I have been a subscriber of Dungeon for quite some time as well as Dragon magazines. Frankly, there are a lot of people who play evil campaigns and I have never seen a scenario for evil adventurers.
Now I know that there could be some legal implications for young readers, but hear me out.
1) There have been past subscriptions of Dragon that had a young viewers notice inside of the magazine, Dungeon could do that for a few of it's evil campaigns.
2) The book of Vile Darkness supplement has a disclaimer before you buy it.
3) The campaigns for evil adventurers can be PG-13,,,I mean you don't have be slaughtering children or anything. There are varying levels of "evilness" and it's not like you have to be doing anything heinous or horrifically immoral.
4) Finally, I cannot being to think that you (Dungeon) have not had any submissions for evil campaigns, you just chose not to print them.
I would like any feedback here from any subscribers as well as Dungeon magazine editors. I think the Evil campaigns of D&D are mis-represented here.
from personal experience I have found that most "evil" adventures have less to do with the content of the adventure (ie who the opponents are etc.) and more to do with the motivations of the PC's involved with the adventure.
that being said I have used several adventures from Dungeon with a few relativly minor changes (mostly about how the PC's get involved with the adventure) in the "evil" campaign that I DM on an infrequent basis.
Well if that's the case, then why doesn't Dungeon just publish some as "Evil" and already tweaked?
Evil adventures can be just as mission-based as non-evil ones. Instead of infiltrating the necromancer's tower to slay his undead henchmen, destroy the Artifact of Doom and vanquish the necromancer, you infiltrate the good king's castle, slay his loyal paladin retainers, destroy the Artifact of Light and assassinate the king.
Easy.
And refreshing. I would like to see Dungeon finally start to support a style of play that's been around since the very beginning. Evil campaigns coming out of the closet to enjoy some official support for once. Imagine that. :)
Creative Director
|
Whew... this is a tough question to answer.
Just as we have to assume a baseline for most of the adventures we publish in Dungeon as regards setting, we have to assume a baseline as regards ethics and morality. Most D&D games revolve around the good guys (even if those good guys are little more than greedy mercenaries), and as a result, the adventures in Dungeon have to speak to those types of games.
For most adventures, making it an "evil" adventure can be accomplished by simply changing the adventure's plot hook. Take, for example, "Forsaken Arch" from issue #120. Rather than being hired by the town council to find the bandit lair and defeat them, an evil party might be hired by the town's hidden guild of assassins who don't approve of this upstart group of bandits horning in on their business. They could hire some evil PCs to track the bandits down, kill them all, and perhaps set things up so the assassins could replace the bandits as the town's tormentors. With this plot, you can still use the majority of the encounters as written.
I'm afraid you won't be seeing many adventures in Dungeon that send parties into the city to burn down an orphanage so their benefactor can buy the lot of land it's located on for a bag of copper pieces, or adventures that ask the PCs to infiltrate a good temple and assassinate its leader in order to install an evil doppleganger in his place. Adventures like this are better served as talor-made adventures by a DM who understands the limits of his or her players.
"For most adventures, making it an 'evil' adventure can be accomplished by simply changing the adventure's plot hook."
Hmm. But if each adventure came with an "Evil Options" sidebar...
I am not a big fan of "evil" adventures. I often find the TPK comes fast and hard and from the inside (the PCs usually go wackadoo on each other pretty fast).
That being said, if you want to run an evil adventure, you don't need to write one. Let the PCs pursue their own evil goals and wreak mayhem as they see fit and then have the good guys respond by gunning for them.
Villains are the core of any good adventure, not the ones pursuing it. Give the PCs a setting, make sure they have solid motivations to pursue and sit back and see what they get into. Then plan on how churches, orders of knights, celestials, heroes and other do-gooders track them down and try to stop them.
That is the best way to do an "evil" adventure in my opinion.
When running an evil adventure, try to keep in mind that other parties of good adventurers will be trying to stop them. Those will provide the most memorable encounters...coming up against a group of do-gooders bent on defeating them and stealing their stuff. And, to make them even more upset, make the good guys use non-lethal force...take them alive!
(insert evil [or good] DM laugh)
|
I'm not interested in seeing evil adventures in Dungeon. I've heard it said repeatedly that the staff will not place an adventure that requires the PCs to perform evil acts to succeed. I think that is a reasonable standard. If the only way to "win" is to perform evil acts, there will be a lot of people upset. D&D can be fun with "moral ambiguities", but I don't want to take a Paladin PC on an adventure that will require I lose my Paladinhood.
