Poll of the Day > Tabletop rpg, whats up with PvP

(+) Yeah! (+)

I happened to see that people dont like it but I cant seem to find why
---

I think it's because it turns from stats vs. stats to fandom vs. fandom... but I don't know, never played a PvP campaign.

Then again, there's tabletop rpgs like Rum and Bones which are pure PvP and also fun
---

I'll only have a couple moments of pvp, not a game dedicated to it.
First and most immediate problem is I have an npc that I just made following the character sheet and he's going to spar with one of my friends. And later im gonna make a custom boss and I was going to handle it the same way; filling out the character sheet and just having it a higher level
---

We have had it happen a couple times, but not that often. And usually, it's just a heated argument and someone gets knocked out. And people may end up salty... There was a game someone made where everyone was fighting. And I did play a little of a Hunger Games one...
---

Blorfenburger posted...

First and most immediate problem is I have an npc that I just made following the character sheet and he's going to spar with one of my friends. And later im gonna make a custom boss and I was going to handle it the same way; filling out the character sheet and just having it a higher level

That is just a PC inspired NPC, that is not weird or even rare.

Actual Player vs Player combat is, but can also be very fun if handled well.
---

Blorfenburger posted...

I'll only have a couple moments of pvp, not a game dedicated to it.
First and most immediate problem is I have an npc that I just made following the character sheet and he's going to spar with one of my friends. And later im gonna make a custom boss and I was going to handle it the same way; filling out the character sheet and just having it a higher level

...That's not actually PvP, that's just using player mechanics against a player.

PvP is stuff like the thief stealing s*** from the paladin, players attacking each other, and so on.
The two elements of people on the table attacking each other are players, so it's player vs player.
---

PvP can be fun, but it can also cause incredibly bitter feelings, and can destroy friendships in ways that landing on your friend's hotel on Boardwalk in Monopoly simply doesn't. Most groups simply don't find it fun, and a lot of groups are so bothered by the idea that they get very, very pissy when someone starts fucking around with the group.

That being said, some groups absolutely love inter-party conflict, and some games are built to straight-up encourage it. You just have to know what your whole group wants out of the game and play accordingly.


---

Most PnP RPGs are simply not set up well for PvP. Some classes or builds are way, way better at it. Wizards with some variant of mind control can easily trounce any physical fighter (or just drop a fireball on them from the next town over if they're the aggressor), assuming they get to go first (if they don't, most fighter-types can squish them pretty easily). Builds that are designed to maximize damage on a single target will fare far better than builds designed for mass combat. And God help the poor soul who's playing a cleric if PvP breaks out.

Most PnP games are designed to be cooperative and party-based because every character class serves a role. The tank, the nuker, the mezzer, the healer - you're supposed to be working as a team so you can cover each other's weaknesses. PvP doesn't allow you to do that, unless there's teams on both sides, so the whole combat system starts to show some serious holes that are ripe for abuse by the players.

Not to mention, as PO mentioned, rare is the party that can survive a solid bout of PvP. Feelings get hurt, tempers flare, and I've seen more than one campaign simply *end* after the party turned on itself.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

can destroy friendships in ways that landing on your friend's hotel on Boardwalk in Monopoly simply doesn't.

Honestly, I don't even get mad if I get Boardwalked. If someone manages to get a hotel on Boardwalk, they fucking deserve to win that game. The dark blues are the least valuable, least reliable properties in the entire game - if someone can win off them, that doesn't deserve scorn, that deserves respect.
---

Seeing PO post here reminds me that Paranoia used to be a game that encouraged this type of buggery.
---

I_Abibde posted...

Seeing PO post here reminds me that Paranoia used to be a game that encouraged this type of buggery.

Oh sure, but that was the point.
And it does it pretty well.
---

This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.

Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...
---

Lokarin posted...

This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.

Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...

That's because most people are thinking Chaotic Stupid, not Chaotic Evil.

