I believe the word you're looking for is "balk," LOL - although if I were hypothetically running a game of Way of the Wicked and a player told me they wanted to play a chicken, I admit I'd at least be interested to hear more about their character concept.
A Kenku who cannot resist crossing the road? For no reason, really, other than to get to the other side...
|
I believe the word you're looking for is "balk," LOL - although if I were hypothetically running a game of Way of the Wicked and a player told me they wanted to play a chicken, I admit I'd at least be interested to hear more about their character concept.A Kenku who cannot resist crossing the road? For no reason, really, other than to get to the other side...
Given that we're talking about Way of the Wicked, perhaps it's an Enchanter who enjoys compelling other people to cross the road, just in time for them to get run over by speeding carriages?
Or maybe "getting to the other side" is a metaphor for necromancy or demonology....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP's question:
There are basically two kinds of evil:
1. Smart evil. Scheming, plotting, hiding, not revealing itself until it's fully ready to take over and rule everything. Only killing what's necessary (you can't rule a population if the population is dead - even necromancers don't want EVERYBODY to be undead), torture is a tool to fulfill the grand plan (not an entertainment), babies are not food, etc.
2. Stupid evil. Murdering, torturing, eating babies, killing everyone for the slightest imagined offense or failure, kicking dogs, engaging in questionable carnal activity without procuring prior consent, blowing up entire planets to make a point, etc.
Grown-ups play the first example while children and George Lucas play the second example.
Way of the Wicked can be played both ways, but it is specifically written for the first example. It really is not about being cruel and sadistic and putting kittens in microwave ovens. If that's your thing, you can do it, but it will make the campaign much harder - you're more likely to succeed if you can maintain the appearance of playing by the good-guys rules and keep your nefarious plans on the down-low, at least until the end of the campaign when it's time to step it up and rule the place. By then, you're much more interested in enforcing your jack-booted laws and protecting your hard-won empire than in inflicting individual suffering for your own personal amusement.
|
I'm playing in this campaign, currently at level 7, book 2. So far, it's a bit too railroady for my taste, and you do have to follow commands. You don't have to be evil, but then you do have to swear an oath to serve Asmodeus and his highpriest. My fellow players seem to get a bit queasy when I go into evil mode, though. (Handing over a traitor to a ghoul, then handing over his still warm dead body to an evil outsider to feed upon.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the word you're looking for is "balk," LOL - although if I were hypothetically running a game of Way of the Wicked and a player told me they wanted to play a chicken, I admit I'd at least be interested to hear more about their character concept.A Kenku who cannot resist crossing the road? For no reason, really, other than to get to the other side...Given that we're talking about Way of the Wicked, perhaps it's an Enchanter who enjoys compelling other people to cross the road, just in time for them to get run over by speeding carriages?
I see that role as being more for a grippli...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The AP only really works if the character you want to play is lawful evil. If your players aren't interested in that it probably isn't a good choice for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing in this campaign, currently at level 7, book 2. So far, it's a bit too railroady for my taste, and you do have to follow commands. You don't have to be evil, but then you do have to swear an oath to serve Asmodeus and his highpriest. My fellow players seem to get a bit queasy when I go into evil mode, though. (Handing over a traitor to a ghoul, then handing over his still warm dead body to an evil outsider to feed upon.)
It is called Way of the Wicked - why wouldn't you be evil? The opening scene basically requires you to be evil (you did some awful thing because you wanted to and liked doing it - that's hardly room for "I'm really good but was forced into it" or "I'm really CN and was having a bad hair day").
I agree with you that it is a railroad. I kind of think it has to be - IME, give most groups an evil campaign without railroads and by the 3rd week everybody is playing Darth Vader and killing their own allies, each other, cuddly kittens, whatever. Give the same groups a railroad that forces them to play nice with the NPCs and with each other, and the campaign might survive past level 3.
|
I've looked into this AP but never played it. By nature a Evil campaign only works as a real adventure if there is something that can bind everyone together, via purpose, goal, or common origin. But as you start off as tools as more powerful beings, then it does seem to play out as railroaded for the most part.
I did use some elements from this, combined with the Wrath of the Righteous and Carrion Crown APs to make a semi-evil campaign, based in Ustalav that I call "Wrath of the Wicked." The good guys have failed to stop the demons, its now for the bad guys to step up and save the world.
