What's the point of being good in D&D?

[Lago PARANOIA]

It puts you at a bigger personal disadvantage than being evil, you suffer even more karmic backlash by doing good things than bad things, you end up with less power, and most importantly doing good things doesn't affect the setting at all.

Even if you personally kill every evil god in the pantheon things will have gone back to shit after 3 or so generations.

So fuck it. Why even bother?

[Talisman]

most importantly doing good things doesn't affect the setting at all.

This is true only if your GM is a total dick. Most GMs I know assume that if the PCs accomplish some great deed, the forces of evil take a hit. Hell, one campaign I ran the PCs destroyed and evil artifact and not-coincidentally rescued an entire country from the grasp of the evil gods and made it into a stronghold of good.

Speaking personally, I enjoy playing the hero more than the villain. Playing evil can be fun once in a while, but it's not how I usually have fun. Most of my friends seem to feel the same way.

[Sir Neil]

Pretending to be something radically different from yourself can be fun?

[Swashbuckler]

Some DMs I've played with have more or less insisted on all-good parties to try to ensure intra-party cooperation. As the DMs in question were 'roleplayers' (as opposed to 'roll-players') and I was playing with a buddy in the game, we kiboshed that by playing as a cleric of Kord and a paladin. In hindsight it was a pretty petty thing to do, but it amused the hell outta the rest of the players (who were in on it, as opposed to the DM in question, who wasn't).

But really, there's very little that can't be justified into a good alignment somehow. It seems to me to be a tag that applies for a very select few things, mechanically, and ends up meaning less than nothing for anything else. So I guess the real purpose for playing good is choosing to get hit by Blasphemy but also getting to use alignment-restricted stuff.

[Koumei]

were 'roleplayers' (as opposed to 'roll-players')

Whenever someone uses those terms, they're invariably a pretentious fuck, and need to slam their dick in a car door. Please go do so. Now.

I usually prefer playing Good in general - aside from certain Evil characters - and yeah, usually being Good usually does actually make a difference. At the worst, you can put Evil behind long enough that, by the time Evil is ready to strike again, there's another gang of heroes ready to put it in its place.

[virgil]

Whenever someone uses those terms, they're invariably a pretentious fuck, and need to slam their dick in a car door.

Ow.

I like good campaigns out of the fact that goals in those just seem to be more involved than most other games (read: CRPGs), because in other games, it's a pretty self-centered 'gather all the money/ears' arrangement.

[FatR]

In official settings you're not supposed to really push the evil back or make the world better in the long term for the same reason the villains suffer from chronic inability to suceed in their plots - because the Status Quo Is God. This is not necessarily (and, IMO, should not be) so in specific games. When I DM I try to demonstrate the players, that yes, they can change the world.

And why play good characters. Well, maybe because people like to play them? Also, I disagree, that being good puts you at noticeable disadvantage, unless your DM deliberately cranks the world's cynicism to WH40K levels. Mechanically, you're hardly disadvantaged when compared to evil characters.

[Caedrus]

and most importantly doing good things doesn't affect the setting at all.

Are you sure your DM isn't just a jackass? Because things you do should affect the world.

[Fuchs]

In my campaign, PCs can and do affect the campaign world, and those changes carry over in the next campaign. A town liberated here, a portal discovered there, causing a new trade route to be formed, causing for renewed expansion of an old empire, up to the recent coup in the City of Brass in our current campaign as the latest example.

So, whether PCs are good or evil does have an impact as well.

[Roy]

Evil always wins, because good is dumb.

Also, evil gets rewarded as much or more.

Great fun - playing say... Lawful Evil, in a good aligned party. Proceed to not only hide real motives but turn various good PCs, random Paladins, whatever to the Dark Side.

Now sure, they can change stuff and all, but the D&D world is seriously on the brink of a fucking apocalypse. It never states this specifically, but it is implied beyond a reasonable doubt.

"So you killed Nihilist 9,001? Ok, that's nice."

*Camera pans out to way too fucking long line*

"Your task is not yet complete, mortal."

Might as well change the world so you're the fucker running it. At least then you might get somewhere.

[Kaelik]

were 'roleplayers' (as opposed to 'roll-players')

Whenever someone uses those terms, they're invariably a pretentious fuck, and need to slam their dick in a car door. Please go do so. Now.

Pretty sure he was mocking his DM with that statement, to show how dumb the idea that only good parties can cooperate is. You know, so dumb that only a "roleplayis better then rollplay" idiot would say it.

[Talisman]

Evil always wins, because good is dumb.

Wrong.

Also, evil gets rewarded as much or more.

Depends on the setting. In general, evil gets the short-term power and luxury and long-term Crapsack Afterlife and being used as toilet paper by Asmodeus. Good gets the short-term Heroic Sacrifice and the long-term 99 virgins and fluffy clouds and such.

The default D&D cosmology is FUBAR, but then, so are a lot of things in default D&D.

[ckafrica]

The party I saw that generally worked the best together was all evil.

That being said, I largely dislike evil games, mostly because evil wins all the time in reality and I like the feeling of killing sadistic fucks who deserve it in my fantasy.

I never DM the stupid evil we see on TV though. Mine are all Dick Cheney evil.

[RandomCasualty2]

Being evil can be pretty hard, because unlike the good guys, you've always got to watch your own back. Your allies aren't your allies because they believe it's the right thing to do, they're your allies because they believe it benefits them at this very moment. And that can change at any time.

So really, the good guys don't like you, the evil guys don't like you, and nobody really trusts you. Getting to the top of the ladder as a bad guy isn't easy.

