Help with a new game

[Cardinal Thor]

Greetings,

My campaign will be wrapping up around the first of the year and I'm beginning to plan my next move. One of the things I'd like to happen with this next game is to get the players to attempt not to resolve every situation with combat. The principle way I would like to accomplish this is to stop handing out experience for defeating foes and, indeed, to stop handing out experience for anything at all.

The game will be run in a "mission" style. The characters will get their mission from their adventuring company and their task will be to complete it. They will advance in levels and gain rewards as they achieve certain objectives in that mission.

Example:
Mission - Find the ancestral sword to help the lost heir prove his claim to the throne.
Objectives
- Figure out where the sword is
- Get to the dungeon through the wilderness (+1 level)
- Find the sword within the dungeon (+1 level)
- Leave the dungeon with the sword
- Turn the sword in (reward and new mission)

That example is very simple, but that's the basic outline of how I would like to handle things.

However, without having a uniform experience table for all classes, I cannot just hand out a level to everyone at the same time. +1 level to a Wizard means substantially more than +1 level to a Rogue even at low levels. At high levels the difference is even more pronounced.

A possible solution would be to award enough experience to raise the slowest raising class one level, but that would be less than ideal since one of the reasons I wish to employ this system for the simplicity it represents.

Please let me know if you have any insights as to how I might overcome this problem. Thanks!

[Relaxo]

Perhaps for each "level" grant the average of the highest and lowest needed to level up. off the top of my head, I think that's rouge and wizard (lowest and highest, I mean), something like 1250 and 2500? ish? (not checking the books)

Edit, just checked and Paladin is the highest to level up, needing 2700 to hit level 2.

So the average of those is 1975, so when you want the party to get to level 2, award the average of 1975 xp to all characters. Then next level up, the average for level 3... etc etc... they'll scale up unevenly and in pace with each other.

or something.
just thinking off the top of my head. i see the allure of just leveling up periodically for simplicity's sake.
Though you lose the bonus opportunities for XP awards for other stuff, like clever solutions to crazy problems or good role playing.
though, doing this averages thing, you can still do those. that will entice the characters who don't level up as fast to make that extra effort to get more than the average and make it to next level.

consider doing 1/4 of the average at 4 different waypoints between the beginning and the goal... though if you do this enough, you end up doing it by the book really.

can you tell I'm thinking thus up as I go?

[koralas]

Relaxo has some good ideas with taking that average XP for each level, the problem is, it works well at level 1, then after that things begin to fall apart since you will end up with characters of varying levels. What you could do is pick the character with the most "average" XP chart, most likely a Fighter, maybe a Barbarian or Ranger, and grant XP based on that classes XP chart, granting enough XP to go from the entry point of the existing level to the next level. That way the uneven XP charts still work, characters will advance in level at a different pace, though their level of ability is still on par with each other. This will give you a "campaign" XP on which the characters level are based. Thus a 5th level campaign based on a Fighter chart gives the characters 17,000xp.

In this vein, using a single XP pool, the "core-4" classes at campaign level 5 would be F/5, R/5, C/4, W/4. Realize, that doing this a Fighter and Rogue will be the same level until campaign level 8, which would see a Rogue skip level 8 all together and jump directly from 7 to 9. After level 12 (if you ever play that far) a Rogue will advance in groups of 2 levels for every campaign level. Wizards and Clerics will initially lag behind, Clerics will catch up, and a Wizard will be 1 level less than a Fighter at most any campaign level.

Though as Relaxo also points out, you have taken out the other aspects of the RPG that can aid in the character's gaining XP. I would really consider still providing some sort of bonus to reward players going above the norm. This will help keep them involved and focused, trying to do things to make the game more enjoyable, instead of it breaking down to a tactical game.