I dunno. I think it's high time that somebody acknowledge that these sorts of games have been popular since roleplaying began. No more acting ignorant of that fact or trying to pull some kind of misguided Comics Code-type "code of morality" crap like TSR did. You're a game company, not my mommy. You should support the game as it's actually played.
Ever actually read classic sword & sorcery fantasy like Moorcock and Howard? It's decidedly amoral.
|
You're a game company, not my mommy. You should support the game as it's actually played.
That is exactly what they do, since most people prefer to be the good guy. I admit that being bad can be more challenging in Role-playing, but most evil players (even if lawful or neutral evil) behave chaotic evil nonetheless, so they aren't good roleplayers at all. On the other side, being chaotic good doesn't mean to be the righteousness yourself, so there is a bandwidth of interpretation how to act even if being a nominally good aligned creature.
And think about the reputation the Dungeon Magazine would gain by openly supporting "evil" storylines. You're right, Paizo/WotC is not your mummy, but your mommy was very likely to take the mag away from you (at least if she had the power to do so).There are a lot of kids playing pen&paper; they would get in real problems (by their parents) if they were assumed to act in an "evil" game. And therefore I have to agree with Mr. Jacobs. If you want to have an evil campaign you are free to create one for yourself. But the Dungeon Magazine primarily serves the great majority of players and this majority is (hopefully) on the good side of the game.
And: the Company wants to make money, so why should they exclude young people from reading the mag (young people being the major source of new players and therefore of new customers)?
Ever actually read classic sword & sorcery fantasy like Moorcock and Howard? It's decidedly amoral.
No, it isn't. Moorcock discusses the differences between Chaos and Lawfulness, and he gives different approaches why the one should be superior to the other; The final answer he gives is : There is no ethics or moral that can give you advice what to do, so you have to decide for yourself(so that's what you could call amoral). But he does not discuss the good-bad matter and in general,neither Erekose, Elric nor Corum think of themselves (or are so regarded by the readers) as being the bad guy.
As far as Howard is concerned, I admittedly don't know(I haven't read all his books), but even with Conan being no Paladin, there is an greater evil everytime and everywhere so he isn't the anti-hero either.Remember : Lawful does not mean good and Chaotic does not mean evil.
Personally, I don't really use Alignment in my games. Characters can do what they want and are judged by the other characters for their actions. All I require is consistency from a character. If a character's actions seem to be truly random, the other characters will not trust that character and the character will be pushed out of the party.
Anyone ever read "Evil by Necessity"? It is an interesting novel where the world is becoming too good and with self destruct in a brilliant flash of pure goodness if the last remaining villains don't stop the spread of evil. So off go the last Anti Paladin, a Witch, an Assassin, and the last Thieves' guild leader on a fantastic adventure along with a druid, to save the world.
That being said, DUNGEON has provided several model villages ripe for raiding. I think almost every adventure can be run with an evil party by just changing the adventure hook. Instead of removing an evil foe, the party goes in to remove the competition.
ASEO out
That being said... I have enjoyed the few adventures where the players play monsters. Things like Reverse Dungeon can be a great change of play. The thing about playing monsters is that players often want to play Uber beasts and reap pure havoc.
An adventure where the party are a clan of...say Frost Giants, or Trolls could be interesting, and give the party the chance to play Large or bigger creatures.
A Frost Giant adventure doesn't have to be evil though. Perhaps the Clan wants to capture a White Dragon for it's breeding stock or something.
Trolls might be trying to escape from a city sewer system, where they have regenerated from tissue samples, since having been thrown into the gutter by some mage's ex-girlfriend who went agro and trashed his lab when she caught him making a Flesh Golem...a Female Flesh golem...A HOT Female Flesh Golem...
There was also an adventure module called “Midnight Madness” where the characters are all were-beasts that are trying to find a cure. Something like this might be a great one-on-one adventure for a DM and Player to resolve that player's bout with lycanthropy...and would probably involve a blind murderous killing spree at some point.
So, maybe some monster adventures would be nice.
Just thoughts and idle musings...
ASEO out
I'm afraid you won't be seeing many adventures in Dungeon that send parties into the city to burn down an orphanage so their benefactor can buy the lot of land it's located on for a bag of copper pieces, or adventures that ask the PCs to infiltrate a good temple and assassinate its leader in order to install an evil doppleganger in his place. Adventures like this are better served as talor-made adventures by a DM who understands the limits of his or her players.
It's not that we are asking for blasphemous or immoral evil adventures. Stealing, planning ambushes, heists, thwarting a ruling king's reign, and so forth can be done without too much scrutiny at what is deemed to be questionable material. I don't think we are asking for each issue to have some kind of evil adventure, but at least one every so often would be nice.