In seven months we do get to see what Paizo does with a evil campaign...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played it, but from what's said here, I wouldn't so much balk as simply refuse to participate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One part of the path has the players summoning a daemon lord via a ritual that includes the sacrifice of an innocent, and then releasing that daemon lord's super-plague in the capital city.
If that's not something your players want to engage in, this is not the path for you.
That being said, it is an extremely well written and well structured adventure.
As I understand it, you need to do things like massacre a surrendered army, sacrifice sentient beings (cutting out their heart), and other things that are pretty much up there with putting kittens in microwaves. I personally laugh at stuff like that (largely because it is so extremely unrealistic) but I wanted to see if anyone has played the AP and had players balk/chicken out (and that was supposed to be a pun - you know you are funny when you have to explain something you said was a joke) at some of the gruesome evilness their characters are expected to do.
Hah! That's not evil. That's simply being pragmatic. Even if an army has surrendered, that doesn't mean they can't still be a problem at a later date. So why let a problem sit and grow when you can simply do away with it? After all, allowing the same sort of situation is more or less let you come into power. And sacrifice gives actual tangible benefits, unlike a microwave kitten. It's like slaughtering a cow, in a way.
This actually reminds me of a Stephen King story called Quitter's Inc. Basically, there's a company that resorts to outright torture and murder to get a man to quit smoking. To them, it's simply a case of "The Ends Justify the Means," a philosophy that truly defines the intelligent aspect of evil if I've ever seen it. The guy hates them for it, but in the end he has to admit that it really does work for him, and he even suggests it to other people to help them as well.
Long story short, if you're going to play an evil campaign, you better be ready to go into an evil mindset. Otherwise, why bother?
I'm playing in a WotW campaign, currently level 8 in book 2. I'm also DMing a WotW campaign, currently at level 4. The section at the back of Book 1 has a lot of useful advice for running a successful villainous campaign. It recommends keeping the descriptions and details of the action to the realm of a PG-13 movie.
For example, Darth Vader interrogated Princess Leia with a scary torture droid that had all sorts of nasty pokey bits. But instead of showing the entire scene, the camera simply cut back to Vader emerging from the cell later and remarking that Leia was resistant to the mind probe.
Nothing in book 1 or book 2 requires the players to harm noncombatants. In book 1, the players need to escape a prison, do a dungeon crawl, sail on a boat, and destroy a LG fortress. In book 2, the players need to defend an evil lair and capture and sacrifice 3 people, and those scenes can easily be glossed over if the players choose.
WotW is an excellent AP, my favorite of all time. But it really doesn't work if you have players who act chaotic stupid, or are uncomfortable with the general idea of being evil.
Liz, did you miss that it was an intentional pun?
In the grand scheme of things, LG or LE, the party is still generally a group of muder hobos (as the forums are happy to to call them).
What is the difference between spending weeks planning and preparing to vanquish the BBEG in whatever special ceremony is required versus performing a ritual to summoning the Demon in WotW? Nothing really, just "reasons" to propel the plot and story of the adventure.
It's a game, you do things to progress in the adventure. What is the "big" deal with it being evil aligned?
Because a character's reasons for doing things in game are the only things that make the story meaningful?
Because a character's reasons for doing things in game are the only things that make the story meaningful?
Then make a character that fits the game?
Isn't that part of the entire role-playing experience?
As I understand it, you need to do things like massacre a surrendered army, sacrifice sentient beings (cutting out their heart), and other things that are pretty much up there with putting kittens in microwaves. I personally laugh at stuff like that (largely because it is so extremely unrealistic) but I wanted to see if anyone has played the AP and had players balk/chicken out (and that was supposed to be a pun - you know you are funny when you have to explain something you said was a joke) at some of the gruesome evilness their characters are expected to do.
Hah! That's not evil. That's simply being pragmatic. Even if an army has surrendered, that doesn't mean they can't still be a problem at a later date. So why let a problem sit and grow when you can simply do away with it? After all, allowing the same sort of situation is more or less let you come into power. And sacrifice gives actual tangible benefits, unlike a microwave kitten. It's like slaughtering a cow, in a way.
This actually reminds me of a Stephen King story called Quitter's Inc. Basically, there's a company that resorts to outright torture and murder to get a man to quit smoking. To them, it's simply a case of "The Ends Justify the Means," a philosophy that truly defines the intelligent aspect of evil if I've ever seen it. The guy hates them for it, but in the end he has to admit that it really does work for him, and he even suggests it to other people to help them as well.