A Chaotic Evil person can still have friends, loved ones, a pet they treat extremely well. They're just self-centered to the extreme, which means they tend to view those people in terms of how they make THEM feel, not necessarily in an empathetic sort of light. They're the villains who may love their wife (or mistress, or harem), but they definitely view them more as possessions than people. And if you're NOT their friend, loved one, or useful to them, then they're more than willing to throw your life away if it benefits them. In a word where murder-hoboes can get away with killing, they'll be the ones most likely to indulge - but even Chaotic Evil characters can be smart enough to NOT kill every third person they see "just because" if it's going to get them thrown into prison. They're impulsive and cruel, but not necessarily stupid.

So a Chaotic Evil party member could easily be incredibly loyal to the other party members, and never consider betraying them... but when they ride into a backwater village and someone screws with the party, the Chaotic Evil player is going to be the first to suggest burning the entire fucking town down.


(Incidentally, this is why I hate when people are like "Chaotic Neutral? Well, you must be lolrandum!" No Skippy, that's not what Chaotic Neutral means That's another flavor of Chaotic Stupid. Which is usually more a mark of a bad player than anything to do with Alignment.

The Chaotic Stupid player is still going to be an idiot if you shoehorn him into another Alignment. Lawful? He's going to play a Lawful Stupid Paladin, the kind that makes entire parties sacrifice the entire plot of the game solely to do everything in their power to make him fall. He's the type who always chooses Malkavian in Vampire because he thinks being crazy is the same thing as being wacky. He's the reason why so many tables outlaw Kender in D&D games.)


---

Lokarin posted...

This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done.

In my experience, people completely misunderstand what "Chaotic" means on the alignment chart (and, admittedly, that's a terrible name for what the designers were going for). Chaos doesn't mean lolrandom, it means a willingness to ignore law and order in favour of an in-built moral code. A chaotic evil individual isn't necessarily a bloodthirsty raging berzerker with zero ability to think rationally; they're just a "look out for number one" type who is likely willing to do almost anything to further their own aims. The more chaos-focused ones can be anarchists and iconoclasts, while the more evil-focused ones lean more towards sociopathy and amorality.
---

A nonlethal fair duel or spar between two PCs can be done, and is fine. I've had plenty of those, they're fun.

That's often not what PvP is. PvP is often not a mutually agreed upon situation, done openly and fairly. It's often someone stealing from another party member. Or murdering him in his sleep. Or betraying the party in the middle of a fight when they're hurt and vulnerable.
At least IME, PvP is often opportunistic, craven, and self-serving. Hence why it's so despised.

In a tabletop game, you're placing a fair amount of trust in each other. You're roleplaying characters, but it's not actually you, so your character's not getting the subtle body language and voice tone cues that their "friend" might not be so friendly that would happen if it were truly two people spending all day around each other in real life.

Not to mention how almost always the party just meets in a tavern or something and never knew each other beforehand. Realistically, you probably shouldn't trust such people so readily and completely, but players forfeit that apprehension for the sake of not grinding the game to a paranoid halt. When someone attacks or cheats another player's character, he's essentially exploiting that goodwill and unearned trust for his own thrills/benefit, at the other player's expense.
It's pretty vile.

Lokarin posted...

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.

Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...

Because that is completely misusing the word. Euthanasia is a lawful concept.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Lokarin posted...

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done. For example, euthanasia.

Also, don't propose that you euthanize a party member who is poisoned to get their stuff...

Because that is completely misusing the word. Euthanasia is a lawful concept.

My (character's) matron Goddess Ereshkigal prefers the peaceful dead, as they make less noise.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Lokarin posted...

This reminds me of the Chaotic Evil argument... some people hate when there are Chaotic Evil party members 'cuz they think they'll be required to backstab the party.

Where as in my opinion Chaotic Evil would simply be more likely to take pragmatic unfavourable action to get a job done.

In my experience, people completely misunderstand what "Chaotic" means on the alignment chart (and, admittedly, that's a terrible name for what the designers were going for). Chaos doesn't mean lolrandom, it means a willingness to ignore law and order in favour of an in-built moral code. A chaotic evil individual isn't necessarily a bloodthirsty raging berzerker with zero ability to think rationally; they're just a "look out for number one" type who is likely willing to do almost anything to further their own aims. The more chaos-focused ones can be anarchists and iconoclasts, while the more evil-focused ones lean more towards sociopathy and amorality.

