|
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.
Very well put. And thought provoking.
|
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!!!.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.
At that point, he's shown his cards.
Another conniving schmuck could orchestrate his demise at the hands of the local gendarmes, thus making himself look the part of a total angel.Ultimately, I think one of the extant AP's would work excellently with the evil party, until the end of the very last book, where as in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," the party paranoically falls on eachother for the loot.
Until that point, everybody is aping chaotic good......
|
|
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!!!.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.At that point, he's shown his cards.
Another conniving schmuck could orchestrate his demise at the hands of the local gendarmes, thus making himself look the part of a total angel.Ultimately, I think one of the extant AP's would work excellently with the evil party, until the end of the very last book, where as in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," the party paranoically falls on eachother for the loot.
Until that point, everybody is aping chaotic good......
I actually would like to sit in on that final session, where all the crap they've hiden from eachother gets brought to bare, each one shouting, "You lying traitor! I thought you said you shared everything!" :D
|
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.
Good point, and I guess that would depend on how long the DM and players wanted to keep the thing going. Evil being evil, however, what you suggest could be (and like should be) the logical, ultimate goal of any evil character.
But, that depends on the story the DM wants to tell. When my group recently tried it, we were going to play through a specific adventure - The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde, I believe. I'm pretty sure the goal of that immediate game wasn't for to be the last eveil badass standing. Although afterwards.....
|
|
I had no idea there were so many anti-evil gamers out there. To each his own I suppose, but personally I love playing an evil game. I've been DMing our same Monday night group for four years now and there's almost always several evil characters in the party, if they aren't all outright evil.
Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't have much of a problem with evil games. I just usually find them more of a pain in the ass to run or play in.
Edit: And with that, folks, I'm out of here for tonight. Got lots to do tomorrow, and it's already after midnight.
LPM, AZ, and definitely Heathy,
You bring up some valid points. As for Adolf Hitler, wouldn't things have turned out differently if Max Rothman had actually taken him half seriously as an artist. A 'what if' conundrum that could have humanized Hitler in a different perspective than how we currently view him as the de facto pariah.
Rape/Kill/Maim/All above the farmer's daughter. Nevermind the livestock! Think of the templates, man! The templates!
But can evil characters play good with each other? Can good characters play evil with each other? Does the DM pull fiat and indicate how the adventure should go, or is he there to entertain the PCs and craft the adventure toward their interests? What if there is no clear majority? Is the DM the tie-breaker?
Most perplexing, I confess.
|
|
I had no idea there were so many anti-evil gamers out there. To each his own I suppose, but personally I love playing an evil game. I've been DMing our same Monday night group for four years now and there's almost always several evil characters in the party, if they aren't all outright evil.
We started playing Curse of The Crimson Throne a few weeks back (we haven't been doing the Adventure Paths in order) with a group consisting of four rogues and a sorcerer. First thing they do when they reach Korvosa? Masquerade as priests of Abadar from another city to abduct other priests and offer them up as a sacrifice to an arch devil in the hopes of creating a Faustian pact and getting a free feat out of the deal. It's been a very fun and rewarding challenge for me to DM this game, as some of the characters actually worship Zon-Kuthon, which has made me have to think quick on my toes to have them actually oppose Queen Illeosa.
A couple of people mentioned how you can't keep a party going if they are busy trying to backstab kings, assassinate guardsmen, or generally be massive nuisances at every opportunity. I couldn't possibly disagree more. Some of the most fun parts of the game come from watching the players have to deal with the consequences of their actions. So they tried to kill and rob the high priest who has the information they need? Make them pay for it. Besides having to fight their way out if discovered, they will clearly either have to sneak around the town from then on or get some pretty convincing disguises if they don't want to be attacked on sight. Then have them get the information some other way, but make it harder this time. Situations like these not only lead to some of the most humorous situations, but can also give rise to serious and dark role playing if you want to take it that direction. Everything is always focused on the characters saving the world just because they can, but I don't see any reason why these characters wouldn't want to start their own criminal organizations or...