Long story short, if you're going to play an evil campaign, you better be ready to go into an evil mindset. Otherwise, why bother?
There was a woman a PC liked, but wanted overall to skip a few steps on the path to court her so opted to use an elixir of love.
An enemy army was attacking the party's kingdom. One decided to activate the wish within the intelligent evil artifact to wipe out the enemy army. Not because they couldn't beat them normally, this was just easier.
The party captured a barbarian and needed questions answered, when he did not, an insane party member intensified the interrogation by feast on the man's still attached arm while the rest of the party watched.
There was a grove of dryads frightened of fey hunters passing through the area. When the party approached, they threw entangle and took ranged attacks. They party charged in and spared none.
One person said they weren't making their character super gonzo evil, then a few minutes later talked about worshiping deamon lords, trading souls for power, and raising the dead of enemy ships to serve him forever.
The party ran into an alien creature that spoke exclusively in non-nonsensical sentences. Archer decided to kill it with party agreement because it was annoying.
The party was busy ruling their kingdom when they had people causing trouble by doing things like, saying the rulers weren't doing a good enough job. The group readied their weapons to silence them for good.
After they were beaten in one tournament challenge, the opponent mocked the party. A few members made a special note to make sure she died when they were in charge.
These are all actual events from my games. All but two of these were done by non-evil characters, but almost all of them had a similar defense of their actions. "It isn't evil, I am just being pragmatic." Any attempt to convince them otherwise was retorted with a strong rebuttal that they weren't playing an evil character.
Some are certainly more reasonable than others, but all had the general effect of making me just call that session for the day. Some wanted the campaign to be completely done with.
I don't want to think about playing with people trying to play "real" evil characters and I honestly the only occasion I like playing the evil character is as villains, because they will more likely than not get crushed under the party's onslaught. When PC's do evil, there is never enough payback.
In the grand scheme of things, LG or LE, the party is still generally a group of muder hobos (as the forums are happy to to call them).
What is the difference between spending weeks planning and preparing to vanquish the BBEG in whatever special ceremony is required versus performing a ritual to summoning the Demon in WotW? Nothing really, just "reasons" to propel the plot and story of the adventure.
It's a game, you do things to progress in the adventure. What is the "big" deal with it being evil aligned?
Then make a character that fits the game?
Isn't that part of the entire role-playing experience?
I can play a game where I smash through the legions of hell in order to rescue my beloved.
Or.
I can play a game where I play a person who grabs random civilians, listens to to their pleas for mercy, and responds painting a wall with their brain-matter.
Both of these are about playing a role and both are about a lot of killing towards a significant goal, but they they are very different games. It is the same thing with LG vs LE games. They are not the same thing.
Just because I play role-playing games does not mean I value all roles equally.
|
When I was pitching this game to my players, I did have a player say that, should I choose to run it, he'd take a pass and come back when we were finished.
Evil is not everyone's cup of tea. I didn't find the adventures any more railroad-y than the average Paizo AP, with a bit more encouragement to be proactive, since you are, after all, the bad guy.
@Blazej: We will agree to disagree. As a game, I'm playing the role required. To reach the "finale" of the adventure. Doesn't really matter what the "role" is. The game unfolding as it may is the "fun" part. I guess the whole journey/destination cliche.
When I was pitching this game to my players, I did have a player say that, should I choose to run it, he'd take a pass and come back when we were finished.
Evil is not everyone's cup of tea. I didn't find the adventures any more railroad-y than the average Paizo AP, with a bit more encouragement to be proactive, since you are, after all, the bad guy.
This is what happened when our GM pitched it to us too. The player who balked had just (re) joined the group and hadn't been present for the initial pitch and discussion, so he passed when we finished the previous game.
We're currently level 5. It's not been annoyingly railroady; low level play tends to require following some sort of orders (or finding suitable employment) and our GM has included optional side-quests for us which would be exactly the same as we'd do if we were normal adventurers. Albeit normally we'd destroy any undead we found instead of casting command undead on them...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the grand scheme of things, LG or LE, the party is still generally a group of muder hobos (as the forums are happy to to call them).
What is the difference between spending weeks planning and preparing to vanquish the BBEG in whatever special ceremony is required versus performing a ritual to summoning the Demon in WotW? Nothing really, just "reasons" to propel the plot and story of the adventure.
It's a game, you do things to progress in the adventure. What is the "big" deal with it being evil aligned?
