|
Sorry, didn't read the thread. :)
Besides, it was too good an opportunity to pass up, first post on a page and all.
|
My group routinely has evil PC's in most games.
The only time its been an issue was when the evil fighter (LE) got fed up with the CG and CN rest of the group. He actually sacrificed himself to a demon to get away from the gnomes. Funny how the evil character performed good (while selling his soul) to escape the CG gnomes.
Corollary: evil can work with good, with the proper motivation.
As far as an "evil" AP, keep em coming where good, evil, chaotic, and lawful characters all get a chance. In other words, keep doing what you're doing!
-t
The Infernal Bloodline Chelaxian sorceress in the 2nd Darkness game I'm currently playing in is LE, and she honestly doesn't do that much damage to the party. She wants to rule the world, so a bunch of uppity drow plotting its destruction is something of a problem for her. She likes the rest of the party, even though we're largely neutral, simply because we help her kill things.
And then she uses her magic to basically enslave NPCs that she manages to get at her mercy (like the first Drow we encountered). She's cruel and scheming, but she almost never goes out of her way to do anything that's stupid evil.
Personally, I most certainly could play an evil character - I do it quite often and quite successfully when I DM. I just don't really like doing it as a player. I want to play heroes, not villains, when I actually get to play. But I'm all for Paizo or someone else putting out a module for those folks who'd want it. No problems there.
|
I just had an interesting thought for a module idea that might have been done by someone, but don't think has ever been done for print. Taking a concept from Star Trek, what if the PCs in a regular campaign got transported into a mirror dimension where everyone is the direct opposite in alignment? They stay the same, but suddenly all their friends and family are evil! Can they maintain their secret until they can get back to their own dimension or will they slip down the slippery slope into evil? You could also run a mirror campaign where in one session you run the encounter as good characters and then the next run it as evil, seeing which group accomplishes more.
I think evil people can work together, they just need to have a goal. I think if the end goal was strong enough, evil can work together to be "The Winning Team" we always wanted it to be.
Does not work without extreme railroad. When it's a given that the party had diverse personal goals, due to being, like all adventurers, diverse people (or an evil goal - like, I don't know, POWER!!! - which inherently undermines cooperation), and is willing to do anything for these goals, due to being, well, evil, only constant application of GM's stick can keep them together.
Screwing over other players is merely an immature belief that evil people can't work together for a greater purpose, propagated by the cartoons and comic books we have all subjected ourselves to as children. One doesn't need to look very far in modern culture to find examples of groups of evil people who work together effectively.
Actually, no, that belief is spot on. Even a fairly cursory study of history reveals that groups of evil people cannot work together, unless one of them clearly establishes himself as the top dog. Tyrannies, organised crime, street gangs - everywhere we see, that truly evil people generally don't have partners, only b****s, rivals and, at best, temporary allies of convenience against said rivals. These dynamics of power and submission are not compatible with the usual perception of an adventuring group as an alliance of equals. Therefore evil parties tend not to work.
Does not work without extreme railroad. When it's a given that the party had diverse personal goals, due to being, like all adventurers, diverse people (or an evil goal - like, I don't know, POWER!!! - which inherently undermines cooperation), and is willing to do anything for these goals, due to being, well, evil, only constant application of GM's stick can keep them together.
Ugh. This is an unfortunately broad definition of evil.
If you make an adventurer that doesn't want to adventure, it's not evil; it's just pointless. The typical party is held together by self-interest regardless of alignment, and most (although certainly not all) "good" characters will entertain morally questionable activities if they feel it's for the greater good. That has been examined in detail by books, magazines, settings and webcomics for goodness sake.
As for whether the pursuit of power inherently undermines cooperation, you disproved that yourself. It doesn't matter if there's a "top dog" in an organization, that's a function of heirarchy - not morality. All your examples of evil groups (weak as some are) are just that: EVIL GROUPS. So no matter what qualifications you try to append in order to move the goal posts they will still be evil groups by your own admission. I wouldn't say that mafia types and gangbangers are "evil" though. Misguided or functioning under an alternate code of behavior, sure. But compared to watching someone be held under boiling water in order to extract a confession or having their head caved in for the crime of being the wrong ethnicity is closer to what I would qualify as "evil". Not trying to hustle.
