Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

I actually wouldn't say that's all that different from RL at all. The main difference is in there being an overarching objective definition of what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. I will agree that it's iffy to have all the villains 'believe they're the good guys', but only because the definition of 'good' in this world is quite strongly defined. I would instead say that most villains think positively of themselves. Most are able to rationalize their decisions. That does not mean they are 'good', by the definitions of DnD. It means they have a world view that is in opposition to what is defined as good, but they themselves view their actions as a necessary and logical action.

One example of this is how Thayan culture believes that the gods reward the strong and resolute, not the gentle and compassionate. This is an evil world view (or neutral at best) within DnD definitions, but it does not make it an illogical or irrational mindset. The people who believe that honestly believe that that is the way the world works, and that cultures who favor the opposite are wrong.

There's DM Dialectic's post here where he quotes what defines good and what defines evil (and law and chaos). Those are the objective definitions of good and evil in the DnD setting. Evil people are those who favor cultures/individuals that follow the ideals of the evil definition, while good people are those cultures/individuals that favor the ideals of the good definition.

In RL, what defines good and what defines evil are much more subjective. People or cultures that would be classified as 'evil' in DnD would argue that they are good IRL. The main difference between RL and DnD here is that the definitions of good and evil are set in stone. The words are hardcoded. But that's it. It means an evil person in DnD can say 'I'm evil' and take pride in that. It means that 'evilness' is as positive a definition as good is, because it will depend on what values a culture/person favors. An evil person typically favors traits like strength, personal power, and conviction. A good person typically favors compassion, selflessness, and protection. Both evil and good person think positively of their own beliefs, and have unfavorable views of the other side. The evil guy just won't call the good guy 'evil'. He'll probably be more likely to use words like 'weak' or 'soft-hearted'. He'll still view his own ideals favorably, he just is not likely to consider himself 'good'. What should be rare, is evil characters who value things like compassion or protecting the weak (or if he does value these things, they'd be character flaws in the same way as greed and arrogance are flaws for good characters).

Evil societies have different values than good societies. This is not different from RL. The only thing that's different is the objective definitions of what cultural values are 'good' and what ones are 'evil'.

The key thing when making an evil character as I see it, is to avoid defining your character in opposition to good. While good and evil are opposites, in DnD they are both their own world views and perspectives. Good characters don't need evil characters in order to function, and evil characters shouldn't need good characters in order to function. The character should be able to stand on their own, regardless of their alignment. Their alignment just offers a representation of what sort of values they have.

I came across this video of someone who is discussing factions in DnD. He makes some great arguments about the motivation of the evil factions of the land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtheuGJpVHw

Thids wrote: Speaking of fallen paladins, someone mentioned them here earlier as an example of someone who is a symbol of good turning to evil as a typical example of "good folks doing evil things for a good cause". I disagree with that, in fact I personally think that a large majority of fallen paladins would fall on the law><chaos axis rather than on the good><evil axis. Has anyone ever tried to write a background for a fallen paladin? A paladin who fell down to evil? Writing that without making it sound cheesy as hell and unbelievable is extremely difficult. I usually don't have much issues when it comes to coming up with the details of characters backgrounds and defining characters backstories (I only have an issue with actually writing them down, cuz I'm lazy ;_;), but even I have to admit that I have been struggling with writing a background for a fallen paladin recently. It's not even about making it a good story, it's about making it believable and not corny as hell to me, first and foremost. That's how unbelievable paladins who fall to evil are.

Fallen paladins are intended to crash hard through the axis, but they don't forget who they were. Example?

Paladin of Ilmater. Once gave in to the temptation of Loviatar and Hoar to avenge a wrong committed by a wicked man out of purest anger. Committed an evil act antithetical to their worship, just once. Falls. Berift of power, turns to alcoholism, loses their faith, spends their time in dens of vice and sin.

Their story either becomes one of slow, gradual redemption towards Ilmater, or one of a new life where a former paladin, convinced of the necessity of torture and violence in the world, goes around doing what they think is good by inflicting violence on those they think deserve it. This worldview slowly warps, step by step.

Nothing lawful or chaotic about that story. Fallen paladins who crash through into comical evil are terribly written, but then so are literal tree hugging druids, king of the world warlords and warlocks with succubus harems. Paladins fall because they break oaths and defy their patrons. That act is usually the first step on a darker path, or their oath was so restrictive that its breaking is cataclysmic by nature.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean that paladins who fall to evil do not exist, I just think that the ones who fall on the law/chaos axis should be a more common occurrence. That somehow seems more logical to me.

