PDA

View Full Version : Can You Become Lawful Evil?



Tarmuar_of_Lumbar
08-07-2013, 11:56 AM
(Search didn't bring up anything related to this, if this is a rehash of an old thread, my apologies)...

I am new to DDO but an old hand with AD&D (started D&D in 1975 when a friend from school told me about these stinking creatures who wore iron clod shoes and how we could kill them with a roll of some weird looking dice). From that discussion I became addicted to Dungeons and Dragons (our version lived over 20 years in itself).

In the original game my cleric, "Tendalos", was Lawful Evil and I have an itch to try and recreate him here in game. I know the in game character would not come close to what the P&P character was, but I thought it would be fun.

Unfortunately I don't immediately see an option to become any type of Evil in alignment.

Is it possible? If so, how?

Thanks for bearing with me during this nostalgia attack!

Therigar
08-07-2013, 12:06 PM
As was true in all of D&D, alignment is essentially meaningless in DDO. Other than serving as a prerequisite for certain character classes and, whether urban legend or fact, impacting some weapon and spell effects there is nothing about alignment that even matters.

Consider that our lawful good characters are only lawful and good because we say they are. From an opposing perspective they might well be lawful and evil. Our paladins might actually be anti-paladins. It is a social perspective that makes "our side" always the "good side" and "their side" always the "evil side."

So, choose whatever alignment you want within the limits DDO provides. It means almost nothing. And you, the player, can be as good/evil, lawful/chaotic or as near to neutral as you define neutrality.

Just keep in mind that, unless you solo, DDO is a social game and being too "evil" or "chaotic" can impact other people's decisions to group with you.

Tarmuar_of_Lumbar
08-07-2013, 12:15 PM
Thanks, good recommendation. I was just wondering because the original definition in the D&D and AD&D of Lawful Evil amounted to an alignment that sought evil at its goal, but did it within an structure, whether that structure indicated government, cult, or whatever where an hierachy existed. In effect, my cleric in the original game served a group of gods that sought the extinction of existense itself, but because there was a structure in the government, a general, an army, navy, etc., there was "Law" involved.

Ah well, such is the world of D&D.

Again, thanks.

Therigar
08-07-2013, 02:06 PM
In effect, my cleric in the original game served a group of gods that sought the extinction of existense itself, but because there was a structure in the government, a general, an army, navy, etc., there was "Law" involved.

I don't know, might be quite a few people who would argue that erasing all existence is the ultimate good and that the ultimate evil is allowing the world to continue on as it is. ;)

unbongwah
08-07-2013, 02:09 PM
Consider that our lawful good characters are only lawful and good because we say they are. From an opposing perspective they might well be lawful and evil. Our paladins might actually be anti-paladins.
I find it particularly funny that you can be a "paladin" of the Lord of Blades (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_Blades), considering it's a lawful evil NPC in the 3E PnP setting. :)

In any case, DDO doesn't let you pick any evil alignments; Turbine doesn't let you swing that way.

droid327
08-07-2013, 07:19 PM
I find it particularly funny that you can be a "paladin" of the Lord of Blades (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_Blades), considering it's a lawful evil NPC in the 3E PnP setting. :)

In any case, DDO doesn't let you pick any evil alignments; Turbine doesn't let you swing that way.

Or a follower of Vulkoor, who is Neutral Evil.

But yes - there's no Evil PCs in DDO, for the same reason you cant play as a minion of Sauron in LOTRO - they don't want to go like WoW and have people playing on "both sides" of the fight. Both for PvP reasons, obviously, and for storytelling reasons.

If you could make an Evil-aligned char, then people would be demanding they be allowed to follow Vol and become vampires, or have quests where they could attack Stormreachers or something.

Philibusta
08-07-2013, 08:12 PM
As was true in all of D&D, alignment is essentially meaningless in DDO. Other than serving as a prerequisite for certain character classes and, whether urban legend or fact, impacting some weapon and spell effects there is nothing about alignment that even matters.

Consider that our lawful good characters are only lawful and good because we say they are. From an opposing perspective they might well be lawful and evil. Our paladins might actually be anti-paladins. It is a social perspective that makes "our side" always the "good side" and "their side" always the "evil side."

So, choose whatever alignment you want within the limits DDO provides. It means almost nothing. And you, the player, can be as good/evil, lawful/chaotic or as near to neutral as you define neutrality.