At the very least, it would be refreshing to see a sidebar or an optional plotline that we can tailor for an evil adventure. The main use of Dungeon is to help DM's incorporate these scenarios into their campaigns. Everyone has been saying that you can "tailor" these already pregenerated good scenarios for evil campaigns,,,of course you can and I do it all the time, but I also have to do the same thing for my good campaigns when using Dungeon scenarios.
I appreciate your feedback James, but I get the feeling that Dungeon doesn't want to go anywhere with this because they simply don't want to deal with any potential negative feedback.
Change can be disruptive and a little scary, but it is the only way that progress is made.
I fully support Dungeon's stand on this one. D&D got enough bad press in the 80's with films like "Mazes and Monsters" and the outcry about the dealing with demons and devils in the game. I can just imagine a mom or dad's reaction to pick up the magazine of their thirteen year old kid and find an adventure that encourages them to be evil. It's great for us older players who know the difference, BUT their are some impressionable young kids out there and I think they are right in taking the moral high ground on this one as well as covering their asses. Parents say No to Dungeon Magazine, sales drop. Why bring on that kind of agony on themselves?
I remember when I was younger my dad took away my D&D stuff because I was spending too much time at it rather than my homework. At the time I was furious, but he was right. It can become all consuming and as a kid I didn't realize what was happening.Set the example to the kids who live for this stuff and perhaps it will make them think in better ways rather than stuff detrimental to their life.
Personally, I don't really use Alignment in my games.
As a side question to you regarding this integral game mechanic, are you saying that your characters do not have alignments, or that they have alignments but are used for little more than determining the effects of Spells and the like?
I also tend to agree with Dungeon in the case of "Evil" adventures. This being said, I remember a really good (no pun intended) adventure printed in a Dungeon magazine years ago where the PCs played hapless evil monsters who where outcasts of their clan. You could be a Kobold, Goblin, Troll and Ogre to name a few I think, and I think they were pre-generated. They were charged with delivering an important sack to a neighboring civilized nations King that contained a "message". As I recall, the trek took them through a dangerous swamp, and the hapless evil monsters had a surprise in store for them when the King opens the sack with the PCs watching!
It was a light adventure built with a comedic tone, and although the monsters were "evil", there truly was little opportunity to act despicably. Although I enjoyed reading the adventure, I never ran it, and I assume that the subscribers of Dungeon are too hardcore to appreciate a break from the norm.
"I fully support Dungeon's stand on this one. D&D got enough bad press in the 80's with films like "Mazes and Monsters" and the outcry about the dealing with demons and devils in the game."
Capitulating to that rather than ignoring it is what earned TSR so much loathing. The old Dragon editorial where the TSR brass openly aknowledged that "angry moms" were determining what it published was a low point for the whole game. That was a disgrace that nobody involved ever lived-down. Is that really an example you want to follow?
QUOTE="I’ve Got Reach"]
Personally, I don't really use Alignment in my games.As a side question to you regarding this integral game mechanic, are you saying that your characters do not have alignments, or that they have alignments but are used for little more than determining the effects of Spells and the like?
For game mechanics, I make a judgment based on how that character has been acting. If that character has been killing prisoners, then animating their corpses or the like, then they may not take extra damage from an evil weapon. That being said, Detect Evil/Good/Law/Chaos aren't used against living beings in my game, that makes things to easy. To divine someone's nature you must observe them. Now if there is an evil sword, a detect Evil spell would let you know that the sword was dark with the blood of innocents or the like, but would not revel the word "Evil". While my current campaign has several parties of characters, and some of those characters are evil, they are not necessarily counter productive to the party goals. The Necromancer in one party is basically NE with a long term goal of raising undead legions and carving out an empire for himself. but for the time being, he'll animate bodies, and use necromantic magic to help the party reach its goals to his own ends. But when 'Chaos Hammer' gets cast, he takes damage as a Neutral being. I basically keep my own notes on the PCs as to what their alignments are in order to deal with the necessities of game mechanics.
The biggest problem I've seen with players trying to run evil characters is that they equate evil with greed, and thus the party collapses into infighting based on who is the most powerful character.Because of the grayness of the good/evil line, I like to make PS move in and out of that grey area, and see what they do.
The treading of this line is one of my favorite topics.
What if the sacrifice of a single innocent child will forever rid the kingdom of disease?
Roll for initative...
ASEO out
Capitulating to that rather than ignoring it is what earned TSR so much loathing. The old Dragon editorial where the TSR brass openly aknowledged that "angry moms" were determining what it published was a low point for the whole game. That was a disgrace that nobody involved ever lived-down. Is that really an example you want to follow?