It's no big deal for others if they enjoy it.
For me it's a big deal because on Wednesday nights I like playing the part of a hero, not villain. I don't regard "progress in the adventure" as the goal - that's more a method to achieve the actual goal, for me.
I don't regard "progress in the adventure" as the goal - that's more a method to achieve the actual goal, for me.
^ this.
"Progress in the adventure" is a pretty awful motivation to do anything, either as a character or a player.
Why does the character want to progress? That's where they fun comes from.
@Blazej: We will agree to disagree. As a game, I'm playing the role required. To reach the "finale" of the adventure. Doesn't really matter what the "role" is. The game unfolding as it may is the "fun" part. I guess the whole journey/destination cliche.
I see it as a story where I am playing some role. I find very few stories where the focus is entirely on villians with whom I find nothing redeemable to be stories that I enjoy. See them win every week for month after month is not fun for me. The journey and the destination really do suck.
That is not to say Way of the Wicked isn't a good Adventure Path, but you can't really judge people for not liking a particular adventure any more than if they just don't like the same television shows, movies, or books you enjoy.
There are also simply things you do not like to play, are uncomfortable playing, or are simply unable to play.
The point of playing is to have fun. If you won't be having fun, why play?
|
|
I agree with you that it is a railroad. I kind of think it has to be - IME, give most groups an evil campaign without railroads and by the 3rd week everybody is playing Darth Vader and killing their own allies, each other, cuddly kittens, whatever. Give the same groups a railroad that forces them to play nice with the NPCs and with each other, and the campaign might survive past level 3.
I added the Fame and Prestige points rules from Ultimate Campaign which keeps them in line. They are going for "fame" not "infamy" so that entire cities don't come after them, and they can see what they can buy with prestige which gives them incentive to "play good". The Trust rules for book 1 of Carrion Crown (town of Ravengro) are nice for this as well.
But I also had to beg them not to rob all the "magic shops" the night before they leave town, so ... the points only go so far
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The AP does do a fairly good job of making you root for the villains, at least at first. Talingarde is presented as an entire country of that jerk-ass paladin that ruined your campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely take a pass on this game.
I have played evil characters before, in short games, and it can be fun. However, I recall a game I played a drow ranger in. Not a ripoff of *that* ranger, this guy was an absolute bastard - but very pragmatic evil. In truth, I would have enjoyed a redemption story, and told my party such, but it didn't work out.
My story was that a bunch of mindflayers had enslaved a surface town and were using the humans as shock troops to harass a drow enclave. I was part of a force sent to stop that - not because we cared about the humans, but because their attacks annoyed us. We got into a pitched battle, and then some surface troops showed up and attacked both us and the mindflayers. My character was captured and sentenced to be executed, which is where the PCs found me. They needed to get something in the Underdark so they needed a guide, and I bargained my freedom for my services.
Over the course of the game, I convinced the rest of the party that the Shevarash cleric was the dangerous and unstable one, turning them against him; I convinced the good-aligned party leader that we had to kill a bunch of slaves because they had witnessed something they shouldn't. (I even made it seemed like I was doing him a favor, by offering to cut their throats myself, rather than making him do it.) The tiefling wizard, who had his own story of redemption and had achieved a good alignment, became neutral again under my influence. In short, I slowly manipulated the other PCs into corruption and darkness.
This campaign lasted a while, and it was the longest I had ever played an evil character. But when I roleplay, I emphasize facets of my own personality to help portray my characters. And so I spent months, on a weekly basis, bringing out the worst aspects of my own personality. And it started to seep into my life outside the game - I became more suspicious and mistrustful, I took enjoyment in the failure of others, I became more manipulative and condescending. When I realized this was happening, I started planning how to get out of the game. About that time, Pathfinder came out, and our group ended the campaign, so I didn't need to.
I don't play evil characters anymore. At worst I'll play a neutral follower of an evil deity, with a more moderate view of their tenets. But never evil - I don't like what it does to me.
I've taken a look at Way of the Wicked, what the PCs need to be, and the intended direction of the AP. Having run and played in two homebrew campaigns of evil characters, I can honestly say, that the general activities of at least one of the players at our table in those two games, make Way of the Wicked appear a tame, almost neutrally aligned game in comparison. Way of the Wicked is weak in being "wicked", IME.
