|
I'd love an AP where you get to be the bad guys for once. Nope, no skirting the edges of depravity, no shades of grey. You are bad guys.
Now, does that mean running around murdering innocents, making deals with the devil, that sort of stuff? Not necessarily, but that would be cool, too. I don't want an AP that assumes you to be inexplicably vile, either. Give me a motive and set me to doing it, is all I really ask.
Maybe a module, it's all I ask. You say you're the best writers in the industry, remaking flumphs and all that, but can you make an evil adventure that isn't a) corny or b)cliche? Just wondering.
agreed!
If it ever happened, I would hope a module/arc of modules, NOT an AP.
I enjoy playing evil characters from time to time, but I think that the Adventure Path format is particularly ill-suited to them. Evil parties tend to be less cohesive — and an AP centers on a group of characters with a common (usually altruistic) goal.
As a GM for evil games, I can rarely keep a party working together for a session, let alone a campaign. I don't see how it could (or should) be any other way!
That, and there ARE evil iconics in some of the APs. But an alignment restriction of any kind, good or evil, on an AP is not something I want to see.
I guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.
I enjoy playing evil characters from time to time, but I think that the Adventure Path format is particularly ill-suited to them. Evil parties tend to be less cohesive — and an AP centers on a group of characters with a common (usually altruistic) goal.
As a GM for evil games, I can rarely keep a party working together for a session, let alone a campaign. I don't see how it could (or should) be any other way!
That, and there ARE evil iconics in some of the APs. But an alignment restriction of any kind, good or evil, on an AP is not something I want to see.
Well you just need more experience. It's easy to find cohesion and even write an AP for one if you cant think the ri.. er wrong way.
I guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness.
I think he meant skipping that AP. I agree I have zero interest in running an evil AP
I think he meant skipping that AP. I agree I have zero interest in running an evil API guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness.
The entire fantasy genre is focused on good characters neutralizing (if not conquering) evil.
Evil parties, while playable, are too selfish to be cohesive or follow a strong arc that requires any altruism. They're just fodder for the good guys, really. Fun, but not memorable.
I would not mind it once or twice, depending on the players of course. I would not try it with just anybody.
|
I would not mind it once or twice, depending on the players of course. I would not try it with just anybody.
This this this.
It's absolutely necessary to get everyone to agree on what kind of evil they're comfortable with playing.
Hammy, scene-chewing, BWA-HA-HA evil? Even-evil-has-standards evil? Depraved, anything-goes evil? There are many flavors to work with, and some absolutely will not work for many players, and unfortunately some folks are all too eager to fly past the comfort level line of their fellow players(and the GM).
I know I for one wouldn't want to GM any group that burned, raped, and pillaged whatever they could. But a group of cackling, scheming, they-all-called-me-mad! characters channelling Vincent Price, Raul Julia, and Jeremy Irons at their hammiest? I'd be good for a few sessions just to see how it turned out.
I would not buy it.
A single adventure playing evil, if my whole group would insist, ok, but a whole year – not my cup of tea
|
|
So what kind of evil would you want to play, if only for one or two modules? I want a more realistic approach to evil, while others seem to prefer the Super Villain-esque type game.
Oh, and I've been forced to say module(s) instead of an AP, but again, if you are good enough at designing RPGs, you can make an evil AP that players can enjoy and that works i.e. no interparty murder. Although, in my games even my NG party seems to backstab each other at the drop of a hat, so maybe I'm biased in that respect.
Evil parties, while playable, are too selfish to be cohesive or follow a strong arc that requires any altruism. They're just fodder for the good guys, really. Fun, but not memorable.
I pity you for the roleplaying company you have to keep.
Because your statement there shows that your fellow players aren't that good at roleplaying if they can't even play a proper evil party :P
Seriously, what you say might be what you experienced, but it's just not true in general. I have played in evil groups, and run games for evil groups, that have worked splendidly.
Sure, it can go horribly wrong, if you have the wrong players - been there, too - but it's not a fait accompli.
Remember that the MO for adventurers can already bee seen as evil in that it's selfish: They go on adventures not to make the world a better place, but because they're rewarded handsomely.
|
I'm reminded of the old computer game called "Dungeonkeep" or somesuch, wherein you control a dungeon of evil creatures trying to prevent a "good" group of adventurers from breaking into your dungeon! You set your traps, slap your minions into a frenzy, and prey they act as cannon-fodder long enough to eliminate the adventurers as they press deeper into your defences, so they don't reach your treasure room!