If granting additional XP, always use the XP chart you selected as your baseline, since it is a campaign XP total, and each individual character's total will vary from that based on any additional awards they had received. The down side to this system is that the bonus XP will mean little for the class on which the campaign xp is based on, and really the classes most likely to gain from them would be Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Assassin, and Monk (at least at lower levels).

Alternatively, instead of awarding bonus XP, award something that can make a difference in game, a hero point system so to speak, but with some serious limitations like spending one of these awarded points for a +1 on a single die roll. Note this wouldn't be a bonus exactly, but rather actually modifies the result of the roll to a maximum of the die type, thus treating a 19 on the die to be considered a natural 20. This bonus is applied after the die has been rolled, but before any results are announced. You could allow the adjustments to stack (to a limit determined by you the CK), so if a character had 7 award points, you could use 3 to boost a 17 to a natural 20. Or perhaps spend two of those points to decrease an opponent's die roll by 1. You could also allow 10 points (or another total you determine) to be spent on an edit, similar to that of spending a Nova point in StarSIEGE and changing an action that affects that character immediately after it happens. This type of system requires careful consideration to not go overboard with these bonuses, but is something very tangible to a player.

[Cardinal Thor]

Relaxo,

Good points. The thing is, I really don't want to track experience at all. I want to give my players an objective with a reward for success. Go here, get this thing, and you level up. Make it back safely and you level up again and get treasure. I think this is the simplest way I can keep my players from scrounging around, trying to explore every corner of the dungeon so they don't miss killing a single group of lizard men worth a couple hundred XP. If they know their levels are tied to non-combat objectives, it will at least allow for the possibility of them taking a non-combat route.

An alternative I've seen put forward is: "do not award experience for unnecessary combat", but I really don't want to get into delineating what constitutes necessary combat.

I want the objective and the reward to be simple and clear, and I want to allow for many different means of achieving that objective.

Another example mission:

Mission - Stop the druidic cult from performing any more human sacrifices
Objectives - Find the cult's hide out
- Go to the location and explore (reward - found loot)
- Disrupt the cult to stop the sacrifices (advance in level)
- Make it home, debrief, get reward and new mission (advance in level, reward - payment for job)

Given that mission, you could go about achieving objective 3 any number of ways. Some that come to mind are: gather info about the cultists and out them in town, scare the cultists away (scooby-doo style), release and arm any waiting sacrifices and let them sort it out, kill everyone, kill the leader, usurp the leader (do what you want with the cult), have a cleric hallow their ground

Yes they can still go in and kill everything, and if that's what they want to do I'm fine with it. At least I'll know it's not because they simply want to advance their characters, because it will be crystal clear that they can advance with little to no bloodshed.

Whew, that was a lot more than I intended to write as a response.

Any more help with my uneven leveling problem would be appreciated. Thanks again Relaxo.

[Relaxo]

Oh, maybe I wasn't rambling as bad as I thought! LOL

See in 3rd ed or PF where everyone uses the same XP table, your idea is totally awesome - just skip all the math and level up as the story demands. Even in AD&D, OD&D and C&C a lot of people do this anyway. C&C RAW it's OK for the classes to not match level as long as they're close in XP they'll be fairly balanced. That IS the balance, a party of a 13th level rogue with a 10th level fighter and a 9th level wizard is OK. Well, in the double digits (of levels) it might get hairier, but levels 1-5 it's all pretty close, and 5-10 close-ish.

So I'm still no help, LOL. What might work is to have everyone level up, but keep the wizard and Paladin a level behind... if the players understand this before hand, it's fair. and if you just do it all the same and skip XP and just level up when ever you want, that won't be a disaster either. Ultimately, it's a game, and you're supposed to have fun, so who cares? if one character dominates too much, send more monsters at them, fixed.




or something.

[Dead Horse]

The problem with 3.5 and pathfinders uni xp system is the classes are balanceable.
7 ft 7 rogue and 7 wiz in those systems are not equal in power. The games try to make them so but you just cant do it.
Unfortunatly 4E classes are pretty blanced by level. But the way 4E plays....not for me thanks.