You have a good group of players it sounds like. Consider yourself blessed as a GM. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that without the right players it becomes a huge pain in the ass.
|
|
LPM, AZ, and definitely Heathy,
You bring up some valid points. As for Adolf Hitler, wouldn't things have turned out differently if Max Rothman had actually taken him half seriously as an artist. A 'what if' conundrum that could have humanized Hitler in a different perspective than how we currently view him as the de facto pariah.
Rape/Kill/Maim/All above the farmer's daughter. Nevermind the livestock! Think of the templates, man! The templates!
But can evil characters play good with each other? Can good characters play evil with each other? Does the DM pull fiat and indicate how the adventure should go, or is he there to entertain the PCs and craft the adventure toward their interests? What if there is no clear majority? Is the DM the tie-breaker?
Most perplexing, I confess.
Welp, I know this sounds bad, but the metagame ultimately enforces fair play.
IF your character kill my Elfy McSlitheren the sorcerer in his sleep, you can rest assured that the halforc assassin I'm replacing him with is going to drip the vile treacle from a medusa's teat in your character's ear when HE slumbers.
Heathy,
Is this where the DM invokes his railroad powers, or do we just continue to play evil CoC style and see whose new evil character build causes treachery on another's?
|
|
I roll like this:
if everybody's sitting around with their thumb up their ass, I railroad until I get something going.
If everybody's having fun playing Cesare Borgia, I'd sit back and watch it happen.
THEN, maybe have a bunch of bugbear amazons with beehive hairdo's take advantage of the situation when half the party's been murdered.
What if you got that one guy that prefers to be Mahatma Gandhi amongst the Cesare Borgias until he takes it personal? Send in the bugbear amazons anyway and call it a night after the TPK?
|
Are you asking what would happen if one of the characters was actually good, in a party of evil characters? One of two things:
A)Good guy finishes last; i.e. he gets taken advantage of or murdered when no one is looking or finds out what the rest of the party is doing and calls the authorities/attempts to kill them, probably dying in the attempt (heroic!)
B)Good guy does not even realize what his thoroughly evil compatriots are really like, how all of the people that are mean to him are dying for no reason the next day, how he somehow finds bags of gold in his bag (presents to shut him up, but no need to tell him that, is there?) And he gets to be the guy to talk to clerics or paladins, because everyone else is "busy".
Maybe not in YOUR game. ;)I already mentioned that "having a top dog" by no means devalues the fact that a party stays together.
It, more often than not, does change that fact. Players do not take kindly to not having an equal voice in things, unless we're talking about a highly experienced, cohesive group, where everyone trusts each other. And even a group like this is overwhelmingly likely to reject such setup, unless eventual backstab on the leader is explicitly allowed.
Most parties DO have a leader, regardless of how he chooses to establish leadership.
Your choice of words betrays your fundamental lack of undestanding. The leader does not choose, the party chooses him/her. Even this requires a significant degree of trust between players. The only time when a party consisted of players, previously unfamiliar with each other, did have a leader, on my memory, was in the game that explicitly demanded from them to appoint one.
Vigilantes, commandos and pirates are known for moral purity?
The strawman detected. It's funny to what people can sink just to gain an upper hand in an argument.
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.
Spare me dodges through the pseudophilosophic babble. The fact that the social structure inherently built on compromise does not work when avatars of people in this structure are too selfish to compromise is fact.
Which is beside the point because no matter how much you dislike a party dynamic, it doesn't make it stop being a party.
It does. Through effectively stopping the game, until and unless said dynamic is excised.
"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.
Yet another strawman. Stop willfully confusing what I say about evil group in RL, and what I say about evil parties in DnD. The big difference of the latter, lies in the fact that the candidates for the top dog position (likely everyone, if all of the party is evil) don't have real tools to force or bribe people into submission. Therefore, it is up to GM to beat PCs into cooperating. Might for for a module, hardly for a campaign.