Just keep in mind that, unless you solo, DDO is a social game and being too "evil" or "chaotic" can impact other people's decisions to group with you.

Alignment was never meaningless in AD&D, as long as you treated the game like the roleplaying game it was supposed to be, and played your character in character, including alignment. Likewise the DM should have been playing the PCs' foes according to their respective alignments. And the DM's guide gave suggestions on giving XP awards to players that actually did play their character in proper alignment (and penalizing those who strayed too far from their professed alignment).

Also, you've got to remember, the D&D game operates within the structure of a fantasy world, and within the structures of that world there is indeed very real absolute good and absolute evil, unlike the real world. There are actual real deities and powers that promote both ethos, as well as those that promote neutrality, and can and do grant power to their followers. It's not so much a matter of perspective in a fantasy world like most D&D settings. There were varying degrees of both good and evil, but also absolutes.

It's one of the sad things about DDO, to me, really. Roleplaying games mostly attract roleplayers. Video games marketed as roleplaying games mostly attract video gamers. And they don't like to roleplay, because there's no XP or shiny loot involved. I know there are some roleplayers in the DDO community...but sadly, vastly outnumbered by the "OK I killed it what do I get?Next...OK I kiled it what do I get? Next..OKIkilleditwhatdoiget? Next..." crowd.


Thanks, good recommendation. I was just wondering because the original definition in the D&D and AD&D of Lawful Evil amounted to an alignment that sought evil at its goal, but did it within an structure, whether that structure indicated government, cult, or whatever where an hierachy existed. In effect, my cleric in the original game served a group of gods that sought the extinction of existense itself, but because there was a structure in the government, a general, an army, navy, etc., there was "Law" involved.

Ah well, such is the world of D&D.

Again, thanks.

Not necessarily true. A Lawful Evil character does not have to actively seek to promote "evil" in the sense of joining a Dark Army and calling up Demons from the Abyss, or destroying the world. That would be an extreme of Lawful Evil behavior.
But a LE character could also be, for example, a minor bureaucrat in some city's government structure, who cares far more for himself and his own advancement within that structure than he does about helping the people of his city or doing whatever his job is. He uses the heirarchy of the government to achieve his own ends, and doesn't much care who else suffers or gets hurt along the way, as long as it gets him what he wants. He would also operate within the accepted laws and structures of his society....as long as he thought people were watching. He uses every loophole in the system to his advantage (wait...this is starting to sound like a lot of ddo players...:p)

unbongwah
08-07-2013, 08:41 PM
If you could make an Evil-aligned char, then people would be demanding they be allowed to follow Vol and become vampires, or have quests where they could attack Stormreachers or something.
You do remember we can already make vampires thru Pale Master, right? Heck, make a HotD vampire for max LOLWUT. :D

Therigar
08-07-2013, 10:41 PM
Alignment was never meaningless in AD&D, as long as you treated the game like the roleplaying game it was supposed to be, and played your character in character, including alignment.

Sadly, this is wrong. The definitions of good and evil within the game context were based on western (really, American) cultural definitions (and to be even more specific, anglo-American cultural definitions) and consequently were mere reflections of the real world's usage of the terms "good" and "evil."

The opposing forces were "good" if the players chose to call themselves "evil" and "evil" if the players chose to call themselves "good" and the only role playing that ensued was the over exaggeration of stereotypes of what it meant to be "good" or "evil."

In the end it did not matter what a player's alignment was except in that it restricted class choices and affected some loot. Otherwise it became entirely moot regardless of the almost universally ignored recommendations regarding reward and punishment.

About the only class really penalized for overtly "evil" behavior was the paladin. The result was that paladins became stereotyped and annoying group members so that few people bothered playing them as it wasn't worth the grief as any non-stereotypical act was immediately penalized for being "evil."

AbyssalMage
08-07-2013, 11:23 PM
Sadly, this is wrong. The definitions of good and evil within the game context were based on western (really, American) cultural definitions (and to be even more specific, anglo-American cultural definitions) and consequently were mere reflections of the real world's usage of the terms "good" and "evil."

The opposing forces were "good" if the players chose to call themselves "evil" and "evil" if the players chose to call themselves "good" and the only role playing that ensued was the over exaggeration of stereotypes of what it meant to be "good" or "evil."
Not sure I would agree with this after Psychology, Sociology, and Education courses but its a good enough reason.


In the end it did not matter what a player's alignment was except in that it restricted class choices and affected some loot. Otherwise it became entirely moot regardless of the almost universally ignored recommendations regarding reward and punishment.
I think it was really dependent on the DM/group.