Uh...I disagree.
Lawful is also not a great name for the opposing alignment, and a lawful character doesn't need to follow or respect the laws of a town if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs (classic example: LG or most LN characters would not "respect" local laws allowing slavery and requiring people to inform the guards of any escaped slaves they notice).
It's the "lawful" alignment that's all about having a strict personal code the person adheres to. whether it's due to the law of his home, the law of his god, or just his own inner moral code.

"Chaotic" alignment indicates the absence of such an inner code.

Lokarin posted...

My (character's) matron Goddess Ereshkigal prefers the peaceful dead, as they make less noise.

I only know that name as the tome wielded by Nergal. I have no idea what kind of domain she would have in a D&D pantheon.
---

darkknight109 posted...

In my experience, people completely misunderstand what "Chaotic" means on the alignment chart (and, admittedly, that's a terrible name for what the designers were going for). Chaos doesn't mean lolrandom, it means a willingness to ignore law and order in favour of an in-built moral code.

It's why I've broken down Alignment into the same system, just described slightly differently.

Usually, the Good-Evil axis in D&D is referred to as the moral axis, and Law-Chaos is referred to as the ethical axis. I prefer to think of them as motive versus method.

Good-Evil is your motive, WHY you do the things you do. It breaks down into your general outlook being selfless (Good), selfish (Neutral), or sadistic (Evil). The Good character is going to do selfless things because they think helping others is what people are meant to do, whether because they're a naive soul who thinks everyone is secretly good at heart, or merely someone who admits the world can be a craptastic place filled with assholes, but hope that their positive example can inspire others to rise above and aspire to do and be more as well. The Evil character is going to do everything in their own self-interest, but they're also going to either be completely callous to the suffering other others, or actively amused/excited by the suffering other others. The Neutral is going to be self-interested, but not necessarily heartless - which means they may tend towards mercenary behavior that ignores the fact that others are suffering, but they might also attempt to minimize that suffering if it doesn't interfere with the plan.

Law-Chaos is your method, HOW you do the things you do. It breaks down into the ways you accomplish your goals. Law is the person who tries to work within existing structures, systems, and networks, while Chaos is the character who cuts through existing obstacles directly, like Alexander cutting the Gordion Knot. Law is the more tactical mind, Chaos the more impulsive one - but a Chaotic person isn't entirely random or chaotic than a Lawful person is locked into a robotic logic loop where you can short-circuit their AI by asking them paradoxes. Lawful people can lie, Chaotic people can obey laws. But the MAJORITY of their actions will follow certain assumptions - either to worth within the system, or against it (this is basically what the morality system in Mass Effect was supposed to be, with Lawful Paragon and Chaotic Renegade being two paths to getting the job done - but then they ruined it by also putting "Good" options into Paragon and "Asshole" options into Renegade). And Neutral is what you get when you have someone who always tries to assess the situation before reacting - who will occasionally work within the rules but also occasionally work outside of the rules, usually predicated on which of the two methods will be more productive and effective in the long run.

Thus, Chaotic Evil is someone who is self-centered and who definitely gets off on causing others pain (or, at least, is completely immune to feeling guilty about the pain they cause others), and who is willing to take the most direct, non-complicated path to their goals (which in D&D often means violence, but it isn't necessarily ALWAYS violence). They're impulsive but not irrational or uncontrollable. They can be a villain or even an antihero, and that doesn't mean betraying the party is inevitable (just spend five minutes writing up backstory to explain why these characters are all long-time friends and not just assholes who met in a bar 20 minutes ago, and you're gold). They can easily fit into a party if all of the players (and especially the CE PC) are relatively mature.

The problem is, a lot of immature people play RPGs. And assholes will be assholes no matter what character they're playing.


---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Because that is completely misusing the word. Euthanasia is a lawful concept.

Depends on where you live.


---

Aaaaaaalmost like alignment is dumb and should be gotten rid of.
---

It should just be seen as a guideline and nothing more.

Not this absolute thing that when you "go against" it, the DM punishes you for it.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Lokarin posted...

My (character's) matron Goddess Ereshkigal prefers the peaceful dead, as they make less noise.

I only know that name as the tome wielded by Nergal. I have no idea what kind of domain she would have in a D&D pantheon.

