evil rogue, what did you expect" type of scenarios.

[Oxarhamar]

As an almost 40-year vet of PnP DnD, this is the saddest thing that I have read in some time.

I don't play 5E so I don't know how they handle not having these but to 'move away' from such core role-playing aids is just disheartening.

As for Evil in DDO, the Devs have said that they want us to be Heroes, but I also think it is a way to avoid the inevitable griefing you would get by said players. "What, I am an evil rogue, what did you expect" type of scenarios.

This is incorrect

They aren’t doing away with alignment or race

Race is being changed to Species

& they are doing away with entire Race being a homogeneous alignment so that any Species can be any alignment

None of this has anything to do with Evil in or rather not in DDO it has more to do with the game rating would be different if you could play Evil it’s just how game rating works

Also the Dev’s have said Evil characters won’t happen


The update largely explains Wizards’ reasoning behind the changes, which included the removal of alignments from playable races and the redaction of lore descriptors that homogenised the psychological conditions and moral leanings of entire races within the game. Winninger says the changes were made to encourage the creativity of DMs and players

So alignments still exists it’s just more flexible than before which I think makes it better for players since there’s no questions if they want to make a different alignment character then the lore suggests which some DMs might have allowed & some might have not

[Gordo]

We are the heroes of the story. Also, modern Dungeons and Dragons is moving away from alignment and race designations.

Woke sadness. I think I read "races" will now be called "species".
Pathetic.

[JollySwagMan]

Because gaining power by killing vast numbers of sentients and reincarnating to do the process over and over is somehow holy and good?
There is not a consistent reasoning for this, really.

[Just_a_Dude]

I played in an evil campaign once. It was a lot of fun, until people started playing their alignment. The Chaotic Evil Wizard wanted something in the Neutral Evil Fighter's inventory, so the Wizard started throwing poison darts at the Fighter, during a fight. Needless to say, the Fighter died. The party lived, but the Lawful Evil Cleric saw what happened and killed the Wizard as punishment. The group basically fell apart, both in the game and IRL.

[C-Dog]

It was never really clear to me why having a Evil character alignment was never allowed?

In part b/c the then-current D&D model discouraged "evil" PC's, and in part b/c many of the DDO quests kinda assume a non-evil protagonist for the backstories to work. While "for the loot" is sometimes a motivation, it's not the only one used.

"Evil" characters don't tend to risk their lives just to help the helpless, befriend the friendless, and defeat the feetless.

[Smokewolf]

In part b/c the then-current D&D model discouraged "evil" PC's, and in part b/c many of the DDO quests kinda assume a non-evil protagonist for the backstories to work. While "for the loot" is sometimes a motivation, it's not the only one used.

"Evil" characters don't tend to risk their lives just to help the helpless, befriend the friendless, and defeat the feetless.

There's nothing to say that a Lawful Evil toon, wouldn't be honorable and trust worthy so long as their "self" interests are being met. Saying that a Hero is self-less is kinda a dated concept considering the wold we live in...

Instead we have all colors, creeds and beliefs that when the situation arrises either step-up or don't. That's Human nature and like it or not that could be part of game play if it were "allowed". Instead Devs, directors, programmers and editors have to pander to the PC crowd that has pretty much sucked the life out of everything worth doing.

[C-Dog]

Instead Devs, directors, programmers and editors have to pander to the PC crowd that has pretty much sucked the life out of everything worth doing.

Yes, because if your character can't be evil, nothing is worth doing.

You have your answer, no one said you are expected to agree with the reasoning.

[Smokewolf]

Yes, because if your character can't be evil, nothing is worth doing.

You have your answer, no one said you are expected to agree with the reasoning.

There's no real reasoning behind this other that to say it was the easiest way to deal with what could of been a sensitive subject for some thin-skinned individuals. However taking the easy way out doesn't make it the right way. In truth I just see it as an opportunity lost.

[Eantarus]

Let's see: we already have reaper/non reaper, hardcore, and 9 different servers. There's also 4 different non-reaper difficulty modes. The player-base is divided very far.

And you want to further divide it by adding incompatible alignments.

Yeah, that sounds like it will be healthy for a dying game. He said. As sarcastically as humanly possible.

[carsonfball]

And you want to further divide it by adding incompatible alignments.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that evil alignments should be added to the game. However, I don't think having a party with mixed alignments is incompatible. Back when 2nd Edition was the most up-to-date version, I played a LE Cleric/Wizard and we had an LG Paladin in the party. The party, for the most part, worked okay because we all had similar short-term an mid-term goals (i.e. stopping the threat to the world).

[droid327]

There's nothing to say that a Lawful Evil toon, wouldn't be honorable and trust worthy so long as their "self" interests are being met.

That sounds more like Lawful Neutral to me

It kinda sounds like you're just trying to glorify Evil as merely being antiheroes. Which, if you want to play one, go ahead - just be Neutral. Evil is specifically bad. You cant have not-bad evil. As soon as you start playing your character as not bad, that's when a good DM would push to change your alignment

But trying to demean people being against the idea of actual, legitimate evil as just being "thin-skinned" or "out of date" is both unfair and harmful

[misterski]

That sounds more like Lawful Neutral to me

It kinda sounds like you're just trying to glorify Evil as merely being antiheroes. Which, if you want to play one, go ahead - just be Neutral. Evil is specifically bad. You cant have not-bad evil. As soon as you start playing your character as not bad, that's when a good DM would push to change your alignment

But trying to demean people being against the idea of actual, legitimate evil as just being "thin-skinned" or "out of date" is both unfair and harmful

Yeah, I hate how the current culture conflates villains with anti-heroes and they're not the same thing.

[carsonfball]

in part b/c many of the DDO quests kinda assume a non-evil protagonist for the backstories to work.

True, but there is at least one where it would almost imply your characters were evil: Purge the Heretics

You are sent to kill followers of a good-aligned pantheon (the Sovereign Host).

[Memnir]

Would hope that the Devs didn't omit Evil as a political / social choice in an attempt to appease someone's parents. Yet I've the feeling that is indeed the case here...

As somebody who was playing the closed beta, and read quite a few forum threads on the topic pre-launch - it was a story choice. We are the heroes of the stories the Devs want to tell. Evil aligned characters are the villains. They didn't want to muddy the waters and introduce Evil as a player alignment, and then have to always be figuring out why Evil characters would be motivated to even bother with the quests.

Like it. Hate it. It's just the way the game is very intentionally designed. You can turn this into an anti-snowflake screed if you want. But, you'd be wrong.

[ShifterThePirate]

The games environment/world is not gedesignd for players to be evil. There are too many 'Evil' things you just can't do ingame so it will never be a good representation of the evil alignment character. Also it's an MMO so 'Evil' players would disrupt the gameplay for many if the game is not designed around it. So it's better to not give them the incentive to play an 'Evil' character.