About the only class really penalized for overtly "evil" behavior was the paladin. The result was that paladins became stereotyped and annoying group members so that few people bothered playing them as it wasn't worth the grief as any non-stereotypical act was immediately penalized for being "evil."
Reminds me of the Dungeon Magazine article question, "What would happen if two Paladins began fighting/attacked each other?" and the person who submitted the question gave a plausible scenario (which I forgot :( ) which had happened in their campaign. Don't remember the reply by the staff at Dungeon but I remember in the following issues the amount of reader feedback it received agreeing/disagreeing with the staff's answer.

Philibusta
08-08-2013, 04:33 AM
Sadly, this is wrong. The definitions of good and evil within the game context were based on western (really, American) cultural definitions (and to be even more specific, anglo-American cultural definitions) and consequently were mere reflections of the real world's usage of the terms "good" and "evil."

The opposing forces were "good" if the players chose to call themselves "evil" and "evil" if the players chose to call themselves "good" and the only role playing that ensued was the over exaggeration of stereotypes of what it meant to be "good" or "evil."

In the end it did not matter what a player's alignment was except in that it restricted class choices and affected some loot. Otherwise it became entirely moot regardless of the almost universally ignored recommendations regarding reward and punishment.

About the only class really penalized for overtly "evil" behavior was the paladin. The result was that paladins became stereotyped and annoying group members so that few people bothered playing them as it wasn't worth the grief as any non-stereotypical act was immediately penalized for being "evil."

Happily, it is not wrong. Obviously you and I have simply had very different experiences playing this game over the years. The D&D games I remember playing (Basic D&D, then AD&D and 2nd Ed AD&D), characters of classes other than paladins could and did get penalized for behavior far outside their listed alignments. One character I remember was originally Neutral Good, but committed enough acts of selfishness and spite, that the DM penalized the character by (per the rules in the DMG) making the player change the character's alignment to Neutral Evil, and the character lost a level of experience.

Keep in mind, like I said before, you cannot apply real-world values to the fantasy settings D&D games are set in. In those worlds, you have actual supernatural guiding forces (dieties, demon lords, etc) that do indeed define what is "good" and what is "evil". It's not merely left up to the perceptions of different peoples in different cultures and societies. There are "absolute good" and "absolute evil" and many degrees in between.

My previous statements were "wrong" only if you played D&D as a tabletop strategy game, rolling dice and killing monsters to see what kind of shinies you could get, rather than the roleplaying game it was intended to be.

Therigar
08-08-2013, 06:56 AM
Obviously you and I have simply had very different experiences playing this game over the years.

I suppose that this must be true. I started playing in roughly 1979 and the groups were never exceedingly large. I've played in small college/university level conventions and at large cons like GenCon. I have only rarely seen individuals attempting to role play their characters and never witnessed a person genuinely putting off them self to take on the persona of the character they were playing.

To the contrary, the almost universal manner of play -- whether the game was in the US, Germany or Switzerland (the places where I've sat with both friends and strangers to enjoy a game or two) -- is to treat characters as an assemblage of numbers that define what they can and cannot do. The notion of playing any type of role is almost always absent.

What made Tyr Lawful Good? Who actually defined what was lawful or what was good? It was a stereotyped, westernized (and primarily anglo-Americanized) picture of law and good. And, what this meant was shaped by the people who utilized Tyr in their games.

To illustrate this more fully, consider this assertion from the wiki on Tyr -- Ed Greenwood, who made Tyr part of the AD&D culture, did not use the full description of Tyr as found in Dieties & Demigods but instead removed the war nature from his version of Tyr. This documented assertion shows clearly that these dieties you refer to are still just expressions of our own portrayals of "good" and "evil" and subject to our intentional overlaying of personal values.

To illustrate this further (for our forumites concerned with Psycology, Sociology, etc.), how would you classify a real, living person who routinely stole property from anyone who was not their friend or family? Would that be an unlawful act? Would it be an un-good act?

You are aware that in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas there have been raiding cultures where such behavior is not only lawful to them but also good -- where success generated high esteem. You know that as recently as the 18th century privateers lawfully conducted raids on foreign ships, were rewarded for their good actions, and are given heroic status in the countries they served.