Your assertion that evil = a do-anything mentality is not only demonstrably false, it's also unrealistic. That sort of mindless havoc might suit a demon or a CE character with an abyssal sort of personality, it's far from the only way to portray evil. And frankly it's a rather uninspired way to do so. Evil people don't cease to be people and become paper-doll villains when they fall from grace anymore than paladins have to be played as lawful stupid. Evil people often have personal codes that restrict their behavior and associations that are more than convenient. Examples: Hitler was married, as were a number of other historical jerks. Genghis Khan was the zenith of evil in the eyes of fleeing germanic tribesmen, and yet he was dedicated to the success of his people at all costs, as are most conquerors. Quite a few famous Romans acted in ways that are too vile to describe in good taste, but they were renowned as an organized society concerned with issues of liberty and justice well into their decline.
Are you suggesting that because of poor behavior in the public sphere we render ourselves incapable of forming lasting emotional bonds? Please. You are describing sociopaths, which would be better termed amoral rather than immoral.
Finally, and I know I'm long-winded, what in the world makes you think that pursuit of power is evil? Would you qualify every elected world leader as an evil mastermind? You don't get to be president or prime minister by accident, after all. I personally pursue power every day. I do so because as I increase my personal power I increase my own resources, including time. This improves the odds that I will spend any given day relaxing and chasing skirts, my primary motives in life. Power is awesome! Abuse of power is wrong, but far more likely to occupy an ethical or moral gray area than resembling anything that could easily be identified as evil. (ie: The king who wants his nation to be protected from more powerful rival states and installs draconic domestic policies {unreasonable restrictions on travel, brutal public executions, etc.} not because he enjoys it but because infiltration and agitation by foreign agents threatens to plunge the entire nation into chaos.)
In short, I strongly disagree with you; but please don't see this as an attempt to suppress your opinion (seems like people often take things too personally around here). I'm just suggesting that you haven't taken as dynamic a look at the situation as it warrants.
(Edited at 10:31 am, eastern)
You mean the guys who are constantly betraying each other and plotting against each other and enact evil plots against their peers as often as the Flash?
I think he meant lines like this: "He is considered to be the arch-nemesis of both Barry Allen and Wally West, and the leader of the Rogues. Known for being a sympathetic villain, Cold has a sense of honor. Cold has strict rules on how the Rogues should act, such as no drugs and to not kill unless they have to. Also has a sense of loyalty to his team and watches out for them."
Which is pretty much exactly what people are saying is impossible.
If you make an adventurer that doesn't want to adventure, it's not evil; it's just pointless. The typical party is held together by self-interest regardless of alignment, and most (although certainly not all) "good" characters will entertain morally questionable activities if they feel it's for the greater good. That has been examined in detail by books, magazines, settings and webcomics for goodness sake.
Except, these examinations tends to be extremely shallow Take Thats. In fact, most of the actually popular longstanding good characters, from Batman and most of the LotR protagonists to Straw Hat Luffy are not known for moral compromises, but for upholding their moral codexes stalwartly.
And yeah, the typical party is held together by self-interest. The sun is hot, too. Say something I don't know. The practical difference between good, neutral and evil people here is the lengths they are willing to go for their self-interest.
As for whether the pursuit of power inherently undermines cooperation, you disproved that yourself. It doesn't matter if there's a "top dog" in an organization, that's a function of heirarchy - not morality.
This is just an attepmt to dodge the issue with rhetorics. Social structure cannot be separated from morality, particularly when the exact issue is inherent unstability of a certain social structure when its members operate according to certain morality.
All your examples of evil groups (weak as some are) are just that: EVIL GROUPS. So no matter what qualifications you try to append in order to move the goal posts they will still be evil groups by your own admission.
The same dodge. Where the hell I said that evil organizations don't exist on principle, as opposed to said organizations not being effective models of cooperation?
Your assertion that evil = a do-anything mentality is not only demonstrably false, it's also unrealistic.
A strawman.
Finally, and I know I'm long-winded, what in the world makes you think that pursuit of power is evil?
The fact that it is. Power is meaningless without the weaker beings to exercise it upon, so seeking power for the sake of power (as opposed to perceiving it as a means to an end - like, by the way, goody-two-shoes PCs in my group do), is putting on your villain card. Just ask O'Brien. Next question?
|
|
Ya know what? I believe I said I didn't want any moral argument. I thought I made it very clear. FatR, sit in the naughty chair and think about what you did.
It's no longer a question of "can we do it?", we're doing it ourselves. Unless you have something productive to an adventure to post, don't post. I'll just have the mods delete them anyways.
Played in a fun Evil game back in college. The premise was that the DM was running two simultaneous campaigns, one good, one evil. They were both given the same end goal by a mysterious patron, though each was given a different route to get there. There was a different set of players for each campaign, and the DM asked us not to discuss the game with the other group.
The Good campaign fell apart after 4 sessions, with the two paladins (who were supposedly dedicated to the same deity) in a fight to the death, and the three spellcasters (a cleric, a mage, and a druid) calling it quits and going their own respective directions.
The Evil campaign lasted for over a year.
We had a Necromancer, a Shaman, a Bard, and a Giant Barbarian.
My Barbarian, the Str 30, Int 3 type, was the only one that wasn't always evil, and usually just tended towards Chaotic Neutral. The others agreed to hold off on killing each other so long as they were useful to each other, and they all figured my Barbarian was useful as a meat shield, and too stupid to be an immediate threat to themselves. Even if he did get mad at them, they could usually bribe him into complacency with something shiny or, if all else failed, a pie.
The pies became a running gag as I made myself into an occasional comic relief character. Even managed to defuse a couple of character arguments that might have escalated had the others not noticed the town guard running towards the food district, at which point they started asking where the big guy was. (He got bored by all the talking, and decided he was hungry. It was the most fun we ever had getting kicked out of a town.)
By the time we finished, the Bard was leading the part of the army that was living, the Necromancer was raising whoever fell to keep fighting, the Shaman was pressing the dead's souls into the fight, and all three were generally pointing my Barbarian in whatever direction they wanted him to make things go squish.
The Evil game ended when we managed to completely derail the plot by utterly destroying one of the world's major trade cities. That was a fun time watching the DM's head explode.
I've never had a problem with an evil campaign. I can't say I've ever run a game where "the point is, you're evil!" But I have run piracy and criminal campaigns where all the PCs just naturally gravitated to the neutral/evil axis, and things were fine. Of course, they were reasonably bright chaps, that realized:
1. "Evil" does not mean you just kill anyone including your comrades for the thrill. You don't live past twelve that way. Certainly, you'd probably betray them given a *really* good reason...
2. Most so-called "good" campaigns are just killing things and taking their stuff for the treasure. Sometimes you get a "please do this, there's no reward" adventure - but you can be assured you're going to get loads of loot doing it, so why not?
3. Some random other evil a-hole will put you to the sword like anyone when they take over your city/country/world, so you have as much interest (and probably better tactics) in wasting them as anyone. Savage Tide, Crimson Throne... What, "I'm evil, I don't mind being transformed into some kind of wildebeest by a lame demon?"
An evil character/party does just fine in 90% of these "heroic, good" adventures.
|
no interest in evil characters, I recently played in one where me and my friend played lawful neutral mercs who where just willing to take any job. the two hyped up new gamers relished the chance to play evil (so much so that it seriously made me question there mental stability) one made a shade assassin who simply wanted to slay everyone on the material plane ( later my character ripped him limb from limb because he was too crazy and was bringing too much heat from all the bodies of the innocent behind us) and the other was a CE gnome enchanter who styled himself as a SAW/JOKER character. he enchanted people to do horrible things to each other.
one time we were traveling to a job in a different town< it grew late and we saw a fire from a camp along the road. it was a father a mother and their child. the father was standing watch and the child and mother were sleeping. before me and my merc friend could even start a conversation, the shade appeared behind him and slit his throat. he started to go after the women when the gnome got all huffy, he went over and charmed the mother and forced her to kill her daughter, she grabbed a big rock and finished the deal. the gnome wanted to let her live so she could later realize what she had done and be tormented for the rest of her life.....but the shade killed her the next round. they then got into a big verbal fight as me and my buddy just stood there in disbelief at how crazy these two guys were.
I was so happy when two sessions later i slew the shade with my characters own two hands (i was a mage slayer and his shadow powers where useless against me. and the gnome tried to get a new toy, a 15lvl dwarf fighter. the dwarf made his save and grew very angry at the gnome. a crit later the gnome was dead as well.
yeah i know these two are novice evil players< but even the true genius evil players are still just wanting to play themselves without limits in game, RARELY is there any true depth. i prefer generally good souls that sometimes have to make horrible decisions and live with it, so much better drama.
I can sum up the reason why with just a links: Evil Overlord Ace
The fact that there's five MORE lengthy lists on how to deal with pesky heroes and your inevitable unexpected betrayal just indicates what a nightmare that would be to write.
Edit: For the record, I would buy such a module set, as I would want Paizo's guidance on how to do it.
You mean the guys who are constantly betraying each other and plotting against each other and enact evil plots against their peers as often as the Flash?
I think he meant lines like this: "He is considered to be the arch-nemesis of both Barry Allen and Wally West, and the leader of the Rogues. Known for being a sympathetic villain, Cold has a sense of honor. Cold has strict rules on how the Rogues should act, such as no drugs and to not kill unless they have to. Also has a sense of loyalty to his team and watches out for them."
Which is pretty much exactly what people are saying is impossible.
I would look at this and say: Well of course Lawful Evil can get along, but it is more due to the lawful in spite of the evil.
Definitions of evil used in my D&D games (for your information so you know where Im coming from):
Evil: Selfishness.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.
Neutral Evil, “Malefactor”: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure evil without honour and without variation.
Chaotic Evil, “Destroyer”: A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force and their leadership lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called “demonic” because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
That's not a workable model for a D&D group.
Maybe not in YOUR game. ;)
I already mentioned that "having a top dog" by no means devalues the fact that a party stays together. Most parties DO have a leader, regardless of how he chooses to establish leadership.
Batman and most of the LotR protagonists to Straw Hat Luffy are not known for moral compromises
Vigilantes, commandos and pirates are known for moral purity?
Social structure cannot be separated from morality, particularly when the exact issue is inherent unstability of a certain social structure when its members operate according to certain morality.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Only if you're a moral relativist is social structure irrevocably tied to morality. If you're absolutist, objectivist, subjectivist (most of my characters), universalist (yo!), etc. you will have fundamental disagreements.
Which is beside the point because no matter how much you dislike a party dynamic, it doesn't make it stop being a party.
As for certain morality, that's key for me. You're ascribing a certain morality to evil as a group and ignoring the fact that no group of people shares identical morals. (Note that I'm not saying this is how it should be, just how it is)
Where the hell I said that evil organizations don't exist on principle, as opposed to said organizations not being effective models of cooperation?
"only constant application of GM's stick can keep them together" Perhaps I misunderstood, are you then saying it's possible for them to exist WITHOUT the constant application of an intelligent, outside force? Because that's not what I read.
Kuma wrote:
Your assertion that evil = a do-anything mentality is not only demonstrably false, it's also unrealistic.
A strawman.
...
"and is willing to do anything for these goals"
Really?
The fact that it is. Power is meaningless without the weaker beings to exercise it upon, so seeking power for the sake of power (as opposed to perceiving it as a means to an end - like, by the way, goody-two-shoes PCs in my group do), is putting on your villain card. Just ask O'Brien. Next question?
"a means to an end" is pretty much how every PC I've ever seen sees power, regardless of alignment. I can't think of any villains who've done it either.
Sorry Jared! I can't help it, it's like trying not to scratch an itch.
it's not about being evil but about being badass
|
|
I've always personaly found evil characters to be a bit hard to GM for. Too many players think evil is "Do whatever I want 'cause I'm eviiiiiiiil! Man I am so awesome!". It gets old PDQ. I allowed an evil PC in our Savage Tide campaign, LE, he was suppossed to be this cold as frozen cucumber type. But instead he just turned into a 'look at who I sexually assaulted' dirtbag. I droped him fast enough to tilt the earth off axis.
|
See Moorluck, for me, the best answer is an old engineering adage: It depends.
i.e. it depends on the players. Some are immature and can't handle playing that kind of character without resorting to the "look how easily I can kill the whole party because I think I'm such an uber-badass. Folks like that need a strong DM to ride herd on them, which then becomes restrictive and can be un-fun.
Others are good enough to really role play their PCs and work with the DM to have an enjoyable experience.
Ultimately, I think it depends on whether or not everyone is more interested in having fun, or in proving how big their d@#ks are.
|
|
Rather than write an entire adventure through these boards (probably a slow and painful process I feel), maybe it would be best to write some ideas on how to change existing modules or AP's so they're Evil paty friendly.
WARNING SOME SPOILERS FOR AGE OF WORMS FOLLOW
I ran the entire age of worms campaign with an evil party. That AP had the premise of having an evilly epic bad guy trying to emerge as a new god. Since he was a god of undeathiness, this was going to step on the toes of the existing evil god of deathiness (in my game this was The Keeper, Eberron). So some of the party were followers of the keeper acting against the awakening Kyuss.
We had a mix of alignments, from the neutrals through to lawful and chaotic evil. While some characters really rubbed each other up the wrong way, they all had a common goal and they all needed the other players to attain that.
By far the most disruptive of alignments to play was Chaotic Evil, as that character was played as practically psychotic. Everyone was edgy around him (two weapon fighter of steely death as well. Great character and played well). However, in times where negotiations were somtimes required, this guy would kill people when they didn't co-operate. It made for some great scenarios as the party had to flee authorities or come up with new ways of finding the info (speak with dead became handy at times). Those were the times I had to wing it the most, as it really went off the scenario as written.
The trick to keeping them coherent is giving them a common goal, and providing opportunities to chase their own agendas that doesn't involve stepping on the other players toes. Our Wizard eventually became a Liche, to escape deaths cluthces. No one else new this was happening in game (though the players were all aware). The wizard pursued this course in conjunction with stopping Kyuss, using some of the artefacts they got along the way to construct his Phylacrity.
We played through to level 20 without any player killing anyone else in the party deliberatley. (one death occured becasue of a confusion spell, but the player couldn't help that).
Things to note:
- While the players were callous, even to each other, everyone knew this before hand and were ok with it. What this meant was, if the cleric was injured badly, he'd heal himself before others. OR if the party had to flee suddenly, they weren't going wait for everyone to get to the teleport ring before activating it if they thought it meant they couldn't get away. Everyone was ok with it, and they bought equipment to compensate accordingly (more potions, teleport boots etc for emergencies).
- Evil characters are actually more powerful in games written for good charcters as the baddies are less prepared for them (magic circles, protection from and unallow effects were mostly desgned to stop good guys. The badguys just walked right through them). It's worth noting this before running games as printed.
- Let characters do evil things, but make sure the world responds accordingly. In our case, this meant the group were actually being hunted in Breland becasue they wreaked so much wanton destruction in pursuing their goals that the authorities were after them. This often meant both the baddies of the story as written, AND the authorites were after the PC's. This just made my players feel more powerful though, as they got to beat both groups up.
- Just as you would underplay certain aspects of evil in a norml game where the players were playing good guys, make sure you underplay some of the bad things the players do. One of my players destroyed a platform supporting a floating citadel in Sharn in order to prevent pursuit and kill off a major reocurring villain. The citdel fell into the lower city and wiped out huge amounts of folks, including an orphanage. The players found this out through the sharn herald rather than me describing gruesome details.
- Reward them with the power they seek. My group got to replace an evil despot at teh end of the campaign. Imagine the townsfolk disapointment when they realised they replaced one despot with another group. The cleric dealth teh killing blow to Kyuss and absorbed a hue dose of dvine power when it happened. He became a demi god and sub aspect of The Keeper. The wizard gained his Lichedom. One of the fighters became the King of the town. He made the barabarian his general and the other fighter types his naval chief and sherriff (the chaotic eveil fighter was sherriff. No one messed with the laws when he was in charge of insuring order.) This is why my group wnated to play evil, so I gave them what they wanted.
If you want some examples of low moral or even evil guys doing heroic things, read the David Gemmel books. Particularly his early Drenai series. Most of his main protagonists are very selfish or overtly callous in the pursuit of their goals.
Sorry for the long post, had lots to add for this topic.
Cheers
LPM and AZ, I dunno.
I mean, sometimes when people are playing evil characters, it's kind of like trying to make a point by loosening one's inhibitions about how depraved they think they really can be when social mores are suspended. Kinda like when you have people posting anonymously and speaking their mind in an Internet forum because they feel that there are ultimately no repurcussions to their actions. Kind of like being in a mid-life crisis when you're not feling secure of yourself and you have the need to go purchase a small two-seater sports car to reassure yourself you still go it. Or like those violent mature video games.
"Man, I want to be like Gilles de Rais."
I think there's some deep psychological issues at the crux of it.
|
|
Urizen, both you and AZ have some very good points. I guess alot of players lack the maturity and self confidence to play evil well. To many of the less experienced players, some of which are younger, tend to get caught up in what they see as Grand Theft Dragon Hoard. As GMs we play eveil every time we sit down with our players, sometimes we do it well, other times not so. I had thought that an AP like ST would offer the chance to allow an evil PC to work with, rather than against the good members of the party. Maybe I just got jaded by the experience, but to me evil PCs seem like a bad idea.
|
I think that there's something off in parts of this thread : Evil is not Chaotic.
No, but Chaotic Evil certainly is. So now you're suggesting It's okay to play Lawful Evil, because they play by the rules, but not Chaotic Evil, because they're the ones who give Evil a bad name with their unpredictable and disruptive behaviours? If players should be allowed to play Lawful Evil, then why not Chaotic Evil?
- about the Barbarian destroying his allies' stealthy plan : chaotic
I never suggested disrupting a stealthy plan was Evil, I was giving examples of disruptive (yes, chaotic) play. As others have pointed out, any alignment can be disruptive to a group, even pig-headed Lawful Gooders.
|
|
Of course, this is where more mautre role players can really make a difference, but even that depends on the kind of evil you try to pull off.
Lawful Evil would likely be the easiest, since these characters are often motivated by adherence to some overarching goal or cause beyond all other things. So long as that cause isn't in danger, the players will "play nice" and get along as a group, soley for the benefit that the having each of the others helps further the cause.
Neutral evil can be much the same, but since the characters are more selfish, the main goal should be one that ensures that each characters personal motivations can be keep in play.
Chaotic evil would be the most difficult, since these characters are, at best unpredictable when played right, and at worst destructive to everything and everyone around them.
|
|
As others have pointed out, any alignment can be disruptive to a group, even pig-headed Lawful Gooders.
Good point. In my current game, I'm running Masks of the Living God, which tempts the PCs with some "questionable" choices. The party cleric balked at doing so, which has thrown things into a bit of a wreck. Thankfully it isn't unmanageable.
|
|
Of course, this is where more mautre role players can really make a difference, but even that depends on the kind of evil you try to pull off.
Lawful Evil would likely be the easiest, since these characters are often motivated by adherence to some overarching goal or cause beyond all other things. So long as that cause isn't in danger, the players will "play nice" and get along as a group, soley for the benefit that the having each of the others helps further the cause.
Neutral evil can be much the same, but since the characters are more selfish, the main goal should be one that ensures that each characters personal motivations can be keep in play.
Chaotic evil would be the most difficult, since these characters are, at best unpredictable when played right, and at worst destructive to everything and everyone around them.
I guess you can have a few of the same problems with a good group as well. But the Goodies are generaly working for the common good, where as the Baddies are working for... well for the common evil. It might, and I use the word MIGHT, help if one PC was 2-3 levels higher, then the rest would have to fall in line or pay the price. Evil for the sake of evil tends to turn on itself, much like Ororobus. I tend to see a shortage of good reasons to play, much less run an evil based campaign other than the need to see how much cruelty you can muster.
|
|
I guess you can have a few of the same problems with a good group as well. But the Goodies are generaly working for the common good, where as the Baddies are working for... well for the common evil. It might, and I use the word MIGHT, help if one PC was 2-3 levels higher, then the rest would have to fall in line or pay the price. Evil for the sake of evil tends to turn on itself, much like Ororobus. I tend to see a shortage of good reasons to play, much less run an evil based campaign other than the need to see how much cruelty you can muster.
Yeah, with my original group we played a turning evil campaign once, but that was Ravenloft and was kind of expected. Monstly we just played heroes and ignored the evil PC problems.
With my current group we tried to play evil once, mostly just for something different. We lost interest in it, however, after 2 or 3 adventures. I did like that character, though, he was a chaotic evil Shade Warlock who worshipped Fraz'urb'lu. If we had kept going, I was going to make him a thrall of Fraz.
You're correct in that it is usually easier with a firm hand keeping the party in check, whether a more powerful PC, or the DM through an NPC.
LPM and AZ,
I see where you're coming from, but let me take things a bit more tangential here. What if we're deciding to do an evil campaign and you have that one player that won't go along with the plotline? He finds certain acts of depravity abhorrent and rebels by derailing the game in playing a good character. Would that person be considered a disruptive participant because he chooses to not take upon himself evil actions that the rest of the party are willing to partake? What does one do when such circumstances occur? Do you set aside moral relativism and do what is for the good of the game or do you kick out the player who does not cooperate because he does not choose to be evil?
A frustrating dilemma.
|
|
I think we've been hearing the whole 'Why can't I be eviiiiiiil' argument for decades in one way or another. I think it's as simple as, it doesn't work. It would seem to on the surface, but why would the evil cleric use raise dead on the party leader, he wants that job for himself after all. Why would the rogue not allow a little extra treasure to line her pockets, or swipe an extra buff item for herself. As the party wizard why would I burn spells that could keep me safe on that dim witted barbarian? I should trust my fellow villains? Dude, they're EVIL!!
So, do we just stab the good guy and move on? Crossroads, man.
|
re: "frustrating dilemma...."
Well, not really Urizen.
If I recall my Shakespeare, it was said in Othello "when devils do their darkest deeds put on, they DO at first pretend with heavenly shows." Adolf Hitler was nice to his dogs and liked to give children ice cream.
In Machiavelli's The Prince, he conveyed that, in essence, the Prince SHOULD attempt appear to be a truthful person, though deceit is one of his most potent weapons.
Why, I might go so far as to fully expect the evil p.c.'s to put on sheep's clothing. Perhaps even most of the time.
Until it's time to strike.
|
|
LPM and AZ,
I see where you're coming from, but let me take things a bit more tangential here. What if we're deciding to do an evil campaign and you have that one player that won't go along with the plotline? He finds certain acts of depravity abhorrent and rebels by derailing the game in playing a good character. Would that person be considered a disruptive participant because he chooses to not take upon himself evil actions that the rest of the party are willing to partake? What does one do when such circumstances occur? Do you set aside moral relativism and do what is for the good of the game or do you kick out the player who does not cooperate because he does not choose to be evil?
A frustrating dilemma.
Yes indeed. That's why, I think, it's important from the beginning to have all the players onboard, and to have a strong hand to keep things from getting a little too wild.
|
|
LPM and AZ,
I see where you're coming from, but let me take things a bit more tangential here. What if we're deciding to do an evil campaign and you have that one player that won't go along with the plotline? He finds certain acts of depravity abhorrent and rebels by derailing the game in playing a good character. Would that person be considered a disruptive participant because he chooses to not take upon himself evil actions that the rest of the party are willing to partake? What does one do when such circumstances occur? Do you set aside moral relativism and do what is for the good of the game or do you kick out the player who does not cooperate because he does not choose to be evil?
A frustrating dilemma.
Good question. Presuming I would run an evil game, it would be hard to balance the levels of evil that different players would be willing to go to. I think it could very well be a moot point however. Like I said in my last post, evil turns on it's self, it's only a matter of time before someone gets a blade in the back while the rest of the group isn't lookng.... or maybe they are, these are the bad guys we're talking about here.
|
|
Yes indeed. That's why, I think, it's important from the beginning to have all the players onboard, and to have a strong hand to keep things from getting a little too wild.LPM and AZ,
I see where you're coming from, but let me take things a bit more tangential here. What if we're deciding to do an evil campaign and you have that one player that won't go along with the plotline? He finds certain acts of depravity abhorrent and rebels by derailing the game in playing a good character. Would that person be considered a disruptive participant because he chooses to not take upon himself evil actions that the rest of the party are willing to partake? What does one do when such circumstances occur? Do you set aside moral relativism and do what is for the good of the game or do you kick out the player who does not cooperate because he does not choose to be evil?
A frustrating dilemma.
Oh, dear no.....I must disagree.
The dungeonmaster, gleeful that he now has a group that can legitemately slaughter the entire contents of The Book of Exalted Deeds without sending "fallen angels" after them time and again ad obsurdium, really needs do no more than relish the opportunity to get his money's worth out of said tome.|
|
I think we've been hearing the whole 'Why can't I be eviiiiiiil' argument for decades in one way or another. I think it's as simple as, it doesn't work. It would seem to on the surface, but why would the evil cleric use raise dead on the party leader, he wants that job for himself after all. Why would the rogue not allow a little extra treasure to line her pockets, or swipe an extra buff item for herself. As the party wizard why would I burn spells that could keep me safe on that dim witted barbarian? I should trust my fellow villains? Dude, they're EVIL!!
Yes, but this is where the proper motivation comes in, and the better role players to pull off the characters. You've got to give each PC incentive enough to say "well, cooperating with the party would be better than having them all turn against me and ruin my own plans". So, in a way, a good DM may have to set up a way to scare each PC into "playing well with others".
|
|
As much as I've posted about the difficulty of players behaving badly in an Evil campaign, and respecting other players experiences and views on Evil, there have been some interesting points raised.
At first, I was thinking "Reverse Dungeon" or "Dungeon Keeper" type campaign, defending a Vampire's castle from the peasants, an adventuring group, rebellion from your own minions etc.
Then someone mentioned the Aspis Consortium, and I thought, wouldn't it be interesting for a campaign to explore it's history and motives, from within? It kind of reminded me of the Camarilla (Pathfinder Society) vs Sabbat (Aspis Consortium) struggles of VtM, two sides of the one coin?
Another thing I thought of, often Good is portrayed as a force that only rises in times to counter the forces of Evil - without Evil, there'd be no burning need for Good? One exists to highlight the extremes of the other.
So I think it's still important for Good to play a prominent role in an Evil campaign, not just as a combat opponent, or some annoying moral opposition to be crushed, but instead highlight Good as the positive force it should be - in scenes where the characters could be killed, capture them instead and give them an opportunity to redeem themselves (the roleplaying interaction should be interesting); or highlight the consequences of their actions on the lives of the innocent around them, bring it home and make it personal, make the players feel guilty for their actions, even if their characters don't. Playing Evil shouldn't be an excuse to ignore all social morals, it should be a stronger opportunity to highlight them!
After playing an Evil campaign, the players may well wish a return to a Good campaign hurling fireballs and cleaving through Orcs and Goblins without any such moral consequences to haunt them.
|
|
re: "frustrating dilemma...."
Well, not really Urizen.
If I recall my Shakespeare, it was said in Othello "when devils do their darkest deeds put on, they DO at first pretend with heavenly shows." Adolf Hitler was nice to his dogs and liked to give children ice cream.
In Machiavelli's The Prince, he conveyed that, in essence, the Prince SHOULD attempt appear to be a truthful person, though deceit is one of his most potent weapons.
Why, I might go so far as to fully expect the evil p.c.'s to put on sheep's clothing. Perhaps even most of the time.
Until it's time to strike.
Meaning they can/should go on the same adventures as everyone else, just with different ultimate goals? I could get that, but you're always gonna have some douche who wants to rape/kill/maim/all of the above the farmers daughter... just so he can say his guy is sooooo badass. Then the player will argue that's what he's supposed to do, because he's eviiiiiiiiil!!!.
|
|
I think we've been hearing the whole 'Why can't I be eviiiiiiil' argument for decades in one way or another. I think it's as simple as, it doesn't work. It would seem to on the surface, but why would the evil cleric use raise dead on the party leader, he wants that job for himself after all. Why would the rogue not allow a little extra treasure to line her pockets, or swipe an extra buff item for herself. As the party wizard why would I burn spells that could keep me safe on that dim witted barbarian? I should trust my fellow villains? Dude, they're EVIL!!Yes, but this is where the proper motivation comes in, and the better role players to pull off the characters. You've got to give each PC incentive enough to say "well, cooperating with the party would be better than having them all turn against me and ruin my own plans". So, in a way, a good DM may have to set up a way to scare each PC into "playing well with others".
Again, I find fault....
I think an evil game should ultimately be a zero sum game with only one winner, much like Survivor or one of those shows with Vanilla Ice, Flav-a-flav, Brigitte Nielsson, and MC Hammer living in a house together competing for some nebulous million dollar prize.|
|
Oh, dear no.....I must disagree.
The dungeonmaster, gleeful that he now has a group that can legitemately slaughter the entire contents of The Book of Exalted Deeds without sending "fallen angels" after them time and again ad obsurdium, really needs do no more than relish the opportunity to get his money's worth out of said tome.
If slaughter is the name of the game, I think most players would find that easy to go along with. But, if the goal is more subtle - for example, ruining the reputation of a clerics of the local do-gooder church, thereby lessening said churches influence without creating any martyrs - then you need some more refined evil, which might take a firm, guiding hand.