Cops and Robbers is a great argument, Koldoon. So is playing with toy guns, playing with GI Joes and playing violent video games. But in these situations we don't have actual adults playing with us and setting the example. On this board we have actual adults endorsing evil actions in the game. And what I worry about is kids follow suit not knowing the difference.
Paul -
As an actual adult, I'm not endorsing evil actions by playing a game in which I run an evil character. I'm participating in creating a story about some less than savory characters and their exploits. I also play, in addition to D&D, several White Wolf games which involve playing the villian. This doesn't mean I'm endorsing becoming a vampire or a werewolf or anything else - it means I'm enjoying a game. By trying to give it more meaning than the game it is, we tell kids that they should treat it more seriously than is healthy.
Television was violent when I was growing up too, but it didn't turn me into a serial killer. Video games were violent when I was growing up too, but I didn't pick up a sword and go out to kill evil undead. I save these things for playing games. Kids should know that using their imagination in playing games is ok, even if they choose to play an evil character. It's a game, we should treat it as one. A cherished game to be sure, but just a game.
- Ashavan
"Violence is up in the US because our kids now glorify the gangster image passed on to them by the media."
This is a strong assertion, and it requires equally strong proofs. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I'd like you to show me how you're right.
"All I am saying is that it is not doing any good."
Incidentally, the point of a game is not to do good, but to do fun.
Cops and Robbers is a great argument, Koldoon. So is playing with toy guns, playing with GI Joes and playing violent video games. But in these situations we don't have actual adults playing with us and setting the example. On this board we have actual adults endorsing evil actions in the game. And what I worry about is kids follow suit not knowing the difference.
Do you actually think that adults don't play these games? How old do you think a person has to be to play video games AND have children? Your words have some merit, but it is definitely NOT the norm. Adults aren't endorsing the fact that "evil is good", my parents always told me the difference and that some things are just games. Plain and simple. End result,,,better parenting, less censorship.
I know TONS of adults with lots of children who play games with them all the time. Why? Because they enjoy spending time with them and they can monitor their behavior. It's like letting your kid have a drink of beer while you're present, most parents allow this so they know they wouldn't be abusing it by themselves.
I understand your concern Paul, but I think you're blowing this out of proportion and making a lot of unsubstantiated accusations. We can argue this until we're blue in the face, most of America already has.
|
cwslyclgh: the only thing my parents reached when they gave me „a good spanking“ was to make me more defiant and more disobedient. Spanking is good for nothing!!!
I have to agree with Paul here; it is often denied that the media (TV,cinema,music, games) have a negative influence on young people, but it is nevertheless a fact anyone can recognize if he just opens his eyes.
I teach mathematics here in Germany and what I experience is that the parent's influence gets weaker and weaker while at the same time, the media shape the way young people see the world. Violence at school is increasing, and the bad thing is, the kids are proud of it. As they see it, violent behaviour is sometimes the only way to solve problems (and there are a lot of politicians who seem to see it the same way), so, if they have one, they get violent (verbally and/or physically).
I'd really like to think of the role-playing community as a nice,friendly and peaceful one, and I think, that description matches reality most of the time. In my opinion, it is due to the fact that, while hack'n'slay being a sometimes necessary part of the game, problem-solving and role-playing is strongly encouraged. And people who uses their brains don't have to use their muscles.
And that's why I don't like to see „evil“ adventures in the Dungeon. People could get the wrong impression of what it's all about or worse, they could attract young people for wrong reasons and influence their development the wrong way. And last but not least, it wouldn't be the game I love so much and I'd really like to see my son to take part in if he's old enough to.
Yours, Wormy
P.S. Nobody can tell me that 13-year-old kids play Doom III (to give an example)cause off the great storyline or the interesting and profound character development. It's about killing, destroying and blood-shedding, and yeah, that's what real men do (and sometimes women too - hope you got the irony).You're telling me that does not influence the kids' development? Then you're living in another world than I do.
P.P.S. I'd have no probs with evil plothooks or sidebars as long as the adventure in its printed form is clearly designed for good (or at least neutral) PCs. If a DM decides to change it into an evil adventure, it is his free decision. But if I were to change an evil adventure into a good one, it was mine to spare the money for the specific issue.
cwslyclgh: the only thing my parents reached when they gave me „a good spanking“ was to make me more defiant and more disobedient. Spanking is good for nothing!!!
some delinquents can't be helped :::shrug:::
I know for me the thought that perfoming an action might result in physical pain was a deterent... much more of one then say the thought of having to sit in the corner for five minutes.... something which I would do on my own at times (and still do to this day infact), lost in my own world of thoughts.
the fact of the matter is that there has been a marked increase in violence and crime among young people since laws started cracking down on corporeal punishment of adolecents.
cwslyclgh: the only thing my parents reached when they gave me „a good spanking“ was to make me more defiant and more disobedient. Spanking is good for nothing!!!