I would advise against the idea of go do someing level, come home level...
Thats way too fast advancement.

If you want a simple system base it off the fighters xp chart.. award 1/6 to 1/4 of that xp for each mission objective met.
I have done alot of informal polling and most people expect to level every 4 to 6 games.

My 2 cents any ways.

[Rikitiki]

This'd possibly take you, the CK, a bit more tweaking, but if you want to balance (or mostly balance) all characters levelling-up:

1) Look over how much each class needs in EXP to level-up,

2) Tweak your adventure so the encounters-per-class are equivalent to what it takes to level-up.

Example: If the magic-user and paladin need more experience points to level-up than, say, a rogue, put in more encounters in the adventure that only (or mostly) a magic-user or paladin have to deal with. That way, you can award them that extra EXP when (and if) they deal with those magic-user-oriented or paladin-oriented situations. And the other class-players won't feel slighted because, after all, the slower-advancing (normally) classes dealt with the challenges and earned those EXPs.

When I've run games, and noticed any class lagging behind the others, I simply set up the next adventure to let that class shine: if the paladin was lagging, it would be he who became instrumental in the next adventure, with the other characters backing him up -- that kind of thing. All had fun and the lagging-behind characters rose to the level of the others. As a campaign goes on, lather, rinse, and repeat.

[Cardinal Thor]

Dead Horse,

I'm not sure why you think my method would present too fast of a progression. If I gave the impression that a mission would take a single session that was not my intent. Many published adventures are similar to what I would term a "mission" and you can expect to gain one or two levels from them easily (provided you award xp for GP collected, as I have since 2e).

As far as your xp idea, it's very similar to what Relaxo suggested and not quite what I'm looking for. Again, I'm endeavoring to not track experience in any way other than levels.

Relaxo,

This "if one character dominates too much, send more monsters at them, fixed." led me to what might be a good solution for me. Rather than sending more monsters at the dominating characters, I could simply make better or more items available for the less powerful characters. As Koralas points out, the character stay within one or two levels of each other based on the experience charts anyway, I could make up the difference with items pretty easily.

As always, keep the ideas flowing if you've got em, I think this solution could still be improved upon.

[Dead Horse]

I was looking at as a session a mission.

You talk about making things up with items...The reason a class lags in levels is it is more powerful. The xp charts reflect this.

A rouge 2 levels ahead of a warrior is still less powerful then the warrior.

I have to ask are you tracking the xp for everyone who plays?
I just throw xp earned totals at my group. They track it and occasionaly i double check their maths.

[Relaxo]

i MEANT JUST KILL THEM. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA
yes, I was kidding. sorry.

[SaveVsFail]

Another option could be to have the missions not care what level the party is.

Do it sort of sandbox style where say at level 1 (collectively) they have access to a couple level 1 missions, a level 2 mission and a level 3 mission.

That way the missions will be what they are as you build them to their set difficulty, and it is up to the players to decide how hard they want to make their own lives, and then you can just tweak what missions are available to them as they progress.

Like an adventuring/mercenary job board.

Take a look at the Job board in Borderlands as a good example, or if you have access to it the mission briefings in Mechwarrior2 mercenaries.

Then you could also give them special missions that are tailored specifically for them. "The company commander has chosen you to go find the shiny bit of DOOM!!". etc...

[Cardinal Thor]

SavevsFail,

We're doing a sandbox style campaign right now. My players are free to go where ever they want and do whatever they want. I spent about three months planning a total of 16 locations with combat encounters and another 8 with just puzzles or interactions. So far they've gone to around 20 locations and have killed people at every location. If you do the math that means they've killed people or creatures in at least 4 non-combat scenarios. The stated reason for this among the player is, we get experience for killing enemies and we need all the experience we can get to fight the dragon (they've had some trouble with a couple dragons).