First, I fully understand Dungeon's decision as a business to not want to publish evil adventures. It is understandably easier to avoid the entire situation than to spend manpower and effort to make a hard situation easier when it is not full endorsed by the public. I work for a very large international corporation so I understand that things like this aren't open for debate when it means losing money.
But, I assume most of you here also read Dragon magazine. Having said that you will know that there are several articles (I can't recall which ones) that were deemed non-G rated. I see this is a kind of double standard in publishing when the two magazines are obviosly tied to one another. There was more grotesque pictures in that one article than there would even be in a low toned evil adventure. Heck, even a "modified" good adventure with a sidebar wouldn't be 1/2 as bad.
"I fully support Dungeon's stand on this one. D&D got enough bad press in the 80's with films like "Mazes and Monsters" and the outcry about the dealing with demons and devils in the game."
Capitulating to that rather than ignoring it is what earned TSR so much loathing. The old Dragon editorial where the TSR brass openly aknowledged that "angry moms" were determining what it published was a low point for the whole game. That was a disgrace that nobody involved ever lived-down. Is that really an example you want to follow?
Just as an aside, I personally always loved Mazes and Monsters and never had a problem with the movie. The guy in the movie was looney, but it is clear that though his visions manifested from the game they were caused by the death of his brother.
I get frustrated sometimes that WotC and Dungeon and Dragon Magazines seem to ignore evil campaigns too, but I also understand their position. My mom would not have been thrilled if Dungeon was advertising evil campaigns, she was hesitant enough about me playing in the first place. That being said, one of my most memorable games was run by my brother... a one-shot one day game in which you played a set of pregenerated orcs who were lucky enough to have been absent when their village was massacred by the legions of good.
I also see that the folks asking for evil adventures aren't asking for a LOT of evil adventures, but one once in a while. Perhaps an occassional (no more often than say, psionic or epic adventures) extensive sidebar on how to play a particular adventure for evil characters might not be a bad thing.
- Ashavan
|
Creative Director
|
You're a game company, not my mommy. You should support the game as it's actually played. Ever actually read classic sword & sorcery fantasy like Moorcock and Howard? It's decidedly amoral.
As a matter of fact, I have indeed read classics like Moorcock and Howard. And Leiber. And Clark Ashton Smith. And so on. In fact, those writers are firmly entrenched in my Top Ten Best Writers Of All Time list.
However, I disagree that the heroes in these stories are amoral. Elric, Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser; they all have their own distinct "codes of conduct." As surly or cruel or even evil as these characters sometimes get, the villains they fight are almost always worse. Clark Ashton's stories are sometimes darker, but even when his protagonists are villains, more often than not they don't come out of the story a winner.
And believe it or not, we do support the game as it's actually played. Evil campaigns are a small subset of the whole of gaming. Just as you won't see many adventures set in Maztica or Taladas in Dungeon, you won't be seeing many adventures that require evil acts on the part of the PCs to complete.
That said, if someone submits an evil adventure proposal that's well written, interesting, and done in both a mature and responsible manner... who knows?
|
Creative Director
|
I appreciate your feedback James, but I get the feeling that Dungeon doesn't want to go anywhere with this because they simply don't want to deal with any potential negative feedback. Change can be disruptive and a little scary, but it is the only way that progress is made.
You're absolutely right, Ken. Negative feedback is indeed a factor. Just look at the reaction to the cover of Dragon #329 over on their messageboards. Myself, I'm a little shocked that people would call that cover "pornographic" (since it's not), but still, it's a pale shadow of the furor that would rise if we printed an adventrue that asked the PCs to break into a nursery to gather up 13 halfling babies to deliver to a cult for a sacrifice to Asmodeus.
Also, since the magazines are the official D&D magazines, we also need to adhere to the guidelines that Wizards of the Coast has set. Guidelines that are actually quite reasonable and worthwile.
As for change... Just look at the difference between Dungeon #113 and #114 and you can see that we're not afraid of change. :-)
|
Creative Director
|
1) There have been past subscriptions of Dragon that had a young viewers notice inside of the magazine, Dungeon could do that for a few of it's evil campaigns.
I assume you're talking about issue #95 and the adventure I wrote for it; "Porphyry House Horror." That adventure was a tie-in to the Book of Vile Darkness and while it had a LOT of really gnarly stuff in it, it was still an adventure for the good guys. We've got no qualms about doing adventures like this in the future, and have indeed gone back to use material from the Book of Vile Darkness several times since issue #95. We probably won't be doing a "young readers notice" in the magazine again any time soon, but you shouldn't expect the villains to grow any less evil in the issues to come.