I have to disagree with you here... my parents didn't spank me often, but when they did, I usually really deserved it... like the time I put my brother in the hospital by hitting him over the head with a chain. I was six, and I was hurt too (my brother was a bit of a bully) but I was still wrong.
And that's why I don't like to see „evil“ adventures in the Dungeon. People could get the wrong impression of what it's all about or worse, they could attract young people for wrong reasons and influence their development the wrong way. And last but not least, it wouldn't be the game I love so much and I'd really like to see my son to take part in if he's old enough to.
Last I checked it was about having fun.
My brother ran his 10 year old through one of his first adventures recently. A one-shot game in which the players are orc villagers who come home to discover their village was destroyed by an army of light. All the characters but one in that adventure (they are pre-generated) are evil. It's A GAME. My brother trusts his son to know that. The run is a fun one, to be honest, one of the best one-shot games I've ever played in. Is it wrong or bad because the characters we played were evil. IT'S A GAME.
P.P.S. I'd have no probs with evil plothooks or sidebars as long as the adventure in its printed form is clearly designed for good (or at least neutral) PCs. If a DM decides to change it into an evil adventure, it is his free decision. But if I were to change an evil adventure into a good one, it was mine to spare the money for the specific issue.
I appreciate that... I submit queries to Dungeon for adventure ideas, and while I would consider adding plot hooks and even a sidebar detailing how to adapt it for evil adventurers, I would want the content of my adventure to be focused on good adventurers.
- Ashavan
|
|
my parents didn't spank me often, but when they did, I usually really deserved it
I never said that I hadn't deserved it, I said that it didn't help the time I got it.
Last I checked it was about having fun.
My brother ran his 10 year old through one of his first adventures recently. A...
My Son is two months old, so he has to grow a little bit older before he is able to play the game :). I agree that it's about fun. But to be honest I never understood exactly how someone can have fun being the bad guy. Maybe I'm a bit narrow-minded, but even if that's the case, I'm quite happy with that. And I hope I could make clear that I don't want to forbid this style of play, I just don't want to have it openly supported. And I admit that I am convinced that this world was a better place if more people shared my (general) view of things.
P.S. Koldoon it's fine if parents play with their children; Then they are able to develop their children' sense for right and wrong. But there are a lot of Kids, whose parents have no time/ don't want to play with their children, and Kids who have to make their own decisions to early are in danger to make the wrong ones.
But to be honest I never understood exactly how someone can have fun being the bad guy.
when I asked my wife why she enjoys playing evil characters so much (She almost always tries to make an evil character even if it is not an evil campaign persay)... she responded that it gives her a chance to be somebody that she is not, and could never be in real life, sombody totaly differnt then herself (in real life she is a social worker who works hard to help make a differnce in the lives of others for less pay then she should be getting based upon her level of education because she believes in making a difference).
|
|
...she responded that it gives her a chance to be somebody that she is not, and could never be in real life, sombody totaly differnt then herself ...
I know and have to accept this argument, but she could give exactly the same response, if she'd play a lawful good paladin. ;)
Besides, seems that you have found a jewel of a woman. There aren't too many people nowadays caring actively for others :)But though it's an interesting discussion, I think we have gone too far off topic, and since I have nothing new to add, I'll leave the field to others. But that's what I like in role-playing. You meet other peoples with opinions (and they will let you live, even if they have other opinions than yourself).
Yours, Wormy
Last year while I was in Iraq I ran dual sided campaign. It started off as a good aligned campaign with the adventurers set on a mission to thwart an evil cults attempt at resurecting a set of anceint evil deities. The group i was DMing consisted of eight players. Some of the players where having personal problems with eachother and I was having problems keeping the game interesting with such a powerful group. Later on some of the players characters starting doing questionalble things along the gaming sessions, so I came up with a way to deal with my problems, I split up the group. The players who were running their characters as evil turned to be agents for the cult who had infiltrated the group. I took them and gathered a couple of people who had to play in the beging and started running them as main atagonist of the good group. This evil group had its own agenda of furthing the resurection of the evil deities, and thwarting the advancements of the good group. In the end everyone had a good time, and the most memorable points of the game where when the two groups ended up in the same place at the same time, this allowed for me to just sit back and enjoy the a truely free form of roll playing as these two groups faught it out. To say it plainly running an evil campaign was great fun for me as well as those who played the evil characters.