In D&D (and AD&D) this notion of alignment is only a reflection of our stereotyped cultural definitions of good and evil, law and chaos -- and, except in very rare circumstances never became meaningful to players. To the contrary, the entire history of alignment in D&D shows that it was problematic for players and has always been so. For those who doubt this, explain why D&D originally had 3 alignments or why D&D retained only 3 alignments while the simultaneously released AD&D had 9, or why 4th edition has only 5.

The simple reality is that players are generally unconcerned with and unaffected by alignment in any meaningful way. And, if your experience was different from this (honestly different and not just for the purposes of continuing this debate) then you represent, in my experience, a very small subset of D&D gamers.

tl;dnr My first time at Origins my traveling companion said to me, "When we get to the D&D area you're going to see all of the fat men playing female elves." That is the extent of most people's definition of role playing.

FuzzyDuck81
08-08-2013, 07:51 AM
You do remember we can already make vampires thru Pale Master, right? Heck, make a HotD vampire for max LOLWUT. :D

Already been done.
https://github-camo.global.ssl.fastly.net/a3ee51b6708c12ef752da015d6b7764c9fb7e135/687474703a2f2f7777772e656d706972656f6e6c696e652e63 6f6d2f696d616765732f66656174757265732f313030677265 6174657374636861726163746572732f70686f746f732f3437 2e6a7067

droid327
08-08-2013, 04:24 PM
You do remember we can already make vampires thru Pale Master, right? Heck, make a HotD vampire for max LOLWUT. :D

Shroud of the Vampire != Vampire, though. You just take on "aspects" of it, magically - I was talking about something like a feat that would make you permanently a Vampire...

mna
08-08-2013, 05:39 PM
If you could make an Evil-aligned char, then people would be demanding they be allowed to follow Vol and become vampires, or have quests where they could attack Stormreachers or something.


Reminds me of the Dungeon Magazine article question, "What would happen if two Paladins began fighting/attacked each other?" and the person who submitted the question gave a plausible scenario (which I forgot :( ) which had happened in their campaign. Don't remember the reply by the staff at Dungeon but I remember in the following issues the amount of reader feedback it received agreeing/disagreeing with the staff's answer.

I want to play a Paladin of the Sovereign Host and go help Celine and Oisin. (Purge the Heretics... I find it Just Plain Wrong that a Paladin or Cleric of the Sovereign Host can do that quest normally without getting in trouble for it.)


Being "Evil" by D&D alignment is not required for such conflicts but consistency would be nice.


BTW, what few pen-and-paper roleplaying groups I've been in, usually did at least try to maintain some consistency with alignment/faith, and other such in-game behaviour. Including "sure, you know that, but does your character know at this point?" and such questions... and yes, differing definitions of "good" in different in-game cultures. My sample size is quite small, but I thought this was how it was supposed to be?



(Like the time I played a druid who made a point to plant aggressive-variety, magically-enhanced Serpula lacrymans into certain buildings... that was an interesting alignment discussion.)

Philibusta
08-08-2013, 07:23 PM
I want to play a Paladin of the Sovereign Host and go help Celine and Oisin. (Purge the Heretics... I find it Just Plain Wrong that a Paladin or Cleric of the Sovereign Host can do that quest normally without getting in trouble for it.)


Being "Evil" by D&D alignment is not required for such conflicts but consistency would be nice.


BTW, what few pen-and-paper roleplaying groups I've been in, usually did at least try to maintain some consistency with alignment/faith, and other such in-game behaviour. Including "sure, you know that, but does your character know at this point?" and such questions... and yes, differing definitions of "good" in different in-game cultures. My sample size is quite small, but I thought this was how it was supposed to be?



(Like the time I played a druid who made a point to plant aggressive-variety, magically-enhanced Serpula lacrymans into certain buildings... that was an interesting alignment discussion.)

That is how it's supposed to be. It's a roleplaying game. You create a character, with a persona. (In other words...this character has morals and values and a personality and skills and knowledges and goals and fears etc....which may or may not coincide with your own as a player). And then you take on that role in the game, and play your character accordingly.

Granted (per the difference of opinion on the issue between myself and Therigar), a small percentage of D&D players are actually willing, or able, to do this. Some, because they lack the imagination (or the desire to USE their imagination) to step into the shoes of anther person and try to act how that person w0uld act in given situations. Others, because they fear embarrassment or ridicule if they roleplay too effectively. Still others out of shyness.

The overwhelming majority of D&D players are indeed hack-n-slash, "ok I killed it what do I get", min-maxing, powergamers who view a D&D character more as a collection of numbers on a sheet of paper. Then there are those of us who got lucky.

