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?
Enjoying the game means understanding it is a game. If you are seriously investing that much into it that you are possibly causing yourself discomfort or worse. That is a personal issue, quite probably one that should be dealt with before being involved with activities like roleplaying.
The general understanding is we are all healthy well adjusted people playing a game. A game should be fun, a social outing you enjoy regardless of the AP.
Or maybe I'm just lucky.
Regardles, the point still stands, people get "shy" about evil campaigns for no good reason the majority of the time, but don't have problems killing mercilessly as a "hero" so maybe I'm wrong about the whole well adjusted part.
I've only ever played WotW through the first part of the first book. Multiple times, with different GMs
Every time I found it extremely railroady. And I felt "well it doesn't matter what my character wants. Only what Asmodeus wants." It's even there right in the beginning. Maybe I was playing the wrong characters. But I usually build characters with some sort of goal and personallity, but I had the feeling as long as those goals are not "I want to see Asmodeus as the supreme overlord of everything" you'll have problems.
Yes sure you have some freedom on how you do something, but the overall path is set in stone. That's usually the case in APs of course, but most I've played so far at least seem to disguise it better.
They leave the impression that it was the players choice to go through the snake infested canyon (by giving three more alternatives that are much worse), not a pregone conclusion by having an NPC make that decission.
in WotW it was really "You make this blood contract with Asmodeus and now you're his b%%%!". It's just "go into that canyon!" - "Yes, my master!"
Maybe it was the GMs, but as I said, multiple ones, so I'm not sure they were all bad.
|
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.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?
I know it's possible. I also it's not even possible, for some people. My father absolutely can't stand the concept. Again, it's subjective. Ferris wheels scare me, because of my fear of heights, and how long I have to sit up there waiting to get off, but you might have a blast. Roller-coasters, I enjoy just fine, even the ones that scare some people so much they puke.
What you enjoy or don't enjoy is completely subjective.
Again, I've enjoyed evil characters. I know it can be enjoyable. I still prefer it in limited doses.
|
|
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?
Enjoying the game means understanding it is a game. If you are seriously investing that much into it that you are possibly causing yourself discomfort or worse. That is a personal issue, quite probably one that should be dealt with before being involved with activities like roleplaying.
The general understanding is we are all healthy well adjusted people playing a game. A game should be fun, a social outing you enjoy regardless of the AP.
Or maybe I'm just lucky.
Regardles, the point still stands, people get "shy" about evil campaigns for no good reason the majority of the time, but don't have problems killing mercilessly as a "hero" so maybe I'm wrong about the whole well adjusted part.
So, you'd like to preach to my father that he's 'doing it wrong' if he can't enjoy playing an evil jerk?
Seriously, that's pathetic.
The first time I played WotW it was as an ancient necromancer who had essentially been level-drained back to the beginning.
He was willing to align with the Asmodeans because it suited his purpose but he was by no means a True Believer or even a real follower. He re-wrote his own contract before signing it, and given that he signed a false name in someone else's blood (yay necromancy), the contract really had no sway over him in the first place.
In spite of all that, I never had any problem moving along with the plot and coming up with ways to align my characters own motivations with the plot of the adventure. I found it extremely rewarding.
|
|
I've only ever played WotW through the first part of the first book. Multiple times, with different GMs
Every time I found it extremely railroady. And I felt "well it doesn't matter what my character wants. Only what Asmodeus wants." It's even there right in the beginning. Maybe I was playing the wrong characters. But I usually build characters with some sort of goal and personallity, but I had the feeling as long as those goals are not "I want to see Asmodeus as the supreme overlord of everything" you'll have problems.
Yes sure you have some freedom on how you do something, but the overall path is set in stone. That's usually the case in APs of course, but most I've played so far at least seem to disguise it better.
They leave the impression that it was the players choice to go through the snake infested canyon (by giving three more alternatives that are much worse), not a pregone conclusion by having an NPC make that decission.in WotW it was really "You make this blood contract with Asmodeus and now you're his b!!%#". It's just "go into that canyon!" - "Yes, my master!"