Personaly I don't think that Dungeon should print evil campaigns in there magazine, mostly because it is too accessable to minors. Younger kids are not experienced enough in the real world to be able to cope with the things that would be experienced in an evil campaign, Nuff said.
Out side of the magazine however, I would like to see some web enhancements for sorce information about running an evil campaign both for the players and the DM's. Web enhancements would also be a good tool for publishing evil campaigns, and additonal information that may be used to convert magazine publication. For the most part the "Book of Vile Darkness" gives DM's just about every thing they will need to run an evil campaign, of course some expounding would nice to see, in the suggested form of web enhancements of course.
First off let me say I agree with Paizo's stand on publishing evil adventures. Also, regardless as to how even the majority of people play the game, vary the game or whatever, it is clearly written that Dragon and Dungeon magazines are intented to support the most current publication of the D&D game, and doesn't publish anything that supports any other d20 system. That said, seeing an evil adventure in Dungeon would be no different than if they published a Wheel of Time adventure now and then, or even a Star Wars adventure. How? The WoT and SW player's handbooks are published by WotC, but aren't the mainstream published D&D material. How again does this relate to the alignment issue? Player's Handbook, introduction, page 4 "...by taking on the role of a hero-a character you create." It's the 2nd line in the book!!
Later on the same page it states "Your characters star in the adventures you play, just like the heroes of a book or movie." On page 103 it says "Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villians and monsters." So even though the book doesn't specifically say DON'T PLAY EVIL, it makes the intent known that they recommend playing non-evil based campaigns. So if Paizo stands by it's standards, than allowing evil based adventures is no different than printing a Wheel of Time adventure.
Now I'm not saying that people don't play evil PCs or campaigns. I've done it and am even running an evil PC in a friends adventure. I have a borderline evil PC in my AP campaign as well. The point is that Paizo shouldn't break one rule unless they were just as likely to break them all.
Moving on, also most people CAN NOT PLAY EVIL. They play psycotic maybe, maybe even psycotic evil, but not a real evil. Dragon recently had an article on the anti-hero and the guy hit a lot of points that I have had trouble getting across to people in the past over evil PCs.
And since people are talking about books, has anyone read Lyn Abbey's Dark Sun book, The Rise and Fall of a Sorcerer King? That is evil. The way Hamanu is described he is the most loyal of allies. A true friend. A guy I could honesty place my faith in if I lived in Pavek's shoes, but make no mistake. All know he is evil, and even his actions prove it. Cross him the slightest and experience a death unlike any you could imagine.
As someone else mentioned it's not hard to alter an adventure to evil PCs w/o the title saying "Let's be Evil and Kill, Death, Maim, Destroy." (or blood, death and vengeance for those of you to get that joke) If the adventure is about the PCs stopping the mad necromancer and destroying his artifact of unholyness why not run the thing as written? What evil cleric or mage in your group doesn't want to stop this necro before his power is too great? Which one doesn't want the evil artifact for themselves? Common, and give me a break. Half the adventures written in Dungeon are just as good for evil PCs with a simple hook change. As far as evil PCs stopping the forces of good, well it's hard to write.
Any well written vs the good guys story would involve the good guys trying to stop the evil PCs. That means a customized DM written adventure unless your gonna force your party to take certain actions to set up the encounters. Not very fun.
Lastly there was a side quest written a couple years ago where a deva and demon are each is a guise, fighting in the street. Each tryes to convince the party that they are the good guy and to help them but neither outside is willing to reveal what they are. Here is your evil PC approach. Adventures where the true good/bad guy are not clear w/o investigation. See, then it would get approved because the "ideal" goal is to figure out which side is good, and help them vanquish the evil side. If a DM is running an evil campaign however...
Anyways, Paizo keep up the good work. I'd like to see more conflict type senerios that could serve as good or evil based, so that others can use how they like (or even myself if I'm running an evil based) but can involve some investigation and role playing before the bloodshed (followed by light salad, sorry same inside joke as above).
Just my thoughts.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Actually "Rock and a Hard Place" was an AWESOME adventure! My PC's loved it.
Dragon #287 (sept. 2001) actually has an article on how to use Celestials as antagonists, it has the rocking cover of a female planetar.
I'm still all for a sidebar or even just a web enhancement on playing evil campaigns... actually it'd be a good article request for Dragon.
Yes, we're all for playing heroes, but once in a while a peek at the Dark Side is fun too.
-I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!
Just a couple of notes here... Violent crime was actually DOWN over the past few years, while petty crime was stable or a slight rise. This info was from the FBI... again, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Two: if the whole 'playing a violent game makes you violent,' then...
alcohol makes you drive drunk.
pencils make you misssspell works.
guns make you kill people.
cigarettes make you smoke.