2) The book of Vile Darkness supplement has a disclaimer before you buy it.
As does the Book of Exalted Deeds. This disclaimer is as much a marketing gimmic (perhaps more so) as it is a customer service warning. And, warnings like this can actually hurt a product's distribution (and by extension, its profitability), so it's not always the best move to make.
3) The campaigns for evil adventurers can be PG-13,,,I mean you don't have be slaughtering children or anything. There are varying levels of "evilness" and it's not like you have to be doing anything heinous or horrifically immoral.
Fair enough. In fact, the core concept for D&D (let's kill things, rob their bodies, then use that loot to buy ourselves nicer toys) is actually kind of evil. When you look at it that way, every single adventure we publish is for evil campaigns. What I'm trying to say here is that once you "tone down" evil so that it's PG-13 or tamer, what's the point of it? Maybe I just need some examples of what you mean by evil that isn't heinous or horrifically immoral.
4) Finally, I cannot being to think that you (Dungeon) have not had any submissions for evil campaigns, you just chose not to print them.
Actually, we get close to zero submissions for evil campaigns. Probably because our writers' guidelines flat out state that we're not interested in publishing them, is my guess.
If we DID decide to publish an evil adventure, chances are good that we'd go with a writer who's already established his or herself in the magazine; someone who we trust and know will handle the project in a mature and responsible manner.
|
Creative Director
|
And one other thing... despite the overall tone of my prior posts on this thread, I'm really enjoying all of your posts to this thread. The point that evil campaigns have traditionally recieved little to no support in the magazines is well-taken; it'd probably be useful some day to publish some articles or adventures to support this style of play, but it's not something that we'd do idly.
At the very least, printing an evil adventure would give us a chance to print stat blocks for angels and the like for once!
At the very least, printing an evil adventure would give us a chance to print stat blocks for angels and the like for once!
How about hunting rogue angles. A good vs. good adventure might be interesting. Rival Paladins could face off on the field of battle. I don't think the foes should always be neutral or evil. Sometimes people just have different opinions...and need to die because of it:-)
ASEO out
I'm very impressed by your replies James. I may have to consider writing what I consider a PG-13 evil adventure and submit it. The only issue that I have isn't that it wouldn't get published, but that there would be a lack of adequate response after submission. If someone receives a blanket statement from Dungeon "Thank you for your submission, unfortunately we cannot publish your adventure as written. We appreciate all of your efforts and your continued contributions....etc" I would probably be a little frustrated and disappointed that a middle ground between editors and writers couldn't be established.
At very least, maybe a scenario with neutral-based encounters where it could swing in either direction of good/evil might be more accepted. A slow process but perhaps with a little tweaking it could be submitted without so much immoral criticism. Games like Neverwinter Nights, which is essentially a game where you can choose your own alignment based on your actions throughout the plot-line, might get more widespread approval if transposed into a Dungeon based scenario.
Ahh no thanks. The core idea for D&D is good vs evil. I wouldnt want to see that change. And I really doubt there are a lot of evil campaigns out there run by anyone 25+. Its something you may dabble with in your teens but thats about it. Its kind of depressing after a hard work week to an evil character/campaign.
I remember Dungeon had an evil module based on the BoVD. I couldnt finish it. It was so spirit destroying IMO. So that particular Dungeon was a waste for me.
I own the Book of Vile Darkness and I only use it to make interesting enemies. I wouldnt enjoy nor use an evil module.
Maybe its just me.
At the very least, it would be refreshing to see a sidebar or an optional plotline that we can tailor for an evil adventure. The main use of...
No thanks. Next.
To paraphrase Heraclitus "All things are beautiful in the eyes of god; it is men who deem them good or evil." With a little creative talent any adventure published in big "D" magazine can be tweaked for the foul or remain for the blameless. But even with The Book of Vile Darkness (which does make for very enjoyable abominable villians as Solomani said), D&D is geared toward the heroic. Now i played some fun and evil PC's but the longevity of these characters was akin to a fruit fly. There also was an instance of falling a couple (o.k. more than a couple) powers checks in Ravenloft and finding myself an NPC.
But the beauty of evil adventures lies in the characters themselves not in how many villagers they eat or what cleric they have to sacrifice(a respectful nod to Nicolas Logue's post.) To me the most enjoyable aspect of evil (besides the villain) is the slightly evil character in a good aligned party. For one you never have to worry about reaccurring enemies. Or if you are the DM, use Vile Darkness to bring them back extremely more diabolical.