Really?
Really. And you're raising the strawman again.
You skipped all the parts where they murder each other, then.
True that. I have witnessed two sorts of evil parties that worked in gaming. The first sort was PC parties in PnP games, where GMs pretty much placed them/us against an overwhelming, inescapable danger right off the bat every time. Most of the times (whenever the party generated separately) some sort of control devices and/or magic also was employed to prevent PCs from murderizing each other and keep them on the same goal. The second sort was whatever collectives people belonged to in live-action games, where there is no GM in usual sense of the word. Those inevitably spent the game's duration plotting against each other; moreover, there often (whenever the focus was not on the soap opera) was an explicit recognition that plotting against each other is the essence of the game.
|
|
I'm amazed at the number of people that have such a narrow focus on what evil characters "must do" to be evil. Sure, in many movies and some books, they're constantly backstabbing each other to get the upper hand, but mostly that's a plot contrivance so the good guys can win.
If you tried to run a game like this, where each player had their own agenda and no one trusted each other then sure, people would end up killing each other in the hopes of not getting killed first. But then, very few games of non evil PC's last long where each player has their own objective indepent of everyone else either. They just end up wandering off apart from each other and chasing tehir own goals. Hardly the basis for a co operative game, though it may work for some groups with a sandbox style of game.
A co operative party works best with a common goal (at least in terms of setting up a long running campaign). This is true for both evil and good PC's. Evil parties might come from a group of people with a common belief structure. Thay all respect and trust each other becasue they have the same ideals, even if those ideals are seen as evil by the rest of the world. This is how cults start, it was the way the KKK ran, its how the Nazi party got into power.
The other thing to remember is that evil is a matter of perspective. Humans might think that orcs are evil when they steal their children and cook them. Orks think of humans as nothing more than cattle so to them its no worse than killing a lamb for supper. (extreme case but you get the point). This is widely seen in even the modern world where countries use all sorts of tactics to win wars and both sides cry foul of each other and claim them as evil acts while convincing their own nations of the necessity of their actions.
To say that an evil game wouldn't work becasue the party would dissolve in an orgy of self destruction is extremely arrow minded. Like any campaign, it takes work from both the DM and players to keep motivations grounded enough so the party doesn't fall apart.
Some examples of games or campaigns that might work for evil characters or have blurry alignment settings.
- A deity sets them a holy task to expand the realm and ther faith "no matter the cost". (think of teh things the brittish and french were doing during their expansionist years)
- The group are asked to settle a new relam and remove the current inhabitants so their own country can survive. (similar to above but easier for players to be motivated or accepting of some of the things they're ordered to do).
- Another gang/religion is muscling in on the groups territory so they begin a crime war against each other (including competing extortion raquets, gambling dens etc)
- A war is raging between two countries and the attocities are mounting. The PC's are sent as insurgents to wreak havoc and terror in the other country and hopefully destablaise the government.
- The current government of the land is too soft. Anarchy is starting to reign as the do gooders let criminals go on "good behaviour", they've outlawed hangings etc. Time to overthrow the government and put a real regime in place where people know their place.(Lawful evil replacing chaotic good)
This isn't exhaustive obviously, but at least you can see where an evil game could start and easily be maintained.
cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'm amazed at the number of people that have such a narrow focus on what evil characters "must do" to be evil. Sure, in many movies and some books, they're constantly backstabbing each other to get the upper hand, but mostly that's a plot contrivance so the good guys can win.
If you tried to run a game like this, where each player had their own agenda and no one trusted each other then sure, people would end up killing each other in the hopes of not getting killed first. But then, very few games of non evil PC's last long where each player has their own objective indepent of everyone else either. They just end up wandering off apart from each other and chasing tehir own goals. Hardly the basis for a co operative game, though it may work for some groups with a sandbox style of game.