All of that implies that the person has absolutely NO control or responsibility over themselves or their actions. Sorry, I don't buy the '(insert your favorite scapegoat here) made me do it!' argument. No, the scapegoat didn't make you do it, you CHOSE to do it, and therefore you had better accept responsibility for it. This same argument has been going on for literally centuries... from non-church plays, to Bibles written in something besides Latin, to music, to clothes, to books, to movies, to comic books, to dancing... etc, etc, etc.
Squid
|
|
So you brought me back, where I didn't want to say anything further.
I (and I think I'm talking here for Paul McCarthy as well) never said, that videogames or TV make you violent. What I said was that they can influence especially young people to accept violence as a means to solve problems. Looking at the schools I see that this is what actually happens. And from my own experience I know that this was not the case 20 years ago (at least not in the nowadays quantities).
By the way ,
it's easy to choose to drink alcohol, but it's not as easy to act rational if you're drunk.
it's easy to begin smoking but it's not as easy to stop smoking if you're addicted to it.
And if I had to guess, why there are so much more victims killed by guns in the U.S. than in Germany, my guess was, that in Germany people aren't generally allowed to possess fire weapons.
So while I won't go so far to deny the human's responsibility for his deeds, I won't go so far to deny his environment's influence either. And that's where the media come into play.
Yours, wormy
alright guys, I think we have dragged this thread far enough off course... if we are going to continue talking about this subject as opposed to Evil Adventures in Dungeon we should probably start a new thread about Cultural Influence on the behavior of america's youth or something (although I am unsure that such a thread would be appropriat on the Dungeon Magazine Forum).
I am not saying that Dungeons and Dragons will turn kids into the next John Gotti.
When you boil it down, this argument is almost identical to the old "should there be demons in D&D" argument. Demonic content in D&D didn't cause a rise in satanism, as we all know, and there's no reason to think that having evil content will cause D&D players to turn into gangsters.
For sure, there's a good chance that young kids playing D&D without parental supervision are going to get the wrong message. I'd just like to point out the most important part of that sentence: "without parental supervision." See what I'm getting at?
Personally, I don't like evil campaigns, and I would hate to see adventures geared specifically for evil campaigns. However, for those adventures that are easily altered to suit that playing style, a quick sidebar wouldn't bother me. It'd be just another piece of content that I'd never use.
cwslyclgh is right about needed a new thread to debate cultural influence. Also scapegoats aren't the reason for violance. Marylon Manson is the cause of all things evil, so there's no reason for further debate (for the record I like most of Manson's music, I only said that because Manson publicly took credit to be the scapegoat of all of America's problems).
Now as I said above, there are specific guidelines to show why Paizo doesn't publish evil based adventures besides just saying no or based on any beliefs, etc. Just by adhering to the WotC D&D 3.5 version and no other material regaurdless of tie ins keeps them from publishing evil based material.
Second, if you can't use the adventure 'to destroy the evil artifact' as a 'lets take control of the evil artifact' adventure, or any other SIMPLE alterations to make most adventures useable for an evil PC group, than HONESTLY YOUR GROUP ISN'T MATURE ENOUGH OR SKILLED ENOUGH AT PLAYING TO HANDLE AN EVIL BASED CAMPAIGN!!
In an issue's letter's section a while back one of the staff members, James I believe, answered a letter about why there aren't evil adventures. One of the comments he made was how most evil campaigns involve less time adventureing and more time with conflict between the PCs, which often leads to conflict between the players.
As a 12 or so year veteran I've experimented with evil PCs, adventures and campaigns with multiple groups and many different players. Overall it doesn't work. The players either end up fighting each other and nothing is ever accomplished or they end up playing a more neutral alnignment than evil.
Also many player's not only can't properly play evil, but many can't even react to evil PCs in the group. Example. A member from one of my old groups joined one of my newer groups. Later he started to DM an adventure he had started in the old group that only him and I had been in. I asked if I could use my old PC and he said yes. Morris had started out LN. He was a wizard/rouge, with a 5 con. His hp were very crappy and he deeply depended on everyone else for survival. This PC of mine had one of the highest death rates of any PC I've ever played, but his personality made him fun to play. He was a compulsive gambler, and a thief. Along the way his actions, as well as keeping and using an unholy sword found, the DM changed his alignment to evil (w/o ever telling the other players of the change). Morris was never played any different. He was forever loyal to the party because he knew his life depended on them. The only thing negative he ever did to the group was what he had done before the alignment change. Since the agreement was the group splits all treasure evenly that we find after an encounter, unless only one person took the risks or if a PC found the treasure on his own. Typical combat went like this.