"The core idea for D&D is good vs evil."
I would disagree. D&D is no more about good versus evil than it is about evil versus good, or law versus chaos or neutrality against/above/whatever everything else.
And I really doubt there are a lot of evil campaigns out there run by anyone 25+. Its something you may dabble with in your teens but thats about it.
Excuse me? That's like saying there aren't very many homosexuals because I don't know any. Sorry to be a little off-beat, but I'm not here to debate your opinion on what makes a good campaign. That's purely speculative and absolutely independent of the issue.
I shouldn't have to quote the saying "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder or One Man's Poison is another Man's Drink" or whatever they say, you get the idea.
There are lots of Scenarios in Dungeon that I don't really care for and it has nothing to do whether it is good/evil. It simply doesn't interest me. Having more variety is the spice of life and I think adding a non-good (if that's a better word) adventure would be interesting every several issues.
Like Koldoon said above, it's not like we're asking for every issue, just one every now and then as a special addition or rare print.
|
|
While you are right that it's speculative to some degree it is by no means independent of the issue.
In a time where you cannot find more than three adventures per issue in the Dungeon Magazine, it's extremely difficult to fulfil the wishes of the "more exotic" groups of players.
And I think Solomani is right that most of the players want to see "non-evil" adventures. It makes no sense to make one of three an adventure most people don't want to see, neither regarding economical reasons nor regarding the reception of the readers.
For the same reason you won't find many adventures for the more exotic campaign settings. The fact is that most people don't want to see them.
That being said, I have to disagree with Solomani that it's the young people who like to play evil characters; In my opinion that's a thing you have to be old and understanding enough to play it out in the right way; most of the younger people, if they choose so, like to be almighty and the best thing (in their opinion) to show what they can, is to destroy everything coming into their way. Though it is evil without a doubt, it's not creative and it's not role-playing.
And I wouldn't want to offend Yamo or Ken in insinuating that they mean this style of play when they talk about evil campaigning.
"And I think Solomani is right that most of the players want to see 'non-evil' adventures. It makes no sense to make one of three an adventure most people don't want to see, neither regarding economical reasons nor regarding the reception of the readers."
This is very true. I would definitely not suspect otherwise. However, I would speculate with reasonable certainty that the number of evil campaigns out there is probably close to (but less than) the number of psionics-focused ones and probably much greater than the number of, for example, Dark Sun or Oriental Adventures ones.
If we're going by sheer numbers, I would say that evil games deserve at least the same "once in a blue moon" consideration that psionic, epic and Dark Sun advantures do.
"And I wouldn't want to offend Yamo or Ken in insinuating that they mean this style of play when they talk about evil campaigning."
Yeah. I mean, cartoonish or silly "over the top" evil should be reserved for thirteen-year olds who are FATAL's target audience and older players who can appreciate the scathing humor in a game like Kill Puppies For Satan. :)
If we're going by sheer numbers, I would say that evil games deserve at least the same "once in a blue moon" consideration that psionic, epic and Dark Sun advantures do.
Okay, so in an attempt to move this out of the "evil games need support"/"no, they dont!" back and forth, I'm going to talk about what I do when designing morally ambiguous* adventures.
There's usually a primary antagonist, either an individual, an area, or an organization. This antagonist is so despicable or so implacably hostile that negotiating with it is pointless.
There is usually at least one inimical (or at least enigmatic) individual or organization the PCs can ally with, if they play their cards right. This alliance may be temporary or long-term, depending on the situation and the motivation of everyone involved.
There's an expedient path to victory, and a more principled one. (For example, in Monte Cook's the Banewarrens, one of my players is currently using the lich's hand in close fights.) The more principled one usually involves more heroism and a greater risk of death. The expedient path usually involves allying with former adversaries or using dangerous or tainted magic rather than feeding babies to a demon.
Except for the least subtle 'evil' campaigns, I think that an adventure modeled along the lines I've described above would be quite useful, while still remaining playable by neutral or good-aligned parties.
Any thoughts?
*: I actually mean "morally ambiguous" here. My players tend to run characters who are firmly planted in the 'neutral but kind of creepy' camp.
|
|
I think the easiest compromise would be for Paizo to apply a couple more adventure hooks for less than noble PCs. These hooks needn't be evil, but simply more morally compromising. Heck, a simple other angle would be to change the alignment and motivation of a few key NPCs to allow for more discretion and leeway on the part of the DM and players. Of course, several people above have suggested that you needn't have that in writing within each module ... a little creative liberty in the hands of the DM can go a long way.
I would like any feedback here from any subscribers
And here it is:
Not interested.