Early in my D&D-playing days, I was lucky enough to join a group with an extremely skilled and effective DM. Most of us players were new to the game, but there were a couple of people in the group that had been playing for a while. Together, we honed our roleplaying skills with the help of the DM and the more veteran players. That made the game exponentially more enjoyable than simple "kill the monster, get the loot".

Later on, as I moved to different places, I gamed with quite a number of different people. Mostly living near military bases, however, tended to attract players that were in the military, and sadly, most of these people were not roleplayers. This tended to cause a small rift between those players, and those of us who actually liked to roleplay (during a roleplaying game...god forbid! :p)

Eventually, those of us that stuck together formed another quite good roleplaying group, and we played to our heart's content. Then, as players dropped from the group due to RL reasons of one or another, that group eventually disbanded, sad to say.

Anyway, sorry for the novel. My point I guess is that D&D is at its best, and most rewarding (noooo, powergamers: not in terms of shinies), when it's approached as it was intended to be: as a roleplaying game. And there, things like faith (or lack thereof), alignment, etc. do matter.



tl;dr: alignment does matter if you use a roleplaying game to roleplay!

Therigar
08-08-2013, 09:14 PM
"sure, you know that, but does your character know at this point?"

I would assert that role playing means not needing the DM to make that observation because the players themselves refrain from using player knowledge rather than character knowledge.

As to the druid, the nice thing about neutrality is that you can do good or evil and be justified as simply restoring the balance (or lawful/chaotic). You can be very lawful good in order to balance a very chaotic evil situation. Or, you can be very chaotic evil to balance a very lawful good one. Neutrality is the refuge of the true anarchist. ;)

mna
08-08-2013, 09:40 PM
I would assert that role playing means not needing the DM to make that observation because the players themselves refrain from using player knowledge rather than character knowledge.

Oh yes. "I roll a knowledge check!"



As to the druid, the nice thing about neutrality is that you can do good or evil and be justified as simply restoring the balance (or lawful/chaotic). You can be very lawful good in order to balance a very chaotic evil situation. Or, you can be very chaotic evil to balance a very lawful good one. Neutrality is the refuge of the true anarchist. ;)

Heh. Well, in that case the situation was rather more complicated... what with the druid being from a nomadic culture that disliked fixed buildings to start with, and...

Things like these are just something that still does need a live DM and aren't particularly suited to computerized RPGs.

Therigar
08-08-2013, 10:29 PM
Oh yes. "I roll a knowledge check!"

You know, this is a great example of players trying to control the game. As a DM I would reply, "Go ahead then."

The rest of the conversation would go something like this:

Player: I roll a natural 20.

Me: What is your INT modifier?

Player: I rolled a natural 20.

Me: Yes, so what's your INT modifier?

Player: Is knowledge an INT check?

Me: I don't know, you tell me.

Player: I think it is supposed to be a WIS check.

Me: OK, so what's your WIS modifier?

Player: But, I rolled a natural 20.

Me: I know, I saw you roll it. What is your WIS modifier?

Player: Well, I took the feat that lets me use CHA instead of WIS for skill checks.

Me: And you're a sorcerer with abnormally high CHA, so what is your CHA modifier?

Player: +100.

Me: You fail.

Player: What? How can I possibly fail? I rolled a NATURAL 20 and I have epic CHA with a +100 modifier.

Me: Oops, you seem to be suffering a stroke. (Roll dice behind DM screen.) OMG, you just had a brain aneurism and died.

Helpful druid player: I reincarnate him.

Me: (Roll dice behind DM screen.) Well, it seems the reincarnation was successful, a small rodent comes scampering up, cheeks stuffed with what look to be acorns.

Helpful druid player: How cute.

Distraught rogue who took fear of rodents as a character flaw in order to boost original starting stats/skills/etc.: I kill the rodent, skin it and wear it as a trophy.

Me: So what is the rest of the party doing?

Ermin_Sivarch
08-20-2013, 10:10 PM
You know, this is a great example of players trying to control the game. As a DM I would reply, "Go ahead then."

The rest of the conversation would go something like this:

Player: I roll a natural 20.

Me: What is your INT modifier?

Player: I rolled a natural 20.

Me: Yes, so what's your INT modifier?

Player: Is knowledge an INT check?

Me: I don't know, you tell me.

Player: I think it is supposed to be a WIS check.