Now, I've told them that they will get experience for overcoming the challenges regardless of whether they kill enemies or not, but there is a fundamental disconnect between what I'm saying and what they're hearing.

While I love sandbox style games, in fact I am already intending on having multiple missions in case one just doesn't interest them, running a sandbox alone will not solve the problem of my players killing everything without considering other potential solutions primarily because they are convinced they need the kills to get the experience to get the next level.

If I explicitly state that they will gain a level only for completing specific objectives, regardless of how they complete them, then I feel like I can get through to them.

I genuinely feel that if I reference experience at all, even by saying "you'll get X amount of experience for the objective" instead of "you'll gain a level for the objective", then I my players will be looking for ways to eek out extra experience. And to them that means killing everything in sight.

Thank you for the insight SavevsFail and everyone else. The more I state my original assertion the more clear it becomes to me, even if no one else seems to understand the reasoning behind the decision. When I first posted I had no idea how alien this concept would be to other CKs. Maybe I just have a strange group of closet sociopaths. Good thing I'm not stingy with the loot...

**Edited for minor typos**

[koralas]

One other take I have on a group that just wants to go and smash the heads of everything, which seems to be the root of your problem... (Note I realize this doesn't speak to your request for help on running an XPless game, but just other musings.)

Simply do not grant XP for superfluous or wanton death and destruction. Build in encounters that require interaction with the NPC's, especially in cases that would raise a moral dilemma, and without the non-violent interaction, the successful completion of the adventure would be impossible. For example, perhaps there is a chamber that has multiple traps that were crafted in ancient days/by a hero or demigod/the greatest thief in the history of the world/whatever, each trap has a varying degree of difficulty from +5 through +20, oh yes, and they are protected from magical disarming a kind of anti-magic shell on the trap itself, not even a Wish can take it down. The only way to realistically get through is to learn how to safely disarm them from one or more NPCs. Some of those NPCs are of diametrically opposed view points, if not actually alignments from the party, have their own agendas, and so forth. The party must parlay with these folk, gaining XP for successfully getting the information they seek, and if they then fight, no XP for the combat.

Also, and this is important, what are the character's alignments? Wanton death and destruction would definitely move their abstract world view towards the Chaotic and Evil arms of the alignment tree. Bring with it large penalties for alignment change, loss of XP, questing required, loss of access to special abilities and/or spells from their deity, loss of friends/companions/benefactors, and other detrimental effects including "visits" from the "enforcers" of their deity (especially for clerics). Do this and the play style will necessarily HAVE to change. It is here that alignment is really critical to a game, not that it must judge every action but is the general outlook of a character and repeated actions against the stated world view means that world view has shifted.

Finally, and this is the real test, and a big part of "old school" gaming... Make sure some of those encounters are simply to tough and can result in a TPK if the party doesn't run or attempt to overcome in ways other than simply bashing heads. It is harsh, and players will decry that the combat wasn't fair, and that is true, it wasn't fair, but neither is real life, you can't expect to win every scenario life throws at you. Such holds true in RPG's, and whats worse, they actually provide a mechanism for those hugely powerful creatures to exist, so why is it a 3rd level party wouldn't run into such? Common sense must still rule, would any of the players go up to say, Mike Tyson and try to best him in a fist fight? No. Why? They simply could not win. Take for example LotR, they couldn't just storm Sauron's fortress, why? He was to powerful, as were his minions. Instead they had to defeat him by destroying his power, that being the power he imbued in the ring. While it still existed he could tap it, but once it was unmade, that source of power was as well. So a frontal assault would have resulted in the entire fellowship and forces of the free peoples to fail and be destroyed, and when they did to provide a distraction, they were in dire straights until the ring was unmade in the fires of Mt. Doom. So there is a novel that uses that fact, and there are others, but you get the idea.