I just wrapped up a year long evil campaign. It was extremely brutal for the players (I had one player go through about 10 characters), but even more brutal for me as the DM since I had to write everything myself. Dungeon's adventures can be adapted to evil campaigns, but it takes a good deal of work and in the end I just ended up writing my own. I agree that it would be cool to every once in a while see one that can be adapted to evil PCs with as much work as it takes to scale the adventure. I saw a really good idea mentioned in this thread about adding a sidebar to certain adventures with suggestions on how to adapt it to evil PCs. Dungeon would do well to give that idea some thought.
However, Dungeon is honestly doing the right thing by keeping the themes of their adventures catered to good characters or at least those that lean in that direction. By default, the game is set up as good vs. evil with the adventurers being the good guys. I'm sorry, but the evil campaigns are a huge minority and I don't see Dungeon altering their format in that direction. However, you've got to admit, the Dungeon staff are top notch at listening to us subscribers. Don't be surprised if some small concession is made for us evil gamers. But don't hold your breath.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Well in the name of Demographics why not a web survey (or even a survey included in dungeon) of how many readers run evil campaigns or would like to see how to Scale the adventure to different alignments???
It'd be informative if nothing else!
-I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!
|
Creative Director
|
This thread has already been way more interesting than any silly web survey.
I haven't changed my stance on evil adventures from earlier in this thread... but I'm very strongly considering throwing some evil character hooks in to adventures now and then. Putting in notes on adapting an adventure for evil characters in a sidebar actually sounds fairly easy to implement as well.
Consider the idea to be given some thought, Steve!
(Hope I don't spark off an explosion of anti-evil adventure hook posts!)
Does Dungeon need to provide an EVIL set adventure. No, of course not, especially for the reason provided that any adventure can be easily modified to satisfy an evil bent. As a DM, I would not even have to change the adventure beyond solidifying the motivation behind the PC's actions in relation to the big picture of the campaign being run.
A good/neutral PC may defeat an evil sorcerer to defeat evil, protect those that are threatened and perhaps a bit of treasure. An evil/neutral PC may defeat the same sorcerer to gain power (through secrets (treasure, knowledge etc) gained, who cares about those that may have been threatened and perhaps a bit of treasure. Of course we can always make the evil sorcerer a goodly cleric but is not neccesarily needed.
Personally, I like the idea of running an evil campaign or playing an evil PC once in awhile, it shakes things up a bit and expands my own abilities in role playing and/or DMing. Fun, Fun, Fun. Thats what its all about, right?
Maybe an article by an experienced DM who can provide different ideas to new players and Dms on how to convert an adventure or create an evil PC and/or adventure would be ideal.
This thread has already been way more interesting than any silly web survey.
I haven't changed my stance on evil adventures from earlier in this thread... but I'm very strongly considering throwing some evil character hooks in to adventures now and then. Putting in notes on adapting an adventure for evil characters in a sidebar actually sounds fairly easy to implement as well.
Consider the idea to be given some thought, Steve!
(Hope I don't spark off an explosion of anti-evil adventure hook posts!)
Hey, I'm all for it, given the right adventure. If I ever manage to get one of my queries accepted, I may even throw in an evil adventure hook for you (though I'd probably add it as a 4th possibility rather than eliminating one of the required three).
- Ashavan
I think that evil adventures are a bad idea. The fact that Dungeon will condone it just for a sake of a few readers is selling out. I don't want to seem like a fuddy duddy here. I know there are a lot of video games out there that do a lot worse job of condoning violence and evil actions that will have more impact than D&D adventures ever will. But the fact remains, D&D is an immersive game, where role playing takes on a deeper quality than any computer game. Great, like I stated before, for us older and more mature readers who can easily make the distinction between our characters and real life, it is a fun sideroad to explore. Our younger readers, who are more impressionable and still growing mentally and socially, is this an aspect we want them to divulge in? Is Dungeon setting a good example by doing this and are sure that this won't have a negative impact on the behaviour of these kids? Why even go there? Dungeons and Dragons is enjoyable enough without exploiting corruption.
"Our younger readers, who are more impressionable and still growing mentally and socially, is this an aspect we want them to divulge in? Is Dungeon setting a good example by doing this and are sure that this won't have a negative impact on the behaviour of these kids? Why even go there? Dungeons and Dragons is enjoyable enough without exploiting corruption."
The Mazes & Monsters theory? Sorry, man, but I don't buy it. Mortal Kombat isn't going to make middle schoolers rip anybody's spine out, Grand Theft Auto isn't going to make Boy Scouts take up carjacking and D&D isn't going to make Tom Hanks jump off a skyscraper.