Me: OK, so what's your WIS modifier?

Player: But, I rolled a natural 20.

Me: I know, I saw you roll it. What is your WIS modifier?

Player: Well, I took the feat that lets me use CHA instead of WIS for skill checks.

Me: And you're a sorcerer with abnormally high CHA, so what is your CHA modifier?

Player: +100.

Me: You fail.

Player: What? How can I possibly fail? I rolled a NATURAL 20 and I have epic CHA with a +100 modifier.

Me: Oops, you seem to be suffering a stroke. (Roll dice behind DM screen.) OMG, you just had a brain aneurism and died.

Helpful druid player: I reincarnate him.

Me: (Roll dice behind DM screen.) Well, it seems the reincarnation was successful, a small rodent comes scampering up, cheeks stuffed with what look to be acorns.

Helpful druid player: How cute.

Distraught rogue who took fear of rodents as a character flaw in order to boost original starting stats/skills/etc.: I kill the rodent, skin it and wear it as a trophy.

Me: So what is the rest of the party doing?

You have just described a bad DM. Someone who arbitrarily kills off characters with no chance to keep them alive. Worse, kills them twice. Its one thing to have bad luck or for the players to not do smart choices that get them killed, but the DM should be working at trying to help the players not kill them. 120 skill check should get most things done in a D&D normal game, even an epic D&D game with 50+ lvl chars.

Jingwei
08-21-2013, 12:39 AM
I want to play a Paladin of the Sovereign Host and go help Celine and Oisin. (Purge the Heretics... I find it Just Plain Wrong that a Paladin or Cleric of the Sovereign Host can do that quest normally without getting in trouble for it.)


How you would get in trouble? you didn't leave any witnesses to the massacre, so who's going to link it to you? :P There's inquisitor NomNom, of course. But you end up killing him too. I guess you could turn youself in, maybe to the local bishop of the Silver Flame... nope, you killed him too.

mna
08-21-2013, 07:19 AM
How you would get in trouble? you didn't leave any witnesses to the massacre, so who's going to link it to you? :P There's inquisitor NomNom, of course. But you end up killing him too. I guess you could turn youself in, maybe to the local bishop of the Silver Flame... nope, you killed him too.

That's the point of being a paladin - you know, and your deity knows.

And being a palading of the Sovereign Host, I'd of course turn myself in to Sir Kinze in the House D temple. Not that he'd mind me whacking a few of the more militant Flamers, but for the other stuff...

Soulfurnace
08-21-2013, 07:31 AM
Not that he'd mind me whacking a few of the more militant Flamers, but for the other stuff...
Well. If you're into such things.
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. The joys of being immature.)

Gremmlynn
08-21-2013, 04:07 PM
You have just described a bad DM. Someone who arbitrarily kills off characters with no chance to keep them alive. Worse, kills them twice. Its one thing to have bad luck or for the players to not do smart choices that get them killed, but the DM should be working at trying to help the players not kill them. 120 skill check should get most things done in a D&D normal game, even an epic D&D game with 50+ lvl chars.That's not a DM, that's a rules bureaucrat. Though I would say that situation would be a bit extreme unless abandoning common sense for rules lawyering is a chronic problem with that player. Then it's just a good solution as it's likely to cure the problem one way or the other (either the player learns from the object lesson or simply decides he doesn't like playing that DMs game). For most players a simple "you have no basis for making that check" would be sufficient.

Sloublues
08-21-2013, 04:52 PM
But yes - there's no Evil PCs in DDO, for the same reason you cant play as a minion of Sauron in LOTRO - they don't want to go like WoW and have people playing on "both sides" of the fight.
Eh, all you have to do is make up some different, Evil, dialogue choices for interacting with quest givers.

"Very well, I shall find this precious Lady of yours . . . but you may not like the price I name."

"You have work for me? Will you reward me well for it?"

"Dude! There are liches in your basement? I always wanted to be a lich! I'll make them teach me their ways . . . or crush them if they resist."

Obviously the actual gameplay would run the same, as TPTB aren't going to rewrite every quest just to deal with a new alignment, but as others have noted, alignment seems to be little more than flavor in this game to begin with.

Case in point:


(Purge the Heretics... I find it Just Plain Wrong that a Paladin or Cleric of the Sovereign Host can do that quest normally without getting in trouble for it.)
Me too! I think I decided that they were troublemakers, heretics even within the faith, and needed to be Set Straight.