Now translate this idea from computer to adventure scenario, and it could work. Think of the stereotypical creepy old castle build into the side of a cliff, ruling over the peasant village below. The villagers have lived in fear for centuries, but tolerated the occasional missing villager left to the wolves, thankful it wasn't theirself.
Then one day, a group of goody-two-shoes adventurers walk into town, strutting their shiny gold armour emblazoned with the symbol of their god, and they sow the seeds of rebelion! The peasants raise their torches and pitchforks and advance on the castle!
Now the PCs could be vampire, werewolf, witch, necromancer, or some other flavour of "misunderstood". They have minions who tend to their castle who also live in fear of their Masters. Factor in some kind of morale mechanic, like Kingmaker, whereby the positions the PCs hold grant certain benefits over their minions, eg prevent them from turning on their Masters. Now if the PCs backstab each other, they know their whole evil plan is going to collapse around them like a house of Chelish Pentacle cards.
It's Kingmaker, but the evil guys got there first - they have to defend themselves against peasant villagers, a group of well-meaning adventurers, and rebellion within their own minions - but they can only hold things together by working together!
I'm reminded of the old computer game called "Dungeonkeep" or somesuch
Dungeon Keeper. (And DK 2). Great games, too bad there never was a third.
|
|
I'm reminded of the old computer game called "Dungeonkeep" or somesuch, wherein you control a dungeon of evil creatures trying to prevent a "good" group of adventurers from breaking into your dungeon! You set your traps, slap your minions into a frenzy, and prey they act as cannon-fodder long enough to eliminate the adventurers as they press deeper into your defences, so they don't reach your treasure room!
The games were Dungeonkeeper and Dungeonkeeper II. You might also check out Overlord and Overlord II, which are very similar only more hands on as you actually lead your minions around terrorizing everyone.
Now the PCs could be vampire, werewolf, witch, necromancer, or some other flavour of "misunderstood". They have minions who tend to their castle who also live in fear of their Masters. Factor in some kind of morale mechanic, like Kingmaker, whereby the positions the PCs hold grant certain benefits over their minions, eg prevent them from turning on their Masters. Now if the PCs backstab each other, they know their whole evil plan is going to collapse around them like a house of Chelish Pentacle cards.
It's Kingmaker, but the evil guys got there first - they have to defend themselves against peasant villagers, a group of well-meaning adventurers, and rebellion within their own minions - but they can only hold things together by working together!
There was a 2e product called Reverse Dungeons that did the same thing, but it was done as a one shot where the players played the dungeon monsters and the DM ran the party through it.
Evil has been very popular lately and saw some love toward the end of 3.5 in the form of Book of Vile Darkness and Champions of Ruin. There were also other books by some 3PPs but the titles escape me. I'm surprised that no one hasn't jumped on the niche market with Pathfinder and attempted to produce a product that meets the guild-lines or at least made an OGL that could be used. One could almost say that the Book of Erotic Fantasy was a borderline evil sourcebook since it provide aspects covering both sides of that topic.
As for playing evil characters, I think where most players fail in portraying evil PCs is they focus too much on the evil aspect. In reality evil PCs should be nothing short of an anti-hero such as Elric and others. That's because the anti-hero more often wants to do good, but fails because their actions are evil by nature despite their intentions. The game tends to break down either because someone isn't playing correctly and upsets the party or eventually melancholy sets in, becoming too depressing for everyone as they realize there is no real hope for the PCs who are stuck in their life. The exception would be to work toward redemption, adding that uplift to the story.
Oh, and I've been forced to say module(s) instead of an AP, but again, if you are good enough at designing RPGs, you can make an evil AP that players can enjoy and that works i.e. no interparty murder. Although, in my games even my NG party seems to backstab each other at the drop of a hat, so maybe I'm biased in that respect.
The problem is, no matter how brilliantly you write an AP, you can't write it so that people have to play it a certain way without then making it a serious railroad fest. How do you exclude interparty murder, for example? I doubt any adventure, designed for evil or not, will require that. It comes up as a matter of characters clashing with one another. I've never had players end up creating characters that dislike one another because the adventure says they should.