Ereshkigal is the Sumerian/Babylonian goddess of the dead. Most often remembered as being the sister of Ishtar, and involved in an Orphean sort of "descent into the underworld" myth.

As for Domains, most likely Grave Domain or Death Domain, depending on whether you're shading more into good or evil.

She'd actually be canon in Faerun/Forgotten Realms - she'd be a goddess of Unther (which is Sumerian/Babylonian/Mesopotamian-flavored). But she's also be considered a dead or absent power, since most of the Untheric gods left Faerun long ago.

Her closest comparison might be Nephthys (the Egyptian death goddess), who IS canon in Mulhorand (just to the east of Unther) - she was actually the patron of one of MY Clerics (though I made her a Life Cleric, because she was less pro-death and more anti-undeath, and Nephthys is also a protector goddess).


---

shadowsword87 posted...

Aaaaaaalmost like alignment is dumb and should be gotten rid of.

And like I've countered to you before, since pretty much every rule and facet of the mechanics has been abused or misunderstood at some point or another, we should totally just throw all the rules out and just freeform.

If stupid people using rules poorly was an excuse to get rid of things, the US would have gotten rid of its government decades ago!



Nichtcrawler X posted...

It should just be seen as a guideline and nothing more.

Not this absolute thing that when you "go against" it, the DM punishes you for it.

That's basically how it's treated now. It's a crutch and guide to help RP, not a cudgel used to beat over your head with. It's way less restrictive than it used to be.

Like Background and Character Concepts and other tools they provide for helping neophytes ease into RP, it's useful but isn't really meant as a straight-jacket.


---

Considering our 4 running campaigns mainly use whatever gods we had lying around/knew and not really any of the actual established DnD pantheons. I mostly know/understand Domains, not any specific gods beyond Bahamut.

I mean, in our main campaign, the current gods of relevance are Burn (War Cleric PC), Isha (Life Cleric PC) Hieracon (Evil God of Fire) and Krom (God of Ice whose followers are at war with Hiercacon)

In my campaign, I use Greek names for my internal bookkeeping, but allowed the players their own names for the same gods. Since gods have many names, depending on people and culture.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If stupid people using rules poorly was an excuse to get rid of things, the US would have gotten rid of its government decades ago!

I dunno, that worked out last time.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I dunno, that worked out last time.

Did it, though? Look where it got us.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I dunno, that worked out last time.

Did it, though? Look where it got us.

Look where not getting rid of the government got you.
---

Holy shit what happened in here.
streamofthesky posted...

A nonlethal fair duel or spar between two PCs can be done, and is fine. I've had plenty of those, they're fun.

That's often not what PvP is. PvP is often not a mutually agreed upon situation, done openly and fairly. It's often someone stealing from another party member. Or murdering him in his sleep. Or betraying the party in the middle of a fight when they're hurt and vulnerable.
At least IME, PvP is often opportunistic, craven, and self-serving. Hence why it's so despised.

Yeah, I THINK its meant to be a friendly sparing match. So everyone knows: Im using star wars saga edition and set during the clone wars, in case thats important. Anyway it's my friend, a scout clone, and his NPC jedi general in a sparing ring. It was at the end of the session so we thought it'd be alright to end before the fight.
In terms of game mechanics, am I doing anything wrong? The jedi is essentially a player character. When I googled pvp one thing I saw was chance to hit. My guys all happen to have a reflex (like AC in other games) around the 20 range and they're level 3. What I saw was some post I forget where but it wasnt explained. I suspect the problem might be 2 guys hitting the air for 2 minutes straight

And how the heck do i make a custom boss that isnt a high level PC. If high level pc is bad that is. Googled that too and got nothing.

Oh and the clone could be chaotic neutral but thats another problem
---

Come to think of it, how do i make custom enemies at all
---

Welcome to the wonderful world of winging it.

How much HP? Enough that nobody questions it.
What sort of bonus to hit? Whatever the PC has -2.
What about spells? Only a few spells, then go into melee.
What about AC/defense? It's based purely off of player reaction.