A co-operative party works best with a common goal (at least in terms of setting up a long running campaign). This is true for both evil and good PC's. Evil parties might come from a group of people with a common belief structure. They all respect and trust each other becasue they have the same ideals, even if those ideals are seen as evil by the rest of the world. This is how cults start, it was the way the KKK ran, its how the Nazi party got into power.
The other thing to remember is that evil is a matter of perspective. Humans might think that orcs are evil when they steal their children and cook them. Orks think of humans as nothing more than cattle so to them its no worse than killing a lamb for supper. (extreme case but you get the point). This is widely seen in even the modern world where countries use all sorts of tactics to win wars and both sides cry foul of each other and claim them as evil acts while convincing their own nations of the necessity of their actions.
To say that an evil game wouldn't work becasue the party would dissolve in an orgy of self destruction is extremely narrow minded. Like any campaign, it takes work from both the DM and players to keep motivations grounded enough so the party doesn't fall apart.
cheers
Well said Wrath. Perfectly illustrated point.
|
|
The other thing to remember is that evil is a matter of perspective. Humans might think that orcs are evil when they steal their children and cook them. Orks think of humans as nothing more than cattle so to them its no worse than killing a lamb for supper. (extreme case but you get the point). This is widely seen in even the modern world where countries use all sorts of tactics to win wars and both sides cry foul of each other and claim them as evil acts while convincing their own nations of the necessity of their actions.
To say that an evil game wouldn't work becasue the party would dissolve in an orgy of self destruction is extremely arrow minded. Like any campaign, it takes work from both the DM and players to keep motivations grounded enough so the party doesn't...
All very valid points Wrath, BTW that was the name of a very badass half orc barbarian I played a few years ago, so kudos.
Evil in RL is very subjective to perspective, however in RPGs it is a little more cut and dry. Thanks to the alignment system your choice in alignment should somewhat dictate you PCs behavior. Understand I am not saying that an evil game cannot work, only that it takes a group of mature players to make it work. As GMs we run evil all the time, most players do not. IME too many players tend to screw everything up when you let them of the leash. "Why did Lucious dominate then molest Mikli, the Barbarian slave girl?", "Because dooood, he's like wicked badass, and he's soooo eviiiiiiiil!". Yeah.... The sorcerer in question learned why you don't do that to the Dervish in the group. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The other thing to remember is that evil is a matter of perspective. Humans might think that orcs are evil when they steal their children and cook them. Orks think of humans as nothing more than cattle so to them its no worse than killing a lamb for supper. (extreme case but you get the point). This is widely seen in even the modern world where countries use all sorts of tactics to win wars and both sides cry foul of each other and claim them as evil acts while convincing their own nations of the necessity of their actions.
To say that an evil game wouldn't work becasue the party would dissolve in an orgy of self destruction is extremely arrow minded. Like any campaign, it takes work from both the DM and players to keep motivations grounded enough so the party doesn't...
All very valid points Wrath, BTW that was the name of a very badass half orc barbarian I played a few years ago, so kudos.
Evil in RL is very subjective to perspective, however in RPGs it is a little more cut and dry. Thanks to the alignment system your choice in alignment should somewhat dictate you PCs behavior. Understand I am not saying that an evil game cannot work, only that it takes a group of mature players to make it work. As GMs we run evil all the time, most players do not. IME too many players tend to screw everything up when you let them of the leash. "Why did Lucious dominate then molest Mikli, the Barbarian slave girl?", "Because dooood, he's like wicked badass, and he's soooo eviiiiiiiil!". Yeah.... The sorcerer in question learned why you don't do that to the Dervish in the group. :P
Yeah I think too many people see Evil as "I must kill and rape everything I see in sight and spread as much pain and suffering as possible".
It's not always that cut and dry.A Lawful Evil Party could quite easily play through an adventure in a cohesive manner without too much of a problem. The problem becomes when someone goes all "I'm gonna stab Julius in his sleep and take his stuff because I'm Evil."
... O.o ummm what's your motivation for that?
Dude... I'm Evil, I just said that.