Again, sorry, doesn't help with building an XPless game, but doing that is going to be quite difficult to make effective for each of the different character classes. Where I stated the characters are still within a few levels of each other, that is true, at set XP levels, but the point I didn't make well was that a Thief would get to that level more quickly than a Fighter, then the Fighter would catch up, then the Thief would jump ahead, and so on, until you get to the higher levels where a Thief will level up twice as quickly as a fighter.

[Relaxo]

I didn't get the impression they were hack and slash killmongers, just that he wanted a simple method to level up based on mission objectives. I say just do it. If it dones't work out somehow, we can help think of a solution later.

[Cardinal Thor]

Koralas,

Simply do not grant XP for superfluous or wanton death and destruction. Build in encounters that require interaction with the NPC's, especially in cases that would raise a moral dilemma, and without the non-violent interaction, the successful completion of the adventure would be impossible. For example, perhaps there is a chamber that has multiple traps that were crafted in ancient days/by a hero or demigod/the greatest thief in the history of the world/whatever, each trap has a varying degree of difficulty from +5 through +20, oh yes, and they are protected from magical disarming a kind of anti-magic shell on the trap itself, not even a Wish can take it down. The only way to realistically get through is to learn how to safely disarm them from one or more NPCs. Some of those NPCs are of diametrically opposed view points, if not actually alignments from the party, have their own agendas, and so forth. The party must parlay with these folk, gaining XP for successfully getting the information they seek, and if they then fight, no XP for the combat.

Those are good ideas, but I think I might be explaining myself incorrectly. I'm really liking this thread because it's helping me refine my ideas a lot. So here goes my response to those suggestions: I don't want to force my players to talk/use skills/think outside the box, but I do want to remove the incentive for killing which is the experience from the creature killed. The idea is to get them to see other options as equal in terms of reward.

Also, and this is important, what are the character's alignments? Wanton death and destruction would definitely move their abstract world view towards the Chaotic and Evil arms of the alignment tree. Bring with it large penalties for alignment change, loss of XP, questing required, loss of access to special abilities and/or spells from their deity, loss of friends/companions/benefactors, and other detrimental effects including "visits" from the "enforcers" of their deity (especially for clerics). Do this and the play style will necessarily HAVE to change. It is here that alignment is really critical to a game, not that it must judge every action but is the general outlook of a character and repeated actions against the stated world view means that world view has shifted.

90% of what they've kille so far has been Evil, even if they have solved a number of non-combat puzzles with combat they haven't really killed that many Good creatures, people, or beasts/animals. By my reading of "old school" alignments anyone can kill all the Evil creatures they want and all they'll get is a bigger feast in the Good afterlife.

Finally, and this is the real test, and a big part of "old school" gaming... Make sure some of those encounters are simply to tough and can result in a TPK if the party doesn't run or attempt to overcome in ways other than simply bashing heads. It is harsh, and players will decry that the combat wasn't fair, and that is true, it wasn't fair, but neither is real life, you can't expect to win every scenario life throws at you. Such holds true in RPG's, and whats worse, they actually provide a mechanism for those hugely powerful creatures to exist, so why is it a 3rd level party wouldn't run into such? Common sense must still rule, would any of the players go up to say, Mike Tyson and try to best him in a fist fight? No. Why? They simply could not win. Take for example LotR, they couldn't just storm Sauron's fortress, why? He was to powerful, as were his minions. Instead they had to defeat him by destroying his power, that being the power he imbued in the ring. While it still existed he could tap it, but once it was unmade, that source of power was as well. So a frontal assault would have resulted in the entire fellowship and forces of the free peoples to fail and be destroyed, and when they did to provide a distraction, they were in dire straights until the ring was unmade in the fires of Mt. Doom. So there is a novel that uses that fact, and there are others, but you get the idea.

A couple weeks ago I TPK'd them to with a Dragon in 2 rounds. They know now, if not before, that they can die. That won't stop them from hunting down each and every last minion of the dragon that they can kill in order to get all the XP they can.