Maybe it was the GMs, but as I said, multiple ones, so I'm not sure they were all bad.
Oh, it's very railroady in places, especially the beginning, but there are other places where it has a sandbox feel, within the preset framework. That framework is what makes it work, though - without it, evil parties (lawful or not) end up being just too much chaos. :p
What you enjoy or don't enjoy is completely subjective.
Again, I've enjoyed evil characters. I know it can be enjoyable. I still prefer it in limited doses.
Oh, certainly. In fact my mentioned PC didn't start out a sociopath, rather he's been corrupted by a curse with insanity, and its how I'm playing him, but I wouldn't want to always play such a character. I generally play heroic good guys, even paladins. (I also play paladins for the same reason as playing a sociopath, because I'm not that guy.)
Oh, it's very railroady in places, especially the beginning, but there are other places where it has a sandbox feel, within the preset framework. That framework is what makes it work, though - without it, evil parties (lawful or not) end up being just too much chaos. :p
I agree that you need some sort of framework for an evil game.
I just found it far to restrictive for my tastes.|
|
Oh, it's very railroady in places, especially the beginning, but there are other places where it has a sandbox feel, within the preset framework. That framework is what makes it work, though - without it, evil parties (lawful or not) end up being just too much chaos. :pI agree that you need some sort of framework for an evil game.
I just found it far to restrictive for my tastes.
Heck, some people like those crazy chaotic games...but it sucks for an AP. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's very railroady in places...
As an aside, I'm currently writing a PF one-shot module for an Old West setting (for publication) and the entire one-shot occurs on a steam train - you can't get more railroad than that. :P
Its very CoC and Deadlands inspired - and heavy with aberrations. Plus I've created "deck plan" maps of every car of the entire train.
I've found as a player, that WotW does not really give a DM as much help fleshing things out as it could. I'm midway through the second chapter at the moment, and I've avoided spoilers for the plot as much as possible, (though the DM seems determined to be the biggest source for such things.) so I don't know yet if it gets better. But it really seems to have A) instant gratification in most of its hooks and B) tends to flounder without major player buy in. And it doesn't really seem to reward anything other than mindless villainy. Scheming, monologue-ing, far reaching plans...the AP doesn't appear to provide these for us. As someone who does not focus on mechanics and power builds, I've found it rather difficult to find a niche. I'm retiring my original character at 7th level in favor of his daughter, a half celestial fathered upon one of the lillends we captured. Hopefully she'll provide a better outlet for my exploration of what it means to be evil.
| 2 people 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?
Enjoying the game means understanding it is a game. If you are seriously investing that much into it that you are possibly causing yourself discomfort or worse. That is a personal issue, quite probably one that should be dealt with before being involved with activities like roleplaying.
The general understanding is we are all healthy well adjusted people playing a game. A game should be fun, a social outing you enjoy regardless of the AP.
Or maybe I'm just lucky.
Regardles, the point still stands, people get "shy" about evil campaigns for no good reason the majority of the time, but don't have problems killing mercilessly as a "hero" so maybe I'm wrong about the whole well adjusted part.
Gee, thanks, Skylancer - given the story I just told, I'm glad you were able to diagnose me as having personal issues. I'll immediately stop roleplaying and go seek professional help, because I'm not having fun the same way you are!
I know I wouldn't play it. But that is a personal choice. I like to be the big shiny hero that saves people.
It's not right/wrong to play evil or not - just a matter of taste.
I don't watch TV shows or Movies with gangsters as the main character, I didn't watch Dexter because I didn't want to watch a show about a serial killer. I wouldn't enjoy it - I'd just watch it and root for them to be caught and imprisoned. It's just the way I'm emotionally wired.
Not wanting to play an evil character isn't "not roleplaying" or "not as good a roleplayer" any more than someone who explores evil themes in a character is a bad person and evil themselves.