Also, no matter how brilliant the adventure is, you have to have an audience willing to buy it. Personally, I'd be willing, with the right people, to give several existing APs a shot with evil characters, but if the AP actually assumes and expects evil characters, all of those GMs that don't want an AP limited to evil loose a lot of incentive for buying it.
I think a lot of GMs (myself included) have been burned enough by evil characters that we are really leery of jumping totally on this kind of bandwagon.
I guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness.
Didn't buy SD.
And since I budget my money, I have limited funds to buy stuff. If Paizo released a $13 module where the party has to be evil, my $13 can go to someone else. Or, I could put an extra $13 in my son's college fund (18 years @10% = $78).
If Paizo released an AP where the party has to be the bad guys, I'd take that $120 and spend it elsewhere. It'd buy me 3 Andreas miniatures, which at this point would take far longer to complete than an AP.
So what kind of evil would you want to play, if only for one or two modules? I want a more realistic approach to evil, while others seem to prefer the Super Villain-esque type game.
Funny that you say that, because one of the most effective setups for this kind of game, and one that would be a lot of fun to play is: Henchmen.
I support this style of play enthusiastically (I am Evil Lincoln after all) but I don't think it would work in AP. In a module, or perhaps a trilogy of modules, sure. You would need to establish the PCs as henchmen of an evil agent — perhaps going around thwarting good in various ways. This would be best, because it lets the PCs choose thier level of evil involvement.
A really clever designer could make it so that good character might be in the party for his own reasons. Also, I've noticed that a certain kind of player enjoys running a LE or NE character who really doesn't do bad things all the time, they just happen to secretly seethe with malice.
So, a module has my support, so long as it is "working for the forces of evil" willingly, for whatever reasons, instead of mandating evil PCs. Yeah, it could be done.
|
|
I guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness.Didn't buy SD.
And since I budget my money, I have limited funds to buy stuff. If Paizo released a $13 module where the party has to be evil, my $13 can go to someone else. Or, I could put an extra $13 in my son's college fund (18 years @10% = $78).
If Paizo released an AP where the party has to be the bad guys, I'd take that $120 and spend it elsewhere. It'd buy me 3 Andreas miniatures, which at this point would take far longer to complete than an AP.
Good for you, then, Mr. Doesn't-Read-My-Posts.
Or, I could put an extra $13 in my son's college fund (18 years @10% = $78).
sorry threadjack..... where are you getting a ten percent interest rate? I need that.....
Or, I could put an extra $13 in my son's college fund (18 years @10% = $78).sorry threadjack..... where are you getting a ten percent interest rate? I need that.....
Plus, 10% is a historic return over the long haul. Proper diversification is paramount.
Recently, things are up somewhere around 30%, but that's a historic anomoly. Much like the 50% drop we saw in '08. Over time, 10% is quite achievable.
Good for you, then, Mr. Doesn't-Read-My-Posts.I guess that's one way of making sure my gaming dollars are spent elsewhere.We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness.Didn't buy SD.
And since I budget my money, I have limited funds to buy stuff. If Paizo released a $13 module where the party has to be evil, my $13 can go to someone else. Or, I could put an extra $13 in my son's college fund (18 years @10% = $78).
If Paizo released an AP where the party has to be the bad guys, I'd take that $120 and spend it elsewhere. It'd buy me 3 Andreas miniatures, which at this point would take far longer to complete than an AP.
Please point out that which I apparently didn't read. Read your posts, replied, replied again. Didn't seem to miss anything, but if there's something specific you posted that I missed, I'd be happy be corrected.
Hmmm . . . . Putting the cost of the "evil only" AP into a fund for my son's college nets somewhere around $700.
If nothing else, my son would benefit from a business decision that drives away my money.
Doug, if you read my post, you would know I'm no longer talking about an AP, now we're talking modules. We stopped talking about APs after the first few posts now.
You replied to my post with "We're talking modules now. And if one lousy AP makes you quit Pathfinder, you should have cancelled at Second Darkness."
I responded.
I wasn't aware that there was a time limit for responding. Perhaps next time, you could post the rules that you would like posters to follow, so as to avoid confusion. Maybe ask Paizo to add it in to the forum rules? Or perhaps petition ICANN for some global policy?