[Maxus]

Being evil can be pretty hard, because unlike the good guys, you've always got to watch your own back. Your allies aren't your allies because they believe it's the right thing to do, they're your allies because they believe it benefits them at this very moment. And that can change at any time.

So really, the good guys don't like you, the evil guys don't like you, and nobody really trusts you. Getting to the top of the ladder as a bad guy isn't easy.

I think it depends on the Evil person in question. Evil people are completely able to make and sustain friendships and actually care about other people. That whole "evil turns upon itself" line doesn't meet the True in 100% of Cases test.

[Roy]

Talisman, I was being snarky. Still mostly correct, but snarky.

In general maybe, or at least that's what people think to try to feel better about themselves and herd the masses in the desired direction.

In D&D, you get rewarded for competence and punished for incompetence. Doesn't matter which team you play for - you just have to play well. Except that one team makes you do a bunch of BS that results in you wasting your personal resources and the other has their priorities in order.

Yes, I am Lawful Evil. What is your point?

[ckafrica]

Yes, I am Lawful Evil. What is your point?

Dude, you just defined yourself by the alignment system. Even on an RPG board that scores an infinity +1 loser points. come on don't one of those rpgers who makes the rest of us cover our face when we walk into a game shop.

[Roy]

Yes, I am Lawful Evil. What is your point?

Dude, you just defined yourself by the alignment system. Even on an RPG board that scores an infinity +1 loser points. come on don't one of those rpgers who makes the rest of us cover our face when we walk into a game shop.

Dude, you just took snark and sarcasm as a serious statement of fact.

[Psychic Robot]

Mirrors aren't good enough.

[Roy]

Mirrors aren't good enough.

Win.

[ckafrica]

I'm sorry but there are just some lines that should never be crossed, no matter what the reason.

Defining oneself in relation to the alignment system, even in jest, will lump you in with super nerd players who lack personal hygiene skills, believe that cheesy heavy metal tattoos make them cool and who will inevitably live spend a good portion of their early adult life living in their parents' basements and chronically masturbating to anime.

Such a slip in public around non gamer friends could lead you to needing to moving to another town and changing your name to have any hope of having a normal social life. As we all know, you can sometimes get away with mentioning RPGs and even have a guarded discussion about what they are; but you should never go further (unless you think you've spotted a convert). Nothing freaks out the normies worse than guys telling stories about running around slaying dracoliches as if it were real.

Remember even in D&D itself it is best to not mention the alignment system to avoid fouling your mouth with the taint of that ultra geek super wankery bullshit.

In all honesty, you're better of making pedophile jokes which infer that you yourself are one; you'll likely find a more forgiving crowd.

Trust me, convincing your parents to pay for university in another town just because you spilled your dice bag in the middle of class in grade 12 is not worth it. Keep your geeking on the down low and know what is and is not socially acceptable.

[Talisman]

In D&D, you get rewarded for competence and punished for incompetence. Doesn't matter which team you play for - you just have to play well.

True. That's one of the things I hate about the default D&D cosmology - good and evil are both "correct" choices, since both get rewarded about equally. All else being equal, the more efficient choice is the correct one.

Except that one team makes you do a bunch of BS that results in you wasting your personal resources and the other has their priorities in order.

I disagree. Sure, evil people can have friends, but more often than not, evil people will actively screw each other over if they believe it will benefit them somehow. Good people are less likely to do this, and even when they have disagreements they're less likely to utterly rape one another - because it's against both of their beliefs.

And it also matters what sort of character you want to play. I prefer not to play Bolgar the Baby-Eater very often...I find it more satisfying to play Shendar the Defender of the Helpless.

[Psychic Robot]

Bolgar the Baby-Eater gets old. Have you ever read American Psycho? Yawn.

[Roy]

So where does taking crap like that seriously put you?

But seriously. Evil will work together as long as its in their best interests to do so, or they simply like each other. Good supposedly is more tolerant... except then the other guy doesn't speak your language (isn't good aligned) and therefore screws you over because you erroneously think you have him figured out. The good guy himself will turn on you in an instant if he thinks you play for the other team... even if wrong. The evil guy might kill you for that... or just use you, whatever.

Overall, you'll get screwed regardless, but Team Evil is at least predictable about it so you can see it coming.

Also evil does not necessarily mean eating babies. In fact it's more likely to be more of the corrupting sort of evil... especially if you're infiltrating the other team. It's certainly the sort I'm talking about.

[Talisman]

Good supposedly is more tolerant... except then the other guy doesn't speak your language (isn't good aligned) and therefore screws you over because you erroneously think you have him figured out. The good guy himself will turn on you in an instant if he thinks you play for the other team... even if wrong.

Triple this and it all applies to team evil as well.

Overall, you'll get screwed regardless, but Team Evil is at least predictable about it so you can see it coming.

Yeah, I...wait; what? You've just lost me, absolutely and completely. I don't know which is worse: "Team Good will screw you," or "Evil is better because it's more predictable."

I...honestly don't know what to say to that.

evil does not necessarily mean eating babies. In fact it's more likely to be more of the corrupting sort of evil... especially if you're infiltrating the other team. It's certainly the sort I'm talking about.

And now you're taking that seriously.

Speaking broadly, good is benevolent and evil is harmful. That's why they're called "good" and "evil." If you're working for Team Evil, it's a given that what you're doing is harmful, whether in the short run (eating babies) or the long (installing a genocidal tyrant as king).

Arguing that they're the same, except one side is more predictable reduces "good" and "evil" to "red" and "blue"...which isn't an RPG I'm terribly interested in. It works fine for board games and video games, though.