When I read Lord of the Rings, I felt a little sorry for Sauron. He didn't really seem all that bad. Just sat in his tower and suffered abuse for behavior he might (or might not) have done so long ago that barely anyone even remembers it. Meanwhile his enemies build huge armies to try to crush him so he's forced to defend himself with whatever he can get; mostly orcs. He made some questionable choices and the whole world hated him for it, but other than defend himself and waging war against enemies who tried to destroy him, he really didn't do much to justify the animosity everyone had for him, or to justify being hunted and destroyed. At least, during the actual Lord of the Rings story, he didn't seem like such a bad guy; more like a victim with a tragic past.
When I wrote Soulrender, I was determined to make sure my bad guys were bad. Very bad. So bad that, when the good guys triumphed, not one reader would feel any twinge of pity for the bad guys. Maybe, the readers would even cheer, or breathe a sigh of relief, that such awful bad guys were thwarted by the heroes.
As such, I wrote chapters in that book that are really wicked and absolutely not for children. I gave the reader insight into the enemy and a clear and unquestionable understanding of how evil the bad guys are.
Writing these chapters required me to think like the bad guys. Get into their heads. Understand their motivations. It wasn't pretty. In fact, it was downright disturbing. But I think, in the end, I got the results I wanted; readers have told me how glad they were that the bad guy got what he deserved.
Through it all, I managed to recognize that I was exploring evil to create entertainment. As icky as it got, I was able to compartmentalize my evil entertainment from my reality. Not everyone was able to do this. My brother-in-law read one of these chapters and advised my wife of 12 years to divorce me and run away with the kids to keep them safe. Fortunately, my wife didn't think that was necessary (and, as far as you know, she's still alive).
For me, Way of the Wicked is like that, but on a much more simplistic scale, not even close to the degree I took it for my novel, and because it's much more child-friendly (pg-13 instead of R), it's easy to compartmentalize and get past it without having to feel like I'm turning into a villain myself.
Not everyone's cup of tea. I get that.
But my point is that maybe it should be possible to find entertainment without having to become too attached.
Then again, for some, being too attached IS the best way to play, in which case it's probably not "too" attached after all.
I already talked about the degree of wickedness in this AP, so I'll add a note about the railroadiness. Level 1 is a small sandbox with a clear goal at the end. Think of it like a level in Deus Ex or Hitman Blood Money. There's a sizeable enclosed area, but you can navigate it and tackle its challenges however you want.
Level 2 is a linear dungeon crawl. It has some puzzles and non obvious alternative ways of solving things.
Level 3 is a railroad boat ride. This part is 100% railroad, I admit.
Level 4 and 5 are a medium sandbox involving a small town and a LG fortress that the players need to destroy within 1 month. Things become a lot more open to player creativity and ingenuity here, because the focus is on guerilla warfare rather than a straight up fight.
Levels 6-9 are a large sandbox involving a large town, a large forest, and an enormous evil base that the villains get to run themselves for 7 months. Events occur over that span of time, including invasions of NPC parties on the players' base. It reminds me a lot of Dungeon Keeper 2 and Evil Genius.
I can't speak of anything further because I haven't read or played in book 3 onwards.
I've only ever played WotW through the first part of the first book. Multiple times, with different GMs
This is the flaw in your judgement.
The first part of the first books is railroady in that you escape from jail or die.Of the many published AP's I have read and run this is apart possibly from kingmaker the least rail roaded plot of any of them.
Castlonum is correct and the degree of Freedom to plot your own methods and eventually goals increases massively
Also the player who dropped did not as far as I can tell drop because it was an evil game. It may have been because he would have to be 'somewhat' lawful team player and he may have thought that he could not sneak some of his normal combining rules from 3 other rpg's so get super powers past me. But he failed to communicate a reason to me despite my efforts to include him
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.)
The swearing of that oath is mandatory?
I doubt that would work out well for the character I had in mind.
Then again, a follower of Asmodeus SHOULD expect a backstabbing from an Inquisitor of Norgorber.
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.)The swearing of that oath is mandatory?
I doubt that would work out well for the character I had in mind.
Then again, a follower of Asmodeus SHOULD expect a backstabbing from an Inquisitor of Norgorber.
The oath is, it is basically the "leash" on the characters to keep them from getting tooooo out of hand (aka binds them together so they don't go murdering each other). It is also the initial event that points them in the direction for the story to proceed. It is basically swearing fealty to a lord and that no harm would come to your fellow knights (to compare to a "good" aligned campaign), not much more restrictive than that.
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?
Enjoying the game means understanding it is a game. If you are seriously investing that much into it that you are possibly causing yourself discomfort or worse. That is a personal issue, quite probably one that should be dealt with before being involved with activities like roleplaying.
The general understanding is we are all healthy well adjusted people playing a game. A game should be fun, a social outing you enjoy regardless of the AP.
Or maybe I'm just lucky.
Regardles, the point still stands, people get "shy" about evil campaigns for no good reason the majority of the time, but don't have problems killing mercilessly as a "hero" so maybe I'm wrong about the whole well adjusted part.
So, you'd like to preach to my father that he's 'doing it wrong' if he can't enjoy playing an evil jerk?
Seriously, that's pathetic.
Guess those judgey pants *are* on pretty tight after all.
The oath is, it is basically the "leash" on the characters to keep them from getting tooooo out of hand (aka binds them together so they don't go murdering each other). It is also the initial event that points them in the direction for the story to proceed. It is basically swearing fealty to a lord and that no harm would come to your fellow knights (to compare to a "good" aligned campaign), not much more restrictive than that.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.)The swearing of that oath is mandatory?
I doubt that would work out well for the character I had in mind.
Then again, a follower of Asmodeus SHOULD expect a backstabbing from an Inquisitor of Norgorber.
So basically a contract? That is fine, so long as I can flip the bird at the Lord of Hell after the campaign, and continue my own machinations.
The campaign really, REALLY expects you to be 100% devoted to Asmodeus. Having anyone as your deity that isn't either him or one of his underlings is incredibly ill-advised.
That's kind of a dealbreaker for me.
The oath is, it is basically the "leash" on the characters to keep them from getting tooooo out of hand (aka binds them together so they don't go murdering each other). It is also the initial event that points them in the direction for the story to proceed. It is basically swearing fealty to a lord and that no harm would come to your fellow knights (to compare to a "good" aligned campaign), not much more restrictive than that.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.)The swearing of that oath is mandatory?
I doubt that would work out well for the character I had in mind.
Then again, a follower of Asmodeus SHOULD expect a backstabbing from an Inquisitor of Norgorber.
I agree. I would never play in, or GM for, a full campaign for a group of evil PCs without some hard-wired, unbreakable reason for us to NOT massacre each other. Because without that, it ALWAYS ends with PKs, even TPKs, all initiated by PCs.
Heck, even those CN guys (yeah, I know, for most of those players that's just evil with a misleading label) usually end up giving into party backstabbing at some point.
And even if the players manage to keep their PCs from slaughtering each other, there are usually very good RP reasons for the group to break apart, split up, and derail the campaign. Why on earth would all these evil psychopathic bastards, full of hate and rage and mistrust, hang around together for months or even years? They wouldn't.
For that matter, some "good" groups can't make it work (to wit, the annoying paladin in the group with the scoundrel rogue - usually at each other's throats and only not massacring each other because the paladin has a LG oath and the rogue knows he can't win).
As a one-shot adventure where we play hardcore King-of-the-Mountain and shred each other til there is only one PC left standing, fine, I'm only invested in that for a few weeks at most so it could be fun.
But never for a campaign.
Campaigns need the unbreakable reason to work together as a team or the evil psychopaths won't do it.
(Don't believe me, just search these forums for all the countless threads where players are complaining about disruptive evil characters at their tables).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of a dealbreaker for me.
Why?
After the campaign is over, you retire the Azzy-worshipping character and do something else.
Meanwhile, assuming WotW is truly a fun campaign and assuming you're willing to play an evil character (perhaps of a non-Asmodean persuasion), and assuming the rest of the players at your table are into the idea, you would really walk away from a fun campaign with your friends because the flavor had to be Asmodeus and not Norgerber?
You're that dedicated to backstabbing that you couldn't find a way to enjoy this campaign, with all your friends, just because of Azzy?
The backstabbing is the less important part. I just don't find Asmodeus very interesting as a deity.
Heck, I've never managed to figure out a Cleric of Asmodeus character that I'd actually be interested in playing.
The backstabbing is the less important part. I just don't find Asmodeus very interesting as a deity.
Heck, I've never managed to figure out a Cleric of Asmodeus character that I'd actually be interested in playing.
Well, you could play a rogue of asmodeus, or a fighter of asmodeus, or a wizard of asmodeus, or anything-else of asmodeus. The campaign is not only for clerics and everybody takes the oath, not just the divine casters.
Or you could just play something NOT of asmodeus. You don't have to worship Azzy or like Azzy or find Azzy interesting, or even give a ratfolk's arse about Azzy - but he and his worshipers save you from certain death and want you to do some stuff in return, and take an oath that you'll follow his commands. You can do that without even liking Azzy at all, and even roleplay it as "Yeah, I'll take that stupid oath and follow it while it suits me, then I'll break it as soon as these Azzy worshiping losers get on my nerves too much - then I'm outta here."
Easy peasy.
That's kind of a dealbreaker for me.Why?
After the campaign is over, you retire the Azzy-worshipping character and do something else.
Meanwhile, assuming WotW is truly a fun campaign and assuming you're willing to play an evil character (perhaps of a non-Asmodean persuasion), and assuming the rest of the players at your table are into the idea, you would really walk away from a fun campaign with your friends because the flavor had to be Asmodeus and not Norgerber?
You're that dedicated to backstabbing that you couldn't find a way to enjoy this campaign, with all your friends, just because of Azzy?
What constitutes 'fun' is subjective.
What constitutes 'fun' is subjective.That's kind of a dealbreaker for me.Why?
After the campaign is over, you retire the Azzy-worshipping character and do something else.
Meanwhile, assuming WotW is truly a fun campaign and assuming you're willing to play an evil character (perhaps of a non-Asmodean persuasion), and assuming the rest of the players at your table are into the idea, you would really walk away from a fun campaign with your friends because the flavor had to be Asmodeus and not Norgerber?
You're that dedicated to backstabbing that you couldn't find a way to enjoy this campaign, with all your friends, just because of Azzy?
I did posit it as an assumption.
The backstabbing is the less important part. I just don't find Asmodeus very interesting as a deity.
Heck, I've never managed to figure out a Cleric of Asmodeus character that I'd actually be interested in playing.
Well, you could play a rogue of Asmodeus, or a fighter of Asmodeus, or a wizard of Asmodeus, or anything-else of Asmodeus. The campaign is not only for clerics and everybody takes the oath, not just the divine casters.
Or you could just play something NOT of Asmodeus. You don't have to worship Azzy or like Azzy or find Azzy interesting, or even give a ratfolk's arse about Azzy - but he and his worshippers save you from certain death and want you to do some stuff in return, and take an oath that you'll follow his commands. You can do that without even liking Azzy at all, and even roleplay it as "Yeah, I'll take that stupid oath and follow it while it suits me, then I'll break it as soon as these Azzy worshiping losers get on my nerves too much - then I'm outta here."
Easy peasy.
Well, if THAT is the case, then I could give the campaign a shot.
|
Sometimes it's nice to change things up; have you ever played in an evil campaign before? Are you 100% positive you wouldn't enjoy it, just because it says "evil" on your character sheet?
WotW allows characters like a LE Barrister (who doesn't even need to worship Asmodeus) who is so g#&%*!ned sure of what he's doing is the RIGHT thing (note: not necessarily the GOOD or CORRECT thing) that he ends up in jail and sentenced to death because of his convictions. Or the rogue who accidentally goes too far while trying to pickpocket a noble and ends up killing him, and ends up on death row because of it. There are so many evil characters you can build that aren't just mustache-twirling nutjobs with no depth to them, and I'm a big proponent of "don't knock it until you try it."
But, as always, nobody's forcing you to do anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's nice to change things up; have you ever played in an evil campaign before? Are you 100% positive you wouldn't enjoy it, just because it says "evil" on your character sheet?
It's not "just" saying evil on your character sheet. The campaign asks you to do some very evil things, and while the start of the campaign has you doing them to people who are generally a%~*#$$s and wouldn't get your respect anyways you do do some genuinely awful things to genuinely good people who would be your closest allies and confidantes in a more standard campaign.
I've literally played the entire alignment spectrum at one time or another, but I'm not going to rag on someone for being queasy about torturing innocents or feeding a charmed slave to a bearded devil as part of a celebration.
Sometimes it's nice to change things up; have you ever played in an evil campaign before? Are you 100% positive you wouldn't enjoy it, just because it says "evil" on your character sheet?
Honestly after 30 years of playing primarily good characters of core classes, in standard fantasy settings, I now detest vanilla fantasy, and am always looking to "change things up" in every game I play forward. This is why I designed the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), I wanted to play an oriental game that wasn't another version of Kara-Tur or Rokugan. Japanese horror was a completely different take on the idea. And now working on an Old West Pathfinder game, because normally I don't care for firearms in my normal fantsy game, so I'm designing a firearms-focused setting, because its "a nice way to change things up."
Playing an evil party campaign, indeed is something different, and worthy of pursuit for just that reason.
If every game required you to be the good guy in a vanilla setting, I probably wouldn't play the game anymore.
worship Asmodeus) who is so g#$#&$ned sure of what he's doing is the RIGHT thing (note: not necessarily the GOOD or CORRECT thing) that he ends up in jail and sentenced to death because of his convictions. Or the rogue who accidentally goes too far while trying to pickpocket a noble and ends up killing him, and ends up on death row because of it. There are so many evil characters you can build that aren't just mustache-twirling nutjobs with no depth to them
In my opinion, that's the best way to play it.
I'm just a guy, trying to get by in a tough world. Down on my luck. I'm willing to make ends meet by helping myself to the occasional thing I find lying around; hey, if the owner didn't want to lose it, he would not have just left it lying there in, say, his bedroom closet. Maybe my moral code is not up to the standards of a paladin, but I never try to hurt anybody.
Then one day some mark came home while I was in his basement. I tried to run but he attacked me. Push came to shove, he fell pretty hard, and I ran. But not far enough. Those Talingarde bounty hunters are efficient. They locked me up and the judge sentenced me to execution. Execution! It was that guys fault for coming home. Not my fault, I shouldn't die for it!
Wow, then there was a jailbreak. Awesome! My luck took a turn for the worse there, but maybe now it's looking better.
Only, these guys who helped me out, they want me to work for them. For Asmodeus? No way. He's evil! I won't do it. Except, well, they seem pretty serious about it. I don't think I can get away. Did I just jump out of the frying pan and into the fire (perhaps literally)?
There was no help for it. I gave the oath and now I have an employer. Turns out, he's not so bad. Sure, now I have to do some pretty questionable things, but the pay's good and it's not like they're making me eat babies or kick puppies. Besides, there was no choice.
Hey, I'm getting rich. This Asmodeus guy isn't as bad as everyone said he was. He's mostly just misunderstood. So what about a few dead soldiers at the fort? They could have run away. Or joined us. It's their own damn fault their dead. Yeah, it's not MY fault...
etc.
That guy might be fun to roleplay. Especially if he's always looking for a way out (but not finding it; I really wouldn't be looking to take myself out of the campaign), always looking for redemption. There's a wealth of roleplay opportunities there.
|
|
Sometimes it's nice to change things up; have you ever played in an evil campaign before? Are you 100% positive you wouldn't enjoy it, just because it says "evil" on your character sheet?It's not "just" saying evil on your character sheet. The campaign asks you to do some very evil things, and while the start of the campaign has you doing them to people who are generally a*$&!$*s and wouldn't get your respect anyways you do do some genuinely awful things to genuinely good people who would be your closest allies and confidantes in a more standard campaign.
I've literally played the entire alignment spectrum at one time or another, but I'm not going to rag on someone for being queasy about torturing innocents or feeding a charmed slave to a bearded devil as part of a celebration.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it really such a big deal?
I mean, it's just a story we're telling collectively. Isn't the whole point of this kind of thing