If the players don't notice anything, you just saved 30+ minutes of work.
---

Oh okay. I thought I'd have to make an enemy in the way the book has it
https://imgur.com/WEf8nEE
Although to be honest ive never really analyzed any of the npc stats so for all I know they're just slightly edited PCs for the most part.
So does this mean I can kind of do whatever I want with a later force user boss? Within reason I know. I jotted down notes somewhere that had health and reflex and abilities. So if reflex is high-ish I should lower it? And what about health? I got 4 guys and they range from high 30 to almost 50
---

You haven't played a lot of RPGs have you?
Your terminology is really confusing.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

You haven't played a lot of RPGs have you?
Your terminology is really confusing.

Ive played 3 different ones. Only war 40k, pathfinder, and SW saga edition. Im GMing for the first time, star wars setting is also a first but I am familiar with it
---

streamofthesky posted...

Lawful is also not a great name for the opposing alignment, and a lawful character doesn't need to follow or respect the laws of a town if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs (classic example: LG or most LN characters would not "respect" local laws allowing slavery and requiring people to inform the guards of any escaped slaves they notice).
It's the "lawful" alignment that's all about having a strict personal code the person adheres to. whether it's due to the law of his home, the law of his god, or just his own inner moral code.

"Chaotic" alignment indicates the absence of such an inner code.

Disagree.

The archetypal example of a Chaotic Good character, for instance, is Robin Hood. Robin Hood absolutely has a moral code he sticks to - it is the fact that he puts greater emphasis on his own internal sense of what is "right" than what others claim is correct is what emphasizes his chaotic nature (that and his willingness to go against the law of the land to do good, rather than trying to act within its bounds).

A lawful good character faced with evil or corruption would still be against it, but would be more likely to work within the system to oppose it (or would join an opposed organization working to instill a more just code of laws and ethics). If Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, his Lawful Good counterpart would be King Richard.

I mean, if you think that a chaotic character lacks any internal moral code, a chaotic good character would be impossible.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

It should just be seen as a guideline and nothing more.

Not this absolute thing that when you "go against" it, the DM punishes you for it.

The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.

When I'm GMing, I tend to flat-out ignore alignments and all associated requirements, because I find them overly restrictive and dumb.

Blorfenburger posted...

Yeah, I THINK its meant to be a friendly sparing match. So everyone knows: Im using star wars saga edition and set during the clone wars, in case thats important.

Saga is one of those systems I mentioned earlier that's bad for PvP. If you're at low enough levels you probably won't notice, but your comment about "swinging at the air for 20 minutes" could definitely be pertinent. Player character defences in Saga tend to be much higher than NPC equivalents - especially at low levels where your attack bonuses haven't yet scaled to match your defences.

Blorfenburger posted...

And how the heck do i make a custom boss that isnt a high level PC. If high level pc is bad that is. Googled that too and got nothing.

Learn what "non-heroic levels" are - they're in the main rulebook. Using them is important for designing NPCs.
---

Blorfenburger posted...

Oh and the clone could be chaotic neutral but thats another problem

Saga doesn't use alignment, at least not the way you're referring to it here. The closest it has is dark side points - some abilities require you to be fully darksided, some require you to have zero dark side points.

But, honestly, DSPs are another element of saga that's kind of wonky (especially given that low-wisdom characters can be turned super easily, while high-wisdom characters basically have to be Space Hitler before they are even close to turning), so don't worry about it overly much.

Blorfenburger posted...

Oh okay. I thought I'd have to make an enemy in the way the book has it
https://imgur.com/WEf8nEE
Although to be honest ive never really analyzed any of the npc stats so for all I know they're just slightly edited PCs for the most part.
So does this mean I can kind of do whatever I want with a later force user boss? Within reason I know. I jotted down notes somewhere that had health and reflex and abilities. So if reflex is high-ish I should lower it? And what about health? I got 4 guys and they range from high 30 to almost 50

Best advice for making NPCs and enemies in Saga is to start with the pre-set ones in the books (there are lots of them). Once you get a bit more comfortable with the system, you can start tweaking them a bit. Give them more health if you want some that are tankier, or replace their weapons with better ones if you want them to hit harder. Eventually, yes, you can just conjure up your own stat blocks out of thin air - you're technically not supposed to, but fuck it, you're the GM you can do what you want. Just eyeball some of the other NPCs and make sure that you're not making anything that's too ridiculous (and even then, given how badly Saga characters can be broken by a savvy player, you may have to make some characters that would make Palpatine cry in order to provide a decent challenge).
---