Why not avoid printing Dark Sun adventures because it might make kids turn the whole world into a desert with black magic? That scenario has about as much bearing on reality as the one you propose and is no less silly to boot.
I think that evil adventures are a bad idea. The fact that Dungeon will condone it just for a sake of a few readers is selling out. I don't want to seem like a fuddy duddy here. I know there are a lot of video games out there that do a lot worse job of condoning violence and evil actions that will have more impact than D&D adventures ever will. But the fact remains, D&D is an immersive game, where role playing takes on a deeper quality than any computer game. Great, like I stated before, for us older and more mature readers who can easily make the distinction between our characters and real life, it is a fun sideroad to explore. Our younger readers, who are more impressionable and still growing mentally and socially, is this an aspect we want them to divulge in? Is Dungeon setting a good example by doing this and are sure that this won't have a negative impact on the behaviour of these kids? Why even go there? Dungeons and Dragons is enjoyable enough without exploiting corruption.
Paul McCarthy -
You could argue that cops and robbers... an equally immersive, if not more so, game with few rules and for a younger set can be just as bad. I know the robbers won sometimes when I was a kid.
- Ashavan
* I suppose the gist of what I'm trying to say here is that we either trust kids with imagination or we don't. The fact that 3 of 4 available adventure hooks setup heros rather than evil characters should, by itself, send a message that heroes are the preferred characters. The fact that evil plothooks and sidebars are rare should also enforce this idea.
I know there are a lot of video games out there that do a lot worse job of condoning violence and evil actions that will have more impact than D&D adventures ever will. But the fact remains, D&D is an immersive game, where role playing takes on a deeper quality than any computer game.
It's always the same argument for censorship, what to include, what not to include. It's a fine-line to decide what to expose your kids to. Frankly, my sister doesn't let her son watch Harry Potter because there's witches in it, but lets him watch The Simpsons because it's a cartoon...
Everyone has their own opinion, but I think there are far more people who play evil adventures on occasion than you think. This is only a handful of people who actually read the forums and post. Many DMers out there are more casual rather than computer-based players so I think the #'s are skewed, I would think like 10-15% of people have had on occasion played an evil campaign.
I also had another idea how to incorporate an adventure so both good/evil plotlines could take advantage of. You could make a "neutrally aligned" adventure which does not explicitly define the necessary alignment qualifications for both PC's and NPC's in the adventure. This would allow readers to at least be able to play the adventure in either direction without having to make so many alignment changes.
And for the record I agree with Steve Greer above, I don't believe that most adventures can be easily adapted to evil campaigns. There's often too much evil cleric/good paladin things to work around which often requires a complete NPC character change.
Yamo,
My reality? Silly, is it? Violence is up in the US because our kids now glorify the gangster image passed on to them by the media. Look at the kids nowadays; they wear their caps turned sideways, pants hanging off(an image taken from cons who have their belts taken away from them in jail so they don't hang themselves with them or use them as weapons) and sport guns and knives.I am sure most of that their parents never gave them that self image.If you don't think that anything kids take part in has an impact on their mental growth, then you are the silly one, my friend. How do you know that Mortal Kombat doesn't make kids more violent? How do you know GTA does not make some kids want to take up car theft? The grand total of a lot of negative and positive images is what makes people make the conscious decision in who they are. Monkey see, monkey do. Kids with violent parents are more likely to resort to violence themselves when confronted with anger. Kids who have been sexually abused are more likely to sexually abuse others. Why? Because of reinforcement at an age when they are not able to decide right and wrong for themselves.
I am not saying that Dungeons and Dragons will turn kids into the next John Gotti. Nor am I saying that by placing a few side bars on evil character hooks will make a kid a serial killer. All I am saying is that it is not doing any good. If it is not doing any good, why do it? It is negative reinforcement. Leave it alone and the people who want to make their own evil campaign go right ahead.
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.
Violence is up in the US because our kids now glorify the gangster image passed on to them by the media.
I dissagree with this assertion... the way I see it is that violence (and crime in general) is up across the US because parents are not allowed to punish thier children... while I do not think locking children in a closet, or flogging them with a cat o ninetails is good for thier psyche, there are times when a kid needs a good spanking...time outs just do not work... when parents can't spank thier children for fear of CPS coming and taking the kid away you have problems with children not having any boundries and thinking that they can get away with anything. Lack of effective disciplanary action to let a child know what is wrong and that there can be serious consequences for doing the what is wrong has much more to do with rising crime in america then mainstream media, video games, music, or what have you... those are simply the excuses of those trying to ignore the real problems.