Round1- move to the back, cast unseen servant
Round2- take cover cast invis. on my bag of holding
Round3- send the servant with the bag towards the treasure pile to collect money and objects for a round or two
Round4- cast some offensive spells to help finish the fight
This allowed me extra treasure w/o breaking the agreement. If an item went well with another PC, I'd give them this 'gift' to help insure my survival at a later time. Everything went great until about 2 weeks after the DM made me evil. Another player asked a question about what spells I had prepared and grabed my paper, then after seeing the alignment went completely balistic. We lost an hour of play because I had an evil character and how I was going to steal from the group, kill everyone in the group, etc. etc. This was the same character everyone knew I was playing, that everyone had been ok with, enjoyed, but now it was a problem because I was evil! The players even knew of the invis/unseen servant thing and had laughed about it, unconcerned since my PC wasn't a threat and that he'd give anything that would really help another character to them as a gift for protection later, but it was all different after the DM ruled me more evil than neutral.
Again, I'm not trying to make anyone mad, and I enjoy evil in the mix when it is done well, but for most it can't be done without problems.
Also one of the components sections in the back of Dungeon went on about player tactics and such. One of the things listed was not to play the antiparty PC. It tears the group apart, slows gameplay, and ruins other players fun. Put 5 guys around the table with evil in their alnignmentsd and you've got 5 antiparty PCs. Again how can Paizo allow evil adventures without going against other statments they have made about how the game should be played?
Evil adventures are fun taken in context for adults. For kids, I really don't think that they should be exposed to it. Why, because we really don't know if it will affect some kids negatively. I am sure it will have no positive effects. If we were playing a war RPG, would I encourage kids to play Nazis? No, I don't think so.
The resounding argument I hear is that it is fun. Sure, so is throwing snowballs at buses or egging houses when we were kids at Halloween. Is it wrong; yes. If evil characters are what turns your crank in D&D, go ahead, knock yourselves out. Just don't expose the rest of us (kids in particular) to something that may be detrimental to behaviour of my kids or someone else's. If you don't think it will bother your kids, fine, dandy, I think it will bother mine. That is why I humbly request Dungeon not print evil adventures. That it is why I wrote this article in the first place. And I ask you guys to have respect for a concerned parent who feels this way
Evil adventures are fun taken in context for adults. For kids, I really don't think that they should be exposed to it. Why, because we really don't know if it will affect some kids negatively. I am sure it will have no positive effects.
Interesting... Because I've seen evidence to the contrary. Playing evil characters sometimes helps show people how little is required for someone to change from good to evil -- a lesson that's then applied to real life. I've known people to learn a lot from D&D... In order for a lesson to be learned, the player has to be free to make choices. One of those choices is good vs evil. Without that freedom, the lived experience of the adventure simply becomes yet another parable, in one ear and out the other.
You could be right, Otter and I see your point of view. If the characters can fully roleplay evil (something I don't think kids can do) they will turn on each other and look after themselves eventually, bringing the game to a halt. That kind of game goes absolutely nowhere, as others on this board and myself have experienced. The whole game falls apart with bickering, party seperation and and party members trying to kill each other. I have even seen bad feelings develop between actual players. What does one learn about that besides evil doesn't work? Maybe a valuable experience. But one us adults knew already. Will kids learn from it? Probably not, but they will not play evil characters again because it ruins the FUN. The whole point of this game is to have fun and to learn some teamwork on the way. Maybe adults can pull this off, but not kids, unless they are very astute.
The question I'd like to ask is what is it about an adventure that makes it slanted towards Evil? You fight Good foes? That's silly. What Alignment you are does not restrict the alignments of your foes. You can very well come to blows with a Good character in any of a number of ways, even if you're straight up Lawful Good. In fact, even if you're Evil, you're just as likely to fight other Evil foes, and probably more likely, since you hole up with such poisonous snakes.
So really, what is it about the current slew of advneture fodder that makes them "slanted" towards Good? As James Jacobs says, a lot of published Dungeon adventures are ALREADY heavily slanted towards Evil, especially those advnetures that heavily penalize showing mercy and that highlight assassination goals.
Hi all. I've come late to this discussion and I apologise if delving in again opens old wounds. Hopefully we can continue the discussion - or I'll shuffle off, no problems.
Quick point to make. Lots of players and GMs assume that playing an evil character automatically means you will, at some point, turn on your fellow party members.
Why?
That's almost as corny as saying that evil priests shouldn't be allowed to cast healing spells.
Why?
Evil player-characters need both friends and/or acquaintances to survive, just like everyone else does. Why assume that an evil character is a backstabber? Why assume an evil character is going to cut everyone elses throats or nick all the loot?