I'll admit playing Chaotic Evil would have it's problems, but only marginally moreso than a Party with a Paladin and a bunch of Chaotic Good/Neutral Characters in it.
It definately comes down to the players and I think that every gaming group, no matter how mature they think they are is gonna have at least one or two people who don't know how to play Evil properly (sometimes even the GM).
Given this, I simply can't see an Evil Module ever being really useful in a broad enough cross section of the gamer community to be financially viable.
Jared
If you wanna spend your time and money doing it then by all means go ahead but releasing it to a mass market I think would not be the financial goldmine you think it might be. And even if you don't think it will be a financial goldmine, the amount of people who would buy it would not be worth the money that Paizo would put into putting it into production as they have to maintain a substanially higher rate of return than you would to prove viable, a figure that just wouldn't be reached with this kind of idea.
So while as a talking point it's fine, the idea itself wasn't as well thought out as you might think it was...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I think you're pretty much spot on Flash. While such an adventure or AP might appeal to a small number of gamers, not all of whom are young 20 somethings who just want to reak havok, I don't think it would have enough of a customer base to warrent even the discount bin at the store.
Yeah, it's those damn young 'uns ya gots ta watch out for with their Anti-Establimentarianism. ;)
I don't have a problem with an Evil Party and would gladly play in one, but once again, it still comes down to the players and when you can get irate over the player not playing his Paladin correctly () , I don't think tht you're gonna do so well with the guy not playing his Evil Character correctly. And that right there is the start of the party's (and sometimes the group's) downfall. That Paladin Player never turns up anymore after he was called out as not playing his Alignment properly. He wasn't asked to leave or told to make anew Character, simply told that he needed to change how he was playing or he'd suffer an Alignment shift to be more in line with how he was running the Character. He took it personally...
|
|
I think you're pretty much spot on Flash. While such an adventure or AP might appeal to a small number of gamers, not all of whom are young 20 somethings who just want to reak havok, I don't think it would have enough of a customer base to warrent even the discount bin at the store.Yeah, it's those damn young 'uns ya gots ta watch out for with their Anti-Establimentarianism. ;)
I don't have a problem with an Evil Party and would gladly play in one, but once again, it still comes down to the players and when you can get irate over the player not playing his Paladin correctly () , I don't think tht you're gonna do so well with the guy not playing his Evil Character correctly. And that right there is the start of the party's (and sometimes the group's) downfall. That Paladin Player never turns up anymore after he was called out as not playing his Alignment properly. He wasn't asked to leave or told to make anew Character, simply told that he needed to change how he was playing or he'd suffer an Alignment shift to be more in line with how he was running the Character. He took it personally...
To paraphrase a line from Burn Notice: "Meh, you know players, a buncha b+~&+y little girls." ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
To paraphrase a line from Burn Notice: "Meh, you know players, a buncha b@@~*y little girls." ;)I think you're pretty much spot on Flash. While such an adventure or AP might appeal to a small number of gamers, not all of whom are young 20 somethings who just want to wreak havok, I don't think it would have enough of a customer base to warrant even the discount bin at the store.Yeah, it's those damn young 'uns ya gots ta watch out for with their Anti-Establimentarianism. ;)
I don't have a problem with an Evil Party and would gladly play in one, but once again, it still comes down to the players and when you can get irate over the player not playing his Paladin correctly () , I don't think tht you're gonna do so well with the guy not playing his Evil Character correctly. And that right there is the start of the party's (and sometimes the group's) downfall. That Paladin Player never turns up anymore after he was called out as not playing his Alignment properly. He wasn't asked to leave or told to make anew Character, simply told that he needed to change how he was playing or he'd suffer an Alignment shift to be more in line with how he was running the Character. He took it personally...
Oh damn yes! You should see the whinging and b&!@*ing that goes on when we play cards (Vampire, not like Poker or anything "normal" ;) ) on our off D&D night. You'd think we were all 16 year old girls or something! :D
|
|
I think you're pretty much spot on Flash. While such an adventure or AP might appeal to a small number of gamers, not all of whom are young 20 somethings who just want to reak havok, I don't think it would have enough of a customer base to warrent even the discount bin at the store.
