Blood Enemies Questions

[Michael-John Almon]

>
>
> ----
>From: DURKS95@aol.com
>To: birthright@MPGN.COM
>Date: ÓÜââáôï, 23 �õãïýóôïõ 1997 3:04 ìì
>Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Blood Enemies Questions
>
>>I don't think you should punish someone for just being evil, yes if he
>>commits an evil act that gets him in trouble, well it's his own fault,
>but
>>don't just kill his character because he wanted an evil guy.
>
>And Birthright is just the right seting for someone to be evil. I mean,how
>many good monarchs do u know to exist in medieval europe? Being greedy,
>wanting to asume more power is only natural when you're a wealthy king, an
>influential priest or a major guildmaster.
>
>George, neon@mail.otenet.gr

In all honesty I think that is hardly fair. I'm sure that one
could name off a number of "good" monarchs. The only problem is that Good
is a relative term. There were sincere influential priests you know. A
major guildmaster is of course going to try to get more money, it's in the
job description. It's not so much a mark of evil sometimes, as it is
political pride and Imperialism. I have no problem with seeing an
expansionistic and good monarch at the same time. Mind you as a DM I allow
evil characters, especially in BR. The way I look at it, an Evil character
is more likely to betray you, a good character is not less likely to
declare war (But often with reason over just greed). So I suppose the
argument has come full circle, so I'll stop now.


- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* In Ore Veritas, * Dounoc'h eo kaloun ar merc'hed *
* In Corde Sinceritas * 'vit ar mor douna euz ar bed *
* -Almon Motto * - The Deepest Sea *

[Guest]

Joao Medeiros wrote:
>
> At 07:42 23/08/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't think you should punish someone for just being evil, yes if he
> >commits an evil act that gets him in trouble, well it's his own fault, but
> >don't just kill his character because he wanted an evil guy.
>
> I don't kill him because he is evil. I use his evil nature, his lust
> for power, to lure him to his own doom. Through this method he will gain
> great power in the beginning, but in the end it will be all for nothing.
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
> -Joao Medeiros
> lcgm@elogica.com.br

That's it, if you play fairly an evil character will have the same
chances of a good character to fall in disgrace...evil doesn't mean
stupid, and a guy that cannot resist to temptations is not evil, he's
an idiot. An evil character, to me, is just somebody who only cares
about
his own plans and needs but if he wants to survive he has to learn that
the only safe way to use people is by not letting them know you're using
them...the ancient and noble art of the backstab in a dark alley...where
nobody can witness what happened. Probably sooner or later he's going to
be caught but hey, probably sooner or later that Pitfiend will use the
valiant paladin as toothpaste.

[breye@earthlink.ne]

M. wrote:
>
> Joao Medeiros wrote:
> >
> > At 07:42 23/08/97 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I don't think you should punish someone for just being evil, yes if he
> > >commits an evil act that gets him in trouble, well it's his own fault, but
> > >don't just kill his character because he wanted an evil guy.
> >
> > I don't kill him because he is evil. I use his evil nature, his lust
> > for power, to lure him to his own doom. Through this method he will gain
> > great power in the beginning, but in the end it will be all for nothing.
> > Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> >
> > -Joao Medeiros
> > lcgm@elogica.com.br
>
> That's it, if you play fairly an evil character will have the same
> chances of a good character to fall in disgrace...evil doesn't mean
> stupid, and a guy that cannot resist to temptations is not evil, he's
> an idiot. An evil character, to me, is just somebody who only cares
> about
> his own plans and needs but if he wants to survive he has to learn that
> the only safe way to use people is by not letting them know you're using
> them...the ancient and noble art of the backstab in a dark alley...where
> nobody can witness what happened. Probably sooner or later he's going to
> be caught but hey, probably sooner or later that Pitfiend will use the
> valiant paladin as toothpaste.
> That can be one of the best things about playing an (at least initially)
evil character. Roleplaying thru alignment changes can be some of the
most challenging bits of rlolplaying you can do, especially for an evil
character who is becoming enlightened and sheding his evil ways.

Bryan

[Paul Lefebvre]

Joao Medeiros wrote:

> At 07:42 23/08/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't think you should punish someone for just being evil, yes if
> he
> >commits an evil act that gets him in trouble, well it's his own
> fault, but
> >don't just kill his character because he wanted an evil guy.
>
> I don't kill him because he is evil. I use his evil nature,
> his lust
> for power, to lure him to his own doom. Through this method he will
> gain
> great power in the beginning, but in the end it will be all for
> nothing.
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>
> -Joao Medeiros
> lcgm@elogica.com.br

I agree...but that causes hard feelings in my opinion. Thus I just
don't allow them. They simply seem a cheap excuse to be a powergamer.
Whenever I allow one "just this once" it ends up being abused and
sometimes other players characters get murdered (of course the evil
character makes sure to make it look like he's innocent....like when an
evil fighter ACCIDENTALLY locked a knight of the sword in a chamber with
two of Lord Soth's skeletaal warriors (where the poor knight was
promptly chopped up into hamburger), or the mage who fireballed his own
party after a tough battle in Ravenloft that left the others weakened
(and thus killed the whole party excepting himself). I know that
results in Ravenloft Powers checks and such....but small consolation
considering all the other players need to roll up new characters. It
was nasty experiences like these that led me to choose not to allow evil
characters in a campaign.

Paul L.