Again, sorry, doesn't help with building an XPless game, but doing that is going to be quite difficult to make effective for each of the different character classes. Where I stated the characters are still within a few levels of each other, that is true, at set XP levels, but the point I didn't make well was that a Thief would get to that level more quickly than a Fighter, then the Fighter would catch up, then the Thief would jump ahead, and so on, until you get to the higher levels where a Thief will level up twice as quickly as a fighter.

No worries, I think you raised some good points and you're keeping me thinking and refining my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for all the help everyone, especially Relaxo, I'm going to move forward with it and tweak it as needed in play.

[mordrene]

before i throw in my 2 cents i have a question. are u giving exp for treasure found? such as 1 exp per gp?

[Cardinal Thor]

In my current campaign that's about to wrap up I'm absolutely giving experience for treasure. It's the most significant source of experience the players have. In the new campaign there is to be no experience awarded at all, only levels. See any one of my previous posts for clarification

[mordrene]

reason i ask, and i know im coming in late, but maybe you could assign exp as a treasure to your mission objectives. like you say treasure is the biggest exp source so dont assign exp for treasure. think of objectives as treasure hoards.

now i do like the idea of just tracking the completion of a mission and as you determine my your set of standards just tell them level up. treasure is its own reward and combat is fun so just set out an outline so when they get to a,b,c; just level up. no exp.

[koralas]

Here is are to variations on another option, not XPless again, but...

Note these options may work best if you allow characters to level-up while working within an adventure. A point in case, in some games in the past, we had GM's that allowed characters to level up in an adventure, granting access to additional HP, combat charts, saves, and improvement of existing of most existing abilities, but new abilities or improvements to extraordinary abilities required training. So, a fighter was fairly simple, with HP/To Hit, but still required training for weapon specialization improvements and additional attacks. Thieves got that to hit chart increase, hp, and the improvements to their standard abilities, but not added back stab damage as that was considered an extraordinary ability. Spell casters could use more spells, but could not gain additional spell levels. And so on, the point being, you could improve at the things you are normally doing, but need the training to pick up something new or advance extraordinary abilities. Also, after the current adventure was completed, in my and one other GM's game, everyone that leveled required some amount of training to "set in stone" what was learned and improved in the previous adventure, whether they had gained new abilities or not. Failing to do so brought an XP penalty, I don't remember if we called it at 25% or 50% but it was quite harsh, though if nothing new was learned, the training time and cost was reduced. Of course, we were quite a bit more stingy with treasure, so training wasn't just a way to keep their level of wealth down, plus we found other ways to "relieve" them of the burden of carrying all that gold around.

You are granting XP for mission objectives, correct? Start every character with 1xp (or drop the xp charts by 1 across the board) to make this system work. Then grant a set amount of XP for each objective completed to each character, and grant a multiplier based on the difficulty of the objective in comparison to the average party level.

For example-

• Base XP = 400 * (average party level -1 to a minimum of 1)
  Simple: *0.50
  Easy: *0.75
  Normal: *1.00
  Challenging: *1.25
  Difficult: *1.50
  Hard: *1.75
  Very Hard: *2.0

Thus a 1st level party earns 200xp for a simple objective or 800xp for a very hard objective. A fourth level party would get 600xp for simple and 2,400xp for very hard. The 400xp as the base per party level is an arbitrary number and could be anything, determined by you, to set the level pacing for the party. This will result in single mission level advancement for most characters at level 1 and 2, assuming 5 objectives average a normal level modifier of *1 since they would gain 2,000xp base per mission. A third level party would get 400*(3-1) = 800xp base or 4,000xp base for the mission meaning they now have 8,000xp, the characters with low XP charts would advance to level 4, from fighter on up, they are shy (fighters needed 8,501XP) of advancing, and the party would probably still be considered level 3 on average (always round off) so the next mission, would still only bring 4,000XP, bringing their total to 12,000XP, a fighter would be level 4, a rogue could be level 5, if you started with 1xp or dropped the 1xp from the charts. Now the party should be level 4 and earn 6,000xp on the next mission bringing the total to 18,000xp. Some characters, those around the fighter xp levels, will level up, lets say that is not enough to push the average level to 5 so it remains at 4 and the next mission provides 6,000xp again... and so on. This provides more rapid advancement at low levels, and a progressive slowing as the party average increases, there will come a tipping point where the calculation falls apart (have done the math all the way out) and it would take 10 missions to get a complete new party level and that would probably be around level 9-10 is my guess. While this is most likely a more realistic view, it may not be what you are looking for. This is simple enough to rectify by increasing the number of objectives per mission, arbitrarily increasing the base XP, or simply providing a higher degree of difficulty based on party level.