I've taken a look at Way of the Wicked, what the PCs need to be, and the intended direction of the AP. Having run and played in two homebrew campaigns of evil characters, I can honestly say, that the general activities of at least one of the players at our table in those two games, make Way of the Wicked appear a tame, almost neutrally aligned game in comparison. Way of the Wicked is weak in being "wicked", IME.
Apparently if you aren't a hero or allowances can't be made so an individual is capable of playing just the way they want, an adventure path is bad and shouldn't be played.
But yeah, the "evil" aspect is pretty much on par with the murder hobo activities that normally take place in the vast majority of "good" adventures. And in this AP it is actually thematic as well as being somewhat appropriate. I guess it just isn't as much fun if you aren't pretending not to be mass murders or putting a pretty veil on the actions of your character.
Apparently if you aren't a hero or allowances can't be made so an individual is capable of playing just the way they want, an adventure path is bad and shouldn't be played.
Not at all, if I had different players, or at least if that one player wasn't at the table, it might be a perfectly good AP. However, all APs have to be adjusted for the players at that table, in my experience. So I get that WotW might be too evil for their tables, I was simply stating that my table, when playing evil, WotW is just not evil enough.
Your "judgey pants" seem awefully tight.
Every one of my posts anywhere in this forum, only applies to my table. I don't know what anyone else's table is like, and am in no position to judge what works best for them (I have no idea what they want), so I would never infer what works at my table should or could apply to anyone else. I just offer suggestions from my perspective.
Apparently if you aren't a hero or allowances can't be made so an individual is capable of playing just the way they want, an adventure path is bad and shouldn't be played.Not at all, if I had different players, or at least if that one player wasn't at the table, it might be a perfectly good AP. However, all APs have to be adjusted for the players at that table, in my experience. So I get that WotW might be too evil for their tables, I was simply stating that my table, when playing evil, WotW is just not evil enough.
Your "judgey pants" seem awefully tight.
Every one of my posts anywhere in this forum, only applies to my table. I don't know what anyone else's table is like, and am in no position to judge what works best for them (I have no idea what they want).
My "judgey pants" have nothing to do with your post. More versus the general sentiment in this thread that somehow an "evil" campaign is "bad".
I agree that the AP is very tame which my post (which I was expanding on when you replied) states.
Ah, I thought your quote of mine and your response was pointed at me (in a seemingly negative way), however as far as I can tell, we mostly agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, uh, week after week after week, for more decades than I want to admit, I've sat at game tables. Over those decades, I've played under dozens of GMs and I've GMed for dozens of different groups adding up to probably over a hundred different players (only counting the long-duration players that stuck around, ignoring the guys who joined, didn't like the group and disappeared after a session or two).
During all that time, I've very rarely seen a "good" group. Lone Ranger, Captain America, Superman, whatever - true, blue, white-hat-wearing, save-the-damsels, and shoot-the-villain-in-the-hand "good guys". Maybe one or two players trying to play that in the group, maybe even sometimes successfully, but generally all the groups end up being much the same:
Go to other people's* homes, kill them, take their stuff. Kill their children. Loot their ancestors' tombs. Sell for profit to buy better killing machines. Rinse and repeat.
*very loose definition that includes monsters and, well, all the stuff in the bestiaries. But, frequently also includes sentient humanoids, some of which are as intelligent and as civilized as the PCs themselves.
By any true ethical standards, at most the tables I've experienced the PCs would be considered "bad guys", at least some of the time. Just because the "bad guys" choose to kill lawful hobgoblins and refer to their ethnic cleansing as "ridding the world of evil hobgolins" doesn't change the fact that those men, women, and children were living, often innocently, often minding their own business, until the PCs showed up and murdered them and took their stuff - the fact that they have yellow skin and tusks doesn't usually justify the slaughter.
Gray area? Maybe. But gray is the shade of neutral, not good.
In any case, Way of the Wicked is pretty much the same thing as I experienced at all those game tables, but it's just more often the case that the "bad guys" are just innocent people** living innocent lives.
Tighter definition mostly limited to core PC races.
So, long story short, re-skin a hobgoblin "skin" onto Way of the Wicked and suddenly you're playing "good guys". It's really not much more "wicked" than that.
My "judgey pants" have nothing to do with your post. More versus the general sentiment in this thread that somehow an "evil" campaign is "bad".