+1
And that's one of the other bottom lines, when you consider the industry - do you have a good cost/benefit ratio. I recall the Reverse Dungeon Adventure that D&D put out years ago (still have a copy somewhere). I thought it was a novel idea, with some interesting characters, but not a very strong storyline. I'm not sure what the sales numbers on it were like, but since they never did another one, I'd hazard a guess that the numbers might not have been good.
|
|
I think you're pretty much spot on Flash. While such an adventure or AP might appeal to a small number of gamers, not all of whom are young 20 somethings who just want to reak havok, I don't think it would have enough of a customer base to warrent even the discount bin at the store.+1
And that's one of the other bottom lines, when you consider the industry - do you have a good cost/benefit ratio. I recall the Reverse Dungeon Adventure that D&D put out years ago (still have a copy somewhere). I thought it was a novel idea, with some interesting characters, but not a very strong storyline. I'm not sure what the sales numbers on it were like, but since they never did another one, I'd hazard a guess that the numbers might not have been good.
Are you refering to the one in Dungeon? The Tomb of Aknar Ratalla, I think it was... It was neat but not the sort of thing one would want to do all the time.
|
|
Are you refering to the one in Dungeon? The Tomb of Aknar Ratalla, I think it was... It was neat but not the sort of thing one would want to do all the time.
Oh no, this was an actual module of a sort. I think it was 2E, though. Very similar in format to Labyrinth of Madness. The pregen PCs were monsters in a dungeon, each with a specific area and hints for interacting with the others. You had to defend the dungeon from an adventuring party that had, if I remember correctly, been hired out of a nearby monastery. Eventually, you had the opportunity to stage a raid on said monastery, in order to try and end the raids for good.
The concept was, at the time, new and exciting. I bought a copy, just to read through, but never ran it. Maybe one day, I'll get it out of whatever box I've got it stuffed in, and update it to play with PF. But, like I said, they never did another one like it, so I always assumed that its sales numbers were abysmal.
|
|
Are you refering to the one in Dungeon? The Tomb of Aknar Ratalla, I think it was... It was neat but not the sort of thing one would want to do all the time.Oh no, this was an actual module of a sort. I think it was 2E, though. Very similar in format to Labyrinth of Madness. The pregen PCs were monsters in a dungeon, each with a specific area and hints for interacting with the others. You had to defend the dungeon from an adventuring party that had, if I remember correctly, been hired out of a nearby monastery. Eventually, you had the opportunity to stage a raid on said monastery, in order to try and end the raids for good.
The concept was, at the time, new and exciting. I bought a copy, just to read through, but never ran it. Maybe one day, I'll get it out of whatever box I've got it stuffed in, and update it to play with PF.
I must have missed that one. Shows you how much an evil adventure appeals to me. The idea itself may seem good on paper, but in practice.... not so much.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Are you refering to the one in Dungeon? The Tomb of Aknar Ratalla, I think it was... It was neat but not the sort of thing one would want to do all the time.Oh no, this was an actual module of a sort. I think it was 2E, though. Very similar in format to Labyrinth of Madness. The pregen PCs were monsters in a dungeon, each with a specific area and hints for interacting with the others. You had to defend the dungeon from an adventuring party that had, if I remember correctly, been hired out of a nearby monastery. Eventually, you had the opportunity to stage a raid on said monastery, in order to try and end the raids for good.
The concept was, at the time, new and exciting. I bought a copy, just to read through, but never ran it. Maybe one day, I'll get it out of whatever box I've got it stuffed in, and update it to play with PF. But, like I said, they never did another one like it, so I always assumed that its sales numbers were abysmal.