Either that, or I'll spend it on fly fishing.
I wasn't aware that there was a time limit for responding. Perhaps next time, you could post the rules that you would like posters to follow, so as to avoid confusion. Maybe ask Paizo to add it in to the forum rules? Or perhaps petition ICANN for some global policy?
Chill. I'm sure that's not what he meant.
I've played in an evil campaign and I have to say it was a lot of fun, now the party did eventually explode into a hysterical amount of violence when one member decided to break the subtle web of treaty and peace between all the members by backstabbing the titular "leader" of the group, but that's besides the point. I think that you could probably get away with running Kingmaker as evil.
Before I'm destroyed by flames let me explain. As we haven't quite seen all the bits and pieces as the first book isn't out yet it's quite possible that with a little retooling there's nothing stopping the party from setting up a government that firmly supports their evil. As was mentioned earlier Dungeon Keeper and it's sequel are great examples of what I'm thinking. If you need motivation as a GM for why the evil party attempts to stop whatever big bad badass is at the end of the adventure that's pretty easy. If I'm an Evil Overlord why should I suffer ANOTHER Evil Overlord to exist in my lands or any other. Now that's just an example maybe they stop it to preserve their claim and power, or self preservation. Self preservation is a really solid motivator.
Just my two cents a lot of published things can be made evil if the GM does a little extra work to reflavor and maybe retool things a bit.
|
Oh, and I've been forced to say module(s) instead of an AP, but again, if you are good enough at designing RPGs, you can make an evil AP that players can enjoy and that works i.e. no interparty murder. Although, in my games even my NG party seems to backstab each other at the drop of a hat, so maybe I'm biased in that respect.
The problem is, no matter how brilliantly you write an AP, you can't write it so that people have to play it a certain way without then making it a serious railroad fest. How do you exclude interparty murder, for example? I doubt any adventure, designed for evil or not, will require that. It comes up as a matter of characters clashing with one another. I've never had players end up creating characters that dislike one another because the adventure says they should.
Also, no matter how brilliant the adventure is, you have to have an audience willing to buy it. Personally, I'd be willing, with the right people, to give several existing APs a shot with evil characters, but if the AP actually assumes and expects evil characters, all of those GMs that don't want an AP limited to evil loose a lot of incentive for buying it.
I think a lot of GMs (myself included) have been burned enough by evil characters that we are really leery of jumping totally on this kind of bandwagon.
+1
Good points all around. And, lest we forget, there has been one AP, Savage Tide, where the PCs could easily have played an evil campaign. If memory serves me correctly, they gave hints and suggestions for that route in each issue.
Personally, I've been thoroughly happy with Paizo's writing to date, and don't feel they have to prove themselves. They kick ass!
|
|
... now the party did eventually explode into a hysterical amount of violence when one member decided to break the subtle web of treaty and peace between all the members by backstabbing the titular "leader" of the group, but that's besides the point.
No, I don't think it's beside the point at all, I think it's precisely the point why PCs are Evil campaigns are unsustainable, because there always seems to be one player who sooner or later thinks it's clever or fun or in-character or playing true to alignment to be violent, disruptive or screw the party over.
I've seen this happen even in non-evil campaigns - a table of six player spend 20 minutes of meticulously planning how they're going to stealth their way into a bandit's camp to rescue some caged prisoners. Just as they're about to put this plan into action, the Barbarian who sat back quietly bored during these discussions, suddenly bursts into life with an "arrrrrgh ..." as he charges his way through the middle of the encampment alerting every bandit within a 5-mile radius, the player clearly smug and taking pleasure in cleverly(?) disrupting the carefully laid plan of the rest of the table ... roll for initiative, people!
So much for the stealth option, huh? I could see the reactions plainly on the faces and body language of the other players, they were barely restraining themselves from PvP at that point - in-person, not in-character!
I'm not saying there can't be exceptions, but in general, this mentality is why PCs are Evil campaigns are doomed to failure. It's only a matter of time before one player will try a stunt such as this to screw his companions over, justifying it (or not) as playing true to alignment.