I don't know that anyone's really said that. Its not a campaign I'd enjoy but that doesn't make it bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, uh, week after week after week, for more decades than I want to admit, I've sat at game tables. Over those decades, I've played under dozens of GMs and I've GMed for dozens of different groups adding up to probably over a hundred different players (only counting the long-duration players that stuck around, ignoring the guys who joined, didn't like the group and disappeared after a session or two).
During all that time, I've very rarely seen a "good" group. Lone Ranger, Captain America, Superman, whatever - true, blue, white-hat-wearing, save-the-damsels, and shoot-the-villain-in-the-hand "good guys". Maybe one or two players trying to play that in the group, maybe even sometimes successfully, but generally all the groups end up being much the same:
Go to other people's* homes, kill them, take their stuff. Kill their children. Loot their ancestors' tombs. Sell for profit to buy better killing machines. Rinse and repeat.
*very loose definition that includes monsters and, well, all the stuff in the bestiaries. But, frequently also includes sentient humanoids, some of which are as intelligent and as civilized as the PCs themselves.
By any true ethical standards, at most the tables I've experienced the PCs would be considered "bad guys", at least some of the time. Just because the "bad guys" choose to kill lawful hobgoblins and refer to their ethnic cleansing as "ridding the world of evil hobgolins" doesn't change the fact that those men, women, and children were living, often innocently, often minding their own business, until the PCs showed up and murdered them and took their stuff - the fact that they have yellow skin and tusks doesn't usually justify the slaughter.
Gray area? Maybe. But gray is the shade of neutral, not good.
In any case, Way of the Wicked is pretty much the same thing as I experienced at all those game tables, but it's just more often the case that the "bad guys" are just innocent people** living innocent lives.
Tighter definition mostly limited to core PC races....
I have actually argued against this mentality at the game table. Goblins attack your town? You are justified in pursuit and slaughter. But seeking out the goblin tribe who has done nothing to the humans and murdering them is not justified, is an evil act, and will have an affect on your alignment if I am the GM. And if I am in the party and playing a good character, it is probably grounds for my player to step in and defend the goblins.
Derek - that view's fine as long as the goblins react in the same way. As in greet the PCs either indifferently or in a friendly manner. If the morality of the world is to be grey on gray, then the 'monsters' need to behave similarly.
I have actually argued against this mentality at the game table. Goblins attack your town? You are justified in pursuit and slaughter. But seeking out the goblin tribe who has done nothing to the humans and murdering them is not justified, is an evil act, and will have an affect on your alignment if I am the GM. And if I am in the party and playing a good character, it is probably grounds for my player to step in and defend the goblins.
I've seen that. I've also seen total lunar eclipses. I cannot say which is more rare.
I'm not criticizing; I'm just suggesting that IME you're in the rare minority.
My current group just wiped out a small goblin cave last weekend. Nobody even raised an eyebrow about it - the watch captain back at town offered a gp per ear so off they went and killed every goblin in the cave. Nobody is playing an evil character, some of them are presumably "good" aligned.
They don't call us "murder-hobos" for nothing...
|
|
It's an excellent adventure path, but not everybody's cup of tea. Some people play the game to enjoy their character's motivations that move the story along, and don't feel pleasure out of evil motivations.
Sometimes, I do. I don't think I'd enjoy the whole adventure path played straight through, though. Overall, I like playing the hero.
You can still roleplay your character's motivations and enjoy the game in an evil AP. It is usually called "getting into character", it doesn't mean you are evil in real life.
Evil people can still have heroes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can still roleplay your character's motivations and enjoy the game in an evil AP. It is usually called "getting into character", it doesn't mean you are evil in real life.
Evil people can still have heroes.
YOU can. Not everybody can. The experience of roleplaying is subjective, and we are all individuals. For some, evil acts leave them uncomfortable.
Who are you to tell someone else what they can enjoy?
YOU can. Not everybody can. The experience of roleplaying is subjective, and we are all individuals. For some, evil acts leave them uncomfortable.
Who are you to tell someone else what they can enjoy?
He said you can, but that doesn't mean you should, only that you're able too, if you choose so (its possible). I think roleplaying allows one to explore concepts that are not necessarily your own, which can be a fun experience. I have a PC right now I'm playing as a high-functioning sociopath like Dexter or Sherlock Holmes, he isn't evil, rather neutral - he doesn't understand good and evil and has no empathy, I'm quite enjoying this unusual PC (as something outside of my experience). It certainly isn't for everyone, and nobody (I don't think Skylancer4 is) suggesting that not trying is somehow wrong, just that its possible.