Yeah I know there's no alignment chart I just sayin he would be CN if there were.
And yeah sounds like I should look at nonheroic levels. Im goin through learning pains here and my friends know it. Its why I started with clone wars, im allowed to order them around if I feel i need to.
Time to take notes
---

Most of the D&D players with whom I have recently played default to Chaotic Neutral in order to not have to think too hard about alignment. Their characters just do what is expedient, though I do have one player who is purposely playing Lawful Good in the same group in order to see whether or not he can stick to it.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.

My apologies, my only real tabletop experience is 5e, that did away with all of those.
---

In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.
---

I dont know why but I feel lost with nonheroic levels. I need to make 2 force users, cant seem to wrap my brain around doing that

LinkPizza posted...

In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.

Hey thats cool, one of my friends kamikazed himself again. Seems to be a running theme with him
---

Blorfenburger posted...

I dont know why but I feel lost with nonheroic levels. I need to make 2 force users, cant seem to wrap my brain around doing that

Non-heroic levels are essentially the same as the regular "heroic" levels you use to build PCs, except it doesn't confer as many bonuses. Really low-level mooks will be nothing but non-heroic levels; most other NPCs are a mix of heroic and non-heroic levels. Boss characters can be made with entirely heroic levels, or you can just toss the rules out and stat them how you like (sometimes a necessity, depending on how good your players are at making broken characters of their own). WotC even does this themselves, though they never admitted it - if you reverse-engineer their character blocks, some of the named characters have base stats that are unreal.
---

darkknight109 posted...

The annoying part about alignments is that certain classes require you to have certain alignments and if you act against them, you can lose the benefits of that class.

That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.

But thematically, it makes sense regardless. "Hey, I'm a Paladin, a traditional paragon of nobility and grace, the whitest of white knights, saving maidens and bringing peace and justice to the land. Also, I'm Chaotic Evil!" It doesn't really make sense, no matter how kewl the player thinks it would be.

The real sticking point is once people start asking questions like "Well, can I be a Paladin of an Evil god?" or "Why would my Chaotic god expect me to be Lawful?" Which is why the rules eventually adapted to incorporate the "one-step" rule (where your Alignment has to be mostly the same as your god, with enough wiggle room to be one step away - so a Cleric of a Chaotic Evil god could be Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil, but you can't be Lawful Good without annoying your god).

Eventually they just dropped restrictions like that entirely under the assumption that DM's can adjudicate things like that themselves, while still opening the door for a player to be devoted to the ideals of their god without necessarily being in lockstep with their worldview. But the DM can still tell you to fuck off if you're trying to be a Chaotic Evil Paladin of Lathander.



I_Abibde posted...

Most of the D&D players with whom I have recently played default to Chaotic Neutral in order to not have to think too hard about alignment. Their characters just do what is expedient, though I do have one player who is purposely playing Lawful Good in the same group in order to see whether or not he can stick to it.

Arguably, that would just make them True Neutral, which is the default Alignment of 90% of the normal population.

True Neutral is basically the person who is mostly just trying to get by, willing to take shortcuts or break minor laws to benefit themselves, but who also feel guilty about hurting other people so try to avoid exploiting or abusing other people TOO much. They react to pretty much every situation or scenario by evaluating the cost/benefit transaction (even if only unconsciously), and tailor their reactions to the specific case (so they can be vengeful to assholes, but also occasionally kind to strangers if it doesn't cost too much, willing to commit "victimless crimes" if they think they can get away with them, but most of the time they follow the rules to avoid rocking the boat).

Heroes are legendary figures who tend more towards extremes (it takes a lot of individualism and a bit of crazy to be the sort of person who decides to strap a sword on your hip and wander off to murder monsters and crawl around in old tombs for coin), so they're more likely to react to things in more archetypal/mythic ways, but the average person isn't going to be a saint or a sociopath, but just Joe McEverydude. Adventurers are more inclined to be noble paragons or impulsive thrillseekers than the guy who spends all his time farming potatoes or serving drinks in the tavern.