Not that I'm trying to pick on peoples perspectives here, but why not look at an alternative campaign. One person is an ousted crime lord, for example, and the other players are his henchmen. What about the players trying to form their own cartel and leaning on the competition? Okay, so eventually one should end up as leader, but even leaders need underlings and comrades.
Playing evil isn't necessarily about killing your team-mates. Evil can be about ideals, about hating the confines of law and society. It can be about being individual and unrestricted. It could just be about taking what you want or having fun and causing chaos along the way.
If you DO want to take it to extremes, have a nice break and play a mini-scenario; take Reservoir Dogs and give it a fantasy twist, where the characters almost have to confront each other at some point.
I've made a "career" out of roleplaying baddies for about twenty years and will continue to do so for as long as there are GMs willing to run with ideas and play something a bit different. Playing extremes can be fun, and playing norms is quite fun too. It's all fun, and as long as we're all having fun, it's fun!
As an aside, I would personally welcome a sidebar indicating suggested changes for evil campaigns or suggestions modifying the current scenario. I also totally understand Paizo wanting to remain PC (that's "politically correct" for non-Brits rather than "player character"!) - they are, after all, trying to sell to all ages and persuasions. But as a player, it's nice to see everyone thought of from time-to-time.
In essence, I feel I've rambled but hope at least one person out there understands what the hell I was talking about :)
|
Evil characters don't have to turn on party members.
Still, in my experience too many players do stupid things (like turn on their party) and justify it by saying "I'm EVIL!"
I only let players who have proven they are capable role-players create evil characters. And if the campaign is focused on evil themes, well, I'm not interested in running it.
I've had bad experiences with evil games, and it isn't something I'll do again. If I'm only getting 3 adventures in each magazine, I'd rather they were all ones that I could at least "theoretically" use. An evil adventure would require a significant amount of re-working.
Basically, there is nothing keeping someone from using a "good" adventure for evil characters, but there is plenty to keep a "good character" from participating in an "evil" adventure. That is, an evil adventure requires an evil act to succeed.
I agree. I still don't think that there's any real reason to deny evil adventures a shot in Dungeon short of a post-Gygax TSR-like desire to keep the game "clean" and cater to non-gamers who may become offended over actual gamers (who are usually more sensible than that).
|
|
First of all, Talek, your example indicates "shades of gray", not "evil". In your example, a party of good aligned PCs can attempt to negotiate an aid package for their kingdom. They don't have to kill anyone (at least, not anyone civilized). They might be asked to kill a dragon, or something, in order to succeed in their negotiations, but they don't have to kill anyone and take their stuff. Or at least, they shouldn't.
I don't think this issue is up for negotiation, but there is a very clear litmus test. If an adventure requires an evil act be performed to succeed, it is an evil adventure.
Evil parties can engage in any adventure presented in Dungeon as written. They don't have to perform evil acts to succeed, but they could. They can torture prisoners for information, but good aligned parties can attempt to negotiate for the information, or magically cajole it out of the prisoner.
As soon as you cross the line and require evil acts be performed to "win", you've created a game that a lot of people would be uncomfortable with. I've already said I wouldn't run such a game. I wouldn't play in it either. I might be interested in playing an evil character on occassion, but generally I like my D&D as heroic fantasy.
For all those asking for "evil" adventures, can you explain why any of the adventures (your choice) in any recent issue of Dungeon (again, your choice) is unsuitable for an evil party? Can you explain an adventure idea that is unsuitable for good parties, but might well work for evil ones? I have not seen any satisfactory explanation to those points as of yet.
"For all those asking for 'evil' adventures, can you explain why any of the adventures (your choice) in any recent issue of Dungeon (again, your choice) is unsuitable for an evil party?"
They're all "suitable" in that the GM can involve evil PCs if he wants to by appealing to mecenary motives and such instead of altruism. They're still not designed with evil PCs in mind and optimized for that. A screwdriver is not "unsuitable" for use as a hammer, in that you can technically use it that way if you really wanted to for some reason or it you had no other choice. That doesn't mean that screwdriver is a ever a good choice to hammer nails with. It's not designed for that and and not optimized for it.
"Can you explain an adventure idea that is unsuitable for good parties, but might well work for evil ones?"
Assassinating a good ruler (personally, I think a Dungeon adventure centered around planning and executing the assassination of a crafty, powerful NPC could be a lot of fun). Stealing or destroying a good artifact. Sacking the temple of a good diety. Leading an army of orcs, demons and such on a military campaign against a "good nation." Set-up a subterranean stronghold, recruit allies from the underdark races and then defend your new territory against parties of good adventurers (the complete opposite of a standard dungeon crawl with the PCs stocking the dungeon and the GM running heroic adventurers through it).