I've always portrayed evil characters as falling into a pattern that spirals out of control (be that spiral about power-chasing and manipulative dominations or tipping it more off-balance on the hedonistic and chaotic side), and throughout the story they talk themselves in circles on whether they really enjoy doing it. and sometimes even do good deeds out of guilt, or do bad deeds to justify good results... Usually by the END of the first segment of the story; when I crack the ice he is indeed an insane narcissist, that he did enjoy it from the get-go. Thematically, a protagonist's descent to villainy is expressed a certain way with me; I like to hit upon the idea we don't always have a choice in a rough situation (ADOPTING FROM NIEZCHE), which can be subjectively interpreted as just blaming, if you will. But this is the mind-set.

I am currently writing in regard of a depressive military soldier who lies to himself, that he doesn't enjoy war, and he doesn't use promotions and glories accrued from his superiors and dominating out on the battle-field, and forcing the other soldiers around him to pucker-up in fear, as a form of narcissistic supply. Most of his interactions with others are riddled with lies, as well. He has been demoted in the army because of this, even. Him and the berserker in my story borrow the trait of not valuing friendship as much as they should and more as objects and tools to remain one step ahead. Borrowing it namely from Tony Soprano always comes to mind, and how creative the writer was leaving us wonder up until the very end whether Tony valued his friends as friends or business associates. The writer answers this question several times throughout the series, when they are all laughing at Tony's bad joke around the table, and in slow motion gazing, Tony notices Feech La Manna not laughing and its enough of a slight compacted with the other slights to send him back to prison. Which he does. The final episode of Sopranos, reinforces the idea that all Tony really cares about is his family's safety; he keeps looking at the door, looking at the door, in fear of his death. My theory was he never got whacked the punishment being watching his back for eternity.

Also, it is my opinion people with dispositions towards gaining power and gratifying their own egos do carry that trait within them dormant for decades, if not a few years before it does finally ooze out.

Hi guys, really found this topic interesting and loving how people has slightly different take on the whole evil/good guy approach.

I used to roleplay a guy in ultima online for a good 15 years, he also aged within the roleplay system from age 16-60 in that time as there was that concept in the roleplay server where your character would age a bit each year.

Now that character at the start was at all not evil, bad, nor good, he was young and got in with the wrong crowd. (Joined a guild which turned out to be mostly thugs/bandits/never-do-gooders) But they explained their actions because at the time the town they lived within was being oppressed by a local militia garrison. A year or two irl went by where the townspeople he was part of would fight the Local garrison, the usual highway robbery, kidnappings, to them doing patrols into our part of town, fun roleplay, but to get back to topic, my character now started to hate.

In the end he was out one time from the village (I think I was out eating dinner with family irl) and the village he lived in had been attacked by a very bad high ranking guardsman so to speak, that guardsman ended up killing a lot of people (Perma killed, was very usual for chars to be perma killed in this setting as it was a very dark roleplay setting) And my char returned to find out all about this.

From there the next 11 years I role played him he spiraled out of control beyond anything, slowly going insane/crazy that I used to when logging on role 2 dice to see what mood he was in (I had a lot of time on my hands back then... I was a teenager...) And also any big decisions he had to make I rolled a dice to see his mood.

In the end he ended up being some kind of criminal overlord over the next 11 years irl, a empire spanning a good 7 years irl. (There is a lot more that occurred but I have already droned on long enough)

Now - I never planned to make my character evil, but things occurred to him in game to set him on this path to not just becoming lawful evil, but essentially chaotic evil. He did not go around and cackle and summon the undeads whilst sipping on some fine cool virgins blood, but in turn if I was to log in one day, roll snake eyes on the dice, people and himself were in for a bad bad day.

My point being, I understand its awesome to have a crazy background in which your character done all these things, now he is a famous assassin etc. But why not start him off as a decent hider/stealther who might know a thing or two and roleplay from that within game? Start joining merc guilds, do actual in game jobs/assassinations and make the roleplay within the game be what shapes your character? Hire yourself out to some mad necromancer or powerful wizard who has no conscience etc.

I try to do the same with my character, leave their backgrounds vague/simple and let the roleplay guide them, currently my sorc is starting to hate Thayans due to someone he is roleplaying/going to dungeons a lot with is a rasherman (Being new to server and game I barely know what Thayans are and have had to actually ask others for some ooc material so my character ic can try and "read" books on it, he even goes around asking others what they know etc) But more than likely this guy is on a bad path to screwing with a very powerful organisation which more than likely ends him up perma dead or might create some interesting roleplay.

Anywho I wrote too much, if you cant be asked to read it all, summary is this - Let the roleplay/people in game you meet shape how your character turns out.