LinkPizza posted...

In my games, we blow a lot of things up. One of my characters was addicted to explosions, though.

Sounds like my college RP group. They were the sort to bungie jump in through the skylight of local vampire wizards in an attempt to steal their magic books, and once murdered a bunch of thugs from a street gang, then went bowling with one of their heads and a bunch of empty beer bottles in an alley.

Was tons of fun, though.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.

Depends entirely on what system and edition you're talking about.
---

darkknight109 posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

That's not a thing any more. Mainly because of the potential for misuse you're implying.

Depends entirely on what system and edition you're talking about.

True. But generally, if you're talking alignment you're talking about D&D or Pathfinder (which is basically just 3.75 D&D).

And that's why we mentioned they fixed it in the recent edition (5e). Obviously if you're playing an older edition, it's still going to have the older baggage as well. But in the same sense that most people don't complain about THAC0 anymore, it's fair to say that a lot of the issues people had with Alignment no longer apply.

4e tried to simplify it down even more (Lawful Good-Good-Unaligned-Evil-Chaotic Evil), but it annoyed people so they went back to the traditional grid. And Original Recipe and Basic D&D waaay back in the day didn't even have Good/Evil and just had Alignment be Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic (Good/Evil was added later, after Paladins became a thing). But the current way it's presented (in 5e) is probably the best it's ever been.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(Good/Evil was added later, after Paladins became a thing).

Which I still find silly. Evil Paladins are definitely a thing and make for great villains.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

(Good/Evil was added later, after Paladins became a thing).

Which I still find silly. Evil Paladins are definitely a thing and make for great villains.

Yeah im in a game with an evil league that has an evil paladin
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Which I still find silly. Evil Paladins are definitely a thing.

In mythology, they're arguably not.

The concept of a Paladin in D&D started out from the actual historical paladins, who were Charlemagne's Peers/personal guard, who were basically knights rooted in chivalry, honor, valor, and being faithful Christian soldiers fighting back the heathen Saracens to protect Europe. They're very much about as Lawful Good as you can get.

Along the way they picked up more elements of what we traditionally think of as a "holy knight" (on par with Galahad and Percival from Arthurian myth), when they evolved into the idea that, in a universe of magic, holy knights are going to have literal miracle powers (like Clerics do). But if the Cleric is a warrior-priest, then the Paladin is militant lay clergy akin to a Templar, Hospitaller, or Teutonic Knight (ie, the difference being that one is a priest who fights, while the other is a knight who prays - their priorities are reversed, but they're both servants of god).

So by their inspiration, it's pretty much literally impossible to be an Evil Paladin. Because the moment you become Evil, you stop being a Paladin.

This is kind of typified by Arthur's Grail quest - in spite of his Round Table being filled with chivalrous knights of all manner of personality and motive, nearly all of them were too impure to achieve the Grail. Only Galahad and Percival were worthy - in D&D terms, Galahad and Percival would be the only Paladins at that table, while the other knights are basically Fighters who espouse a code of behavior and some of whom at least aspire to piety. But simply being Good or even Lawful is not enough. You basically have to be the most Lawful of the Lawful, the most Good of the Good, and pious as fuck.

It really wasn't until people started specifically thinking about D&D Paladins as "knights in service to a specific god" that people started wondering "Well, what if you were a knight in service to an evil god?" that the idea of Evil Paladins was couched in terms that made sense at all. And even then, the answer wasn't "Evil Paladin" as much as it was "Anti-Paladin" or later "Blackguard" (ie, the "Dark Knight" archetype, serving an evil god). And players were discouraged from even thinking about playing one.

Eventually things evolved to the point where the prevailing attitude was more "Ehh, play a dark knight in service to an evil god if you want to", which is when the idea of an Evil Paladin basically became a thing for real. Which is basically where we are now - if you want to play a Paladin, and you decide you want to worship a god like Bane or Tiamat or Asmodeus, you just take the Oath of Vengeance or the Oath of Conquest, take some evil spells, and bam, you're an evil Paladin.


---