Everything that villains NPCs do in Dungeon adventures currently, except with the tables turned.
"As soon as you cross the line and require evil acts be performed to 'win', you've created a game that a lot of people would be uncomfortable with."
I disagree. You've "created" nothing. You're only supporting a style of play that many gamers enjoy, have enjoyed for over thirty years and will continue to enjoy.
It may not be your cup of tea, but people have fun with this play style and that's a fact. I don't see the need to be morally-judgemental over a silly fantasy game. I believe that. to some degree, every play style deserves at least occasional official support.
I doubt Dungeon Magazine will ever publish an "evil" adventure. However, I do agree with a few of Yamo's points that "evil" campaigns have and do exist, with great frequency, in D&D games. I've never played in one, but I wouldn't hesitate to try it if it ever came up. I can't render judgment on something I've never tried.
I think a good challenge for all you Dungeon submitters would be to write an adventure that is not "evil" per se, but is written in such a way that it could be played from a variety of approaches.
Perhaps instead of a linear plot adventure, the adventure could be a highly detailed localized area where multiple conflicts exist between towns/factions/guilds. The adventure locations could be the detailed headquarters/castles/dungeon strongholds of these conflicting parties and PC parties could be introduced into the conflict in a variety of ways.....not an evil adventure, but one with lots of opportunities for evil parties to do what they want to do.
Cities of Adventure is a great example of something like that. What decent DM wouldn't be able to think up a few good adventures for an evil party in Hardby or Istivin?
However, as far adventures specifically written for evil groups...I don't think it'll happen. While most "gamers" wouldn't have a problem with it, there are enough people out there still who would use such an adventure as a justification to attack the hobby. There are also enough people out there who are on the verge of getting into D&D, who would get turned off by something like that. As gamers we still have a responsiblity, even 30 years later, to be good ambassadors of the hobby to the uninitiated outside world---like it or not.
Creative Director
|
I still have yet to see any proof that there are "lots" of evil campaigns being run. I'm also fairly certain that if we published an adventure that requires evil acts to complete that we'd get a LOT more angry letters than would make the experiment worth it. And finally, I personally don't see the value of publishing an adventure in which the goal is the assassination of a good ruler, say, or to kidnap 13 babies from an orphanage to give to an evil cultist to boil down for spell components for some evil ritual.
Add in the fact that I highly doubt WotC would approve an evil-themed adventure, and there you have it. No adventuers specifically for evil PCs in Dungeon.
James had said that the sidebar that has been mentioned repeatedly here was being considered. Is that still something Dungeon is considering, Mr. Jacobs?
It seems like The Whispering Cairn would have been a good start for implementing that. Even 3FoE has great potential for evil characters. So, when do we get to see an Evil sidebar, James?
BTW, for what it's worth, I've seen supposedly Good aligned characters fighting and killing each other in-game just as much as any evil group.
|
Creative Director
|
James had said that the sidebar that has been mentioned repeatedly here was being considered. Is that still something Dungeon is considering, Mr. Jacobs?
It seems like The Whispering Cairn would have been a good start for implementing that. Even 3FoE has great potential for evil characters. So, when do we get to see an Evil sidebar, James?
BTW, for what it's worth, I've seen supposedly Good aligned characters fighting and killing each other in-game just as much as any evil group.
The "Evil Sidebar" won't be appearing. If we publish an adventure that could be easilly adapted for evil play (and we've got a few that would qualify in the works), one of the adventure hooks will speak to this.
Whispering Cairn, which depends on greed to get started, certainly is a good example of how an evil adventure could start. Rather than seeking to destroy the bad guy in the last chapter, for example, the party could seek to make an alliance with him.
|
|
Assassinating a good ruler (personally, I think a Dungeon adventure centered around planning and executing the assassination of a crafty, powerful NPC could be a lot of fun).
First of all, I don't understand why the leader would have to be good for this to be fun. Secondly, I don't understand why the leader would have to be assassinated. Assassination might be the easiest way to remove a particular person from office, but there are other ways of achieving the same effect. If the adventure requires the good-aligned leader to be killed, it might qualify as an evil adventure, but it is also far too linear.
Stealing or destroying a good artifact.
Without an example, I can't really respond to this one. Still, it doesn't seem that in any adventure for good PCs it is about destroying an evil artifact for the sake of destroying an evil artifact. It is almost universally "destroy said artifact before such unpleasant events unfold". There is a difference between good and evil. Evil characters benefit when the rest of the world is good, but suffer when the rest of the world is evil. Evil isn't supposed to get along with itself, while good is.
Sacking the temple of a good diety.