Alternatively, the base XP could be set at the number of XP required to go from the starting point of the current level of the character with the lowest XP chart (usually a thief), to the next level, divided by the number of objectives. This insures that the character class in question will level up if all objectives are met, and then most other classes will level or be close to leveling up. You could also divide by # of objectives -1 to give some additional XP to the other classes. Regardless, it will also induce players to step up their roleplaying to gain some additional XP "just in case" they end up falling a few XP short of leveling before the end of the mission. Realize once you get to, if you get to, high level play, the pacing will be about 2:1 Thief/Assassin/Bard:Everyone else when it comes to leveling in this way.

This last option could be modified by using the average of the XP required to go from current level to the next for all party members.

This takes a little preparation by you as you need to validate the difficulty of the objective to the party level, regardless of base XP you decide upon for objectives. Further, you need to take into account the number of objectives per mission and the level pacing you want to provide.

To use these options, you and your players would have to accept that the different characters will level at an uneven pace, and you may have a complete mission, where all objectives were successfully met, and a some characters may not level up. Such is the result of character class selection.

[koralas]

90% of what they've kille so far has been Evil, even if they have solved a number of non-combat puzzles with combat they haven't really killed that many Good creatures, people, or beasts/animals. By my reading of "old school" alignments anyone can kill all the Evil creatures they want and all they'll get is a bigger feast in the Good afterlife.

A comment on the "old school" alignments... I haven't read it like that. Wanton killing, no matter the alignment of the being is an evil act in and of itself. In fact in 1E the alignment descriptions for Good state specifically that life is of great importance and must be protected. C/G - "they likewise place value on life and the welfare of each individual", L/G - "life and beauty of great
importance", and while it is not specifically stated in N/G but alluded to "the most beneficial conditions for living things." The evil descriptions pretty much state the opposite.

Paladin players were obviously dismayed with many rulings, and I would often have to point out problems with acts they were about to commit being evil, namely killing every last man, woman, and child in say a orc encampment. This is most definitely an evil act, killing the weak and defenseless. There was a game once where a Paladin almost came to blows with the rest of the party to prevent such acts. Think of Star Wars Episode II when Anakin returns to Tatooine and ends up slaying the entire Sand People village, man, woman, and child. Padme's reaction of revulsion (which begs the question as to her marrying him a few scenes later) to such an act, the ominous dark music playing as he starts the killing, his face twisting as he succumbs to the dark side, all point to that being an evil act. So while they may be an "evil" race, wanton killing is still an evil act. Again the key here is the wanton slaying, if being attacked and defending, that is a different story, though in many cases striking with subduing damage would be preferable. Accidental killings happen as well, but once a conscious decision is made to just wade through the nursery and kill the babies and nursemaids, yeah, that is an overtly evil act.

Also, don't forget there are repercussions to all that death and destruction. Evil beings have friends, family, and masters that will seek revenge. Further, you state "they haven't really killed that many Good creatures..." Well even one would be to many, labeling them as murderers and outlaws being hunted by the law. In fact murdering Evil beings can make them wanted, even in "Good" societies they will prosecute a murderer regardless of the alignment of the victim...