There really needs to be a greater incentive or threat of consequences built into the campaign rules to actively discourage this type of behaviour, for the shared enjoyment of everyone playing the game, not just one person (your character might be chaotic selfish, but that doesn't mean the player has to be too!) I'm not sure what such a hook would be, I suggested up-thread a morale mechanic with campaign rewards and consequences similar to what Kingmaker seems to be doing with it's rulership rules to encourage the team to work together or risk everything falling apart. I don't know it would be enough, but it would help to set expectations of behaviour for the campaign.
|
I've seen this happen even in non-evil campaigns - a table of six player spend 20 minutes of meticulously planning how they're going to stealth their way into a bandit's camp to rescue some caged prisoners. Just as they're about to put this plan into action, the Barbarian who sat back quietly bored during these discussions, suddenly bursts into life with an "arrrrrgh ..." as he charges his way through the middle of the encampment alerting every bandit within a 5-mile radius, the player clearly smug and taking pleasure in cleverly(?) disrupting the carefully laid plan of the rest of the table ... roll for initiative, people!
Poor dumb Barbarian PLAYERS, always destined to have their character's die alone. . .
:)
|
|
... now the party did eventually explode into a hysterical amount of violence when one member decided to break the subtle web of treaty and peace between all the members by backstabbing the titular "leader" of the group, but that's besides the point.No, I don't think it's beside the point at all, I think it's precisely the point why PCs are Evil campaigns are unsustainable, because there always seems to be one player who sooner or later thinks it's clever or fun or in-character or playing true to alignment to be violent, disruptive or screw the party over.
This is exactly why I prohibit evil (well I don't prohibit, I limit) characters in my campaigns. It's hard enough working with the idiot character (my brother LOVES to play these characters), but working with the person who's always stealing, always backstabbing, always murdering the innocent shopkeeper really gets tiring after awhile. Eventually somebody in that party of 6 is going to cheat, violate whatever "rules" the group has put in place, and generally make a mess of things. In every single "evil" campaign I've played it's ended on that note with us rolling new characters for a new campaign.
In one example our party had the psion steal the item we were hunting and teleport away, the rogue backstabbed the fighter he secretly loathed (although he missed and the fighter chopped him up into little pieces), and the barbarian was left for dead by the cleric after being blinded and cursed. Wow, one year of gaming playing for that as an end result!
Only once have I seen it work, and it wasn't my campaign. As Evil Lincoln mentioned, it all had to do with the party being henchmen. There were rules put in place by their extraordinary powerful lord which kept them in-line while working with each other. They were free to do whatever murdering, child-eating, or destruction they so pleased, as long as it wasn't against each other, or the goals of their overlord.
Personally I wouldn't by the AP, and in fact would cancel my subscription for its duration. I might buy a single module on a lark to see what made it evil, but there's no way I'd play though, or run, an evil AP.
I'll admit, this is probably the only adventure module (or AP) I would never want to be involved in. I don't mind the occasional evil PC among a party of non-evil PCs, but an entire group serving evil? That just isn't the story I would ever want to build into an adventure.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
I removed a meaninglessly antagonistic post. Play nice.
Why play evil Pathfinder when you have their message boards to post on? ;)
Since I've been a victim of real life evil I don't allow my PC's to play evil characters. They're only allowed to play LG, NG, or CG (and if I deem it appropriate LN). I don't think imagining "being evil" is something that people should do. Heroes in a society are heroes for a reason...because they fight back the darkness.
Since I've been a victim of real life evil I don't allow my PC's to play evil characters. They're only allowed to play LG, NG, or CG (and if I deem it appropriate LN). I don't think imagining "being evil" is something that people should do. Heroes in a society are heroes for a reason...because they fight back the darkness.
Whatever floats your boat. I'm not commenting otherwise.
|
|
Since I've been a victim of real life evil I don't allow my PC's to play evil characters. They're only allowed to play LG, NG, or CG (and if I deem it appropriate LN). I don't think imagining "being evil" is something that people should do. Heroes in a society are heroes for a reason...because they fight back the darkness.Whatever floats your boat. I'm not commenting otherwise.
I personally like to fight back the darkness with a light switch.
o_o...
...IS THAT A DEEP CROW IN YOUR SIG (FROM PENNY ARCADE)?
If so, I didn't realize anyone had made artwork of it. Shoot, would have liked to have that in the Bestiary. Would be a good opponent for dungeon delving PC's. ^_^