There is nothing preventing an evil party from doing so even if the good temple is featured in a standard Dungeon adventure. This is my point. Evil characters can interact with any published adventure in evil ways, but that doesn't require the use of evil PCs.
Leading an army of orcs, demons and such on a military campaign against a "good nation."
Leading an army is a poor adventure for Dungeon's pages. Even if this one is only suitable for evil PCs, it isn't a suitable adventure. If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to see you write this one (even if it were for good PCs). I just can't imagine it working. In any case, again, there is no reason why the PCs must move against a good-aligned nation. It is probably easier (and in their best interest) to establish themselves as the leader of an existing evil empire first.
Set-up a subterranean stronghold, recruit allies from the underdark races and then defend your new territory against parties of good adventurers (the complete opposite of a standard dungeon crawl with the PCs stocking the dungeon and the GM running heroic adventurers through it).
Dungeon often offers "sites" that can be turned into strongholds. Again, they don't offer adventures about turning that stronghold into the PCs personal palace. These kinds of adventures work just as well for good PCs as for evil PCs, but they require the PCs to be established. Virtually all Dungeon adventures require the PCs to go somewhere. I could see an adventure with the purpose of capturing a particularly fierce guardian, but that could work for good or evil PCs. I had a good aligned PC that had captured a white dragon wyrmling and convinced it to live in my character's basement. I hoped to "raise it right", and I figured if it became a threat to people in my employ, I could just kill it later.
Everything that villains NPCs do in Dungeon adventures currently, except with the tables turned.
Dungeon's adventures are reactive. If the PCs want to do something, they choose the adventure they want. So, if your group of PCs wants to go find a fiendish tree and turn it loose on the material plane, they'll have to tell you that's what they want to do. There is nothing stopping them. It is when the PCs don't know what they want to do that you spring a fiendish tree invading their hometown. The PCs are suddenly confronted by a situation that they have to deal with.
I'm still not seeing why an "evil" adventure is required. And while some people may enjoy that style, others don't. It is when it is required that there is a problem. Plenty of adventures in Dungeon offer unique ways for evil PCs to interact with the adventure, but no, the default assumes that the adventureres are not going to go out of their way to cause undue suffering to the NPCs they meet.
Dungeon doesn't need EVIl adventures.
I believe that evil adventures are just too player / campaign specific to be published in Dungeon. On the other hand there are general "good" adventures that any player can enjoy.
And if a players wants to be evil, he should try his hand at DM-ing.
And if a players wants to be evil, he should try his hand at DM-ing.
Oh, well spoken! How true, speaking as one very evil DM. Well, according to some of my players. My wife says I'm sweet ;)
|
|
I cannot conceive of Wizards of the Coast - and more importantly Hasbro - allowing Paizo, its oficial licensee, to permit the publishing of an evil adventure as an officially licensed D&D Adventure product.
Such a thing has - to my knowledge - never occurred in the history of the game - for good reasons that should be self-evident to all.
"Such a thing has - to my knowledge - never occurred in the history of the game - for good reasons that should be self-evident to all."
Yes. A basic misunderstanding of who actually plays the game and how.
|
|
No, I think it stems from an accurate understanding of who plays the game.
I'm 26 now, but I've been playing since elementary school. My parents are reasonable people, but I'm sure they would rather I were active in a "family-friendly" game than in an "adult" game. Now, the facft that I still playing as an adult means that the hobby has the flexibility to be many things to many people, but I don't think it needs any official support to make it less family-friendly.
Those who are inclined to play the game that way can do so without any specific catering. How do evil PCs differ from good PCs? While motivations might be one way, those don't really matter. The important difference is action. A role-playing game doesn't prescribe actions for any character, but it does create situations.
A good party is unlikely to beat up a shop-keeper, tie him up and leave him in a storage closet while they load the entire contents of his shop into a portable hole. An evil party might consider that standard operating proceedure. Since most adventures assume that PCs are greedy (or interested in wealth), there are virtually no adventures that are designed for "good" characters, anyway. Most of the time the designers assume that even good adventurers are going to take and keep whatever treasure they find, rather than returning it to the descendants of the long-dead villagers from whence it came.
Although there are many adults playing the game, there are still children involved as well. Making the game less family-friendly is not likely to improve long-term success, and may hurt it.
I'm happy with the official policy, even if some readers can't agree with it. However, I don't see any reason to keep stating my beliefs since I'm unlikely to change anyone's deep-seated opinions. However, if the powers-that-be (read: editors) begin considering the publishing of an evil adventure, I'd love to have a chance to write a 3-5 page explanation for why I believe that would be a bad idea. So, let us know before you do it, please.
"Those who are inclined to play the game that way can do so without any specific catering."
So can players in non-evil campaigns. I don't see a point here.