>not letting a player make a chaotic evil character in an

>>52969922
Try some higher quality bait.

>Not letting the players play anything even pure non-humans
>Not letting them play samael and yuhudah agents
>Not laughing your ass while the retard saint and various Christians don't get they've working with fucking non-humans for a long ass time.

>>52969922
Bait aside, I have a growing collection of CE concepts I desperately want to play. My DM hates CE and always tells me to go NE instead, but it's not the same.

>>52969922
I hate fun in the same fashion I hate freedom. I believe that the truth is important for a functional society, but that the truth tends to reduce the freedom of the liar. A man accused of a crime who is convicted using proper evidence inarguably becomes less free through fines, incarceration, or death. But society as a whole benefits as the prevention and prosecution of crime allows greater freedom in the populace at large. Thus, the truth does not set you free, but it does result in a net gain of freedom.
In the same fashion, I believe in preventing players from antagonistic and antisocial behavior towards other players unless the players have all agreed that such behavior is accepted in the current campaign's social contract. Thus, the fun may be reduced for one individual, but there is a net gain of fun amongst the group.

>>52969922
>not basing "fun" on the amount of fun the group is having as a whole rather than the amount one specific player is having
Bait aside I allow players to play whatever alignment they want because they aren't children and they can control themselves.
I also let them roll for stats without me seeing.

>alignments

>>52970404
the only CE (or alignment one) I want to play is a strict aligned setting and play a CE character, specialized in combat.

When anyone finally asks
>why are you helping the good guys if you're evil?!
>Are you going to baaackstab us?
>No. I like to murder. And get away with it!

File: baitkriegs.jpg (2KB, 125x73px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x73px

>>52969922
autistic/10 bait

>>52969922
I like CE. As in Vampire The Masquerade:
>Look I'm big, I'm bad! Ops I'm dead, how did this happen?

CE characters have very short lifespans.

File: Untitled.png (385KB, 414x495px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 414x495px

>>52969922
BAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fUck yoU NIGger ANUS

i love when there's a chaotic evil in the party who develops from a genuinely bad guy to the weird uncle from beginning to end of the campaign like fuckin jumba from lilo and stitch

>>52969922
I once played an evil character, but the DM kept stonewalling me by eliminating any chance of there being unreliable narrators and giving every named NPC stupidly high skills to avoid allowing successful checks.

File: baithammer.jpg (17KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x960px

You didn't fall for this, right /tg/?

File: flat,1000x1000,075,f.u1.jpg (30KB, 1000x353px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1000x353px

>>52971190
OOOOO AAAAH OOOO AAHHHH WOOOO EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

>>52970763
LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW LICK MY ANUS NOW

File: 1471810383725-2.jpg (1MB, 1600x1007px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1007px

I do no understand the problem of making Evil characters and define them as lawful good. I play a total CE character as a Paladin (LG officially for other players) while using kindness and all the "good traits of a good person" to trap npcs and take what i want from them. By playing a character who use codes of the lawful good alignement to trick other people.

You must consider what an alignment represent. What means good ? What means evil ? Can my representation of good could be considered as evil by others ? If it is true their good is evil for me.

The point is considering that your own interest > all. By all means. And your own interest is the good thing.

>Egoist lawful. Aka Lawful good.
But in the eyes of other people you will be evil by killing babies or eating them.

That type of character can only work if you consider Alignment as a personnal consideration of what is good. For exemple the scarlet crusade in WoW is lawful good from their point of view and lawful evil for everyone else.
If you consider alignment as a perfect moral order from the GM point of view it will be more difficult to play that kind of character.
But yet... Not impossible.

I consider that the BG must follow to explain to your GM (by any story) what your character is and isnt. It is primordial for him to consider that alignment is an illusion and real characters are more grey and not archetypal. By making a total black character pretending to be good by doing "good" things while you are playing it grey in roleplay. You could change the mind of your GM by doing logical things from your BG but opposed to your alignment while making it incoherent because your actions are determined on your will and not ingame social rules. Causing the alignment system to stay to your first alignment or changing it constantly.

The fact is that alignment is excellent to refer for begginers or characters with ambitions, etc. But is a limited concept for "evil" characters.

>>52970404
Evil I general is a hard alignment to balance with others since people tend to choose stupid chaotic and stupid evil. Have a reason for everything you do.

>>52969922
Its usually best to play an entirely good-neutral or entirely evil-neutral party. Mixing good and evil doesn't end well. A good DM would prevent a party from starting in opposite alignments, as they just wont get along, but a good DM would allow a good or neutral player to become evil through their actions. It will lead to friction, and possible PCs killing each other, but it will be fun to see. I've played a neutral character who turned evil in a good party - ended up killing 2 other PCs before retreating and then being killed myself. Its a kind of campaign ending TPK situation. Which DMs try to prevent their games starting with.

If you want to play one-shot who gives a fuck, disposable campaigns, there's no reason not to allow evil and good PCs in the same party - it will combust early.

If you play longer spanning campaigns that last years, combining good and evil doesn't work. Either go all good, or all evil.

>>52969965
This isn't even bait. It's just a lame, tired joke.

>>52969922
We don't hate fun. We just hate one guy having fun while everyone feels bad.

You are not the only guy in the group, you know?

>>52969922

because being pointlessly contrarian isn't fun after you turn 14

I played a NE character in a mostly Good party once. The character would go along with the heroic antics to exploit their good reputation for profit. It was fun because it led to a lot of non-serious party friction.

>>52970404
what concepts are these?

>>52978156
>>52978287
>>52978389
Tell that to >>52955921
I take offense to the notion that a person can be said to "hate fun" just because they say "no" to you.

>>52969922
>implying you're not just going to play your true neutral character as chaotic evil anyway
I know your type.
Thanks for the heads up, door is that way dicknugget

>>52974785
That male forsaken in the background is hilarious
>"Fuck it's hot. I can feel myself decomposing."
>"Why'd that chick give me a drink in a glass? I have no fucking lower jaw, you dense elf!"

>>52970404
>>52981599
>what concepts are these?
This.
Critiquing CE character concepts is the only on-topic way of salvaging this colostomy bag of a thread.

Off topic, we could have more /tg/ pics with interesting backgrounds. >>52982723