That actually sounds interesting. I wonder how would it be to have one group of Players playing the Heroes and another group playing the Monsters?
|
|
That actually sounds interesting. I wonder how would it be to have one group of Players playing the Heroes and another group playing the Monsters?
The module itself was very interesting, at least in concept. But, each evil PC had some pre-set goals to keep them on track, and there was also a Big Boss NPC type to help keep everyone in line.
As for the idea of pitting Hero and Villain players against each other, I'd be careful with that one. If you get the wrong type of players, it could stir up some serious resentment down the line. Let's face it, some folks just can't handle being a bit more grown-up.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
That actually sounds interesting. I wonder how would it be to have one group of Players playing the Heroes and another group playing the Monsters?The module itself was very interesting, at least in concept. But, each evil PC had some pre-set goals to keep them on track, and there was also a Big Boss NPC type to help keep everyone in line.
As for the idea of pitting Hero and Villain players against each other, I'd be careful with that one. If you get the wrong type of players, it could stir up some serious resentment down the line. Let's face it, some folks just can't handle being a bit more grown-up.
Yeah, that's a good point I suppose. Although I don't really see it as any worse than playing against each other in a game (say like Warhammer) where you have to kill your friend's army.
|
|
Very well said Marsh. Consider you and I in the same camp on that one.
Yes, Marsh, some very good points. And, let's also face up to this - haven't we been talking about a newspaper article where, once again, D&D is accused of promoting bad behavior in someone? The person who wrote that article would latch onto an evil AP or module like a leech onto a bloodbank and scream "SEE! I WAS RIGHT! IT IS AN EVIL GAME!".
They can do that with any monster book... and do it without even reading the contents.
Hmm, I'm thinking it's more along the lines of "The Craft" myself.
All my buddies in the evil thread? I never expected to see that...well, except for the drow and the jacks, maybe.
This is what makes me wary...or more than wary: every time I've encountered a group made of players where most of them wanted to be evil characters most of the time, they were 1. terrible role-players and 2. utter douche bags. I'd rather spend my time with better people and better players, as gaming is supposed to be a good time. Maybe someday I will want the challenge of playing an evil pc, but it will have to be carefully worked out thing, and it would only be because I was getting to play SO much (what wonderful circumstances would that take!) that I wanted to do something really different. Otherwise, I enjoy playing heroes, and could never enjoy the same kind of deep identification with role-playing villains or anti-heroes.
Anybody see Goodfella's? I can break this all down I think pretty well, but it relies on the movie Goodfella's.
I saw it a gazillion times.Yup. But here's what I tell folks who ask why they can't play evil PCs in my game. "Because you're a doushe, that's why."
Now break it down for us Wolfie. ;)
Ah, I took a little too long writing my post. :D
All my buddies in the evil thread? I never expected to see that...well, except for the drow and the jacks, maybe.
This is what makes me wary...or more than wary: every time I've encountered a group made of players where most of them wanted to be evil characters most of the time, they were 1. terrible role-players and 2. utter douche bags. I'd rather spend my time with better people and better players, as gaming is supposed to be a good time. Maybe someday I will want the challenge of playing an evil pc, but it will have to be carefully worked out thing, and it would only be because I was getting to play SO much (what wonderful circumstances would that take!) that I wanted to do something really different. Otherwise, I enjoy playing heroes, and could never enjoy the same kind of deep identification with role-playing villains or anti-heroes.
Surely a mature group could play a party of evil characters without resorting to the common pitfalls of a party of backstabbers and psychopaths.
I'm sure you'd be up to the challenge, Mairkurion.
Hmm, I'm thinking it's more along the lines of "The Craft" myself.
Or "Heathers".
|
|
Ah, I took a little too long writing my post. :DAnybody see Goodfella's? I can break this all down I think pretty well, but it relies on the movie Goodfella's.
I saw it a gazillion times.Yup. But here's what I tell folks who ask why they can't play evil PCs in my game. "Because you're a doushe, that's why."
Now break it down for us Wolfie. ;)
I tend to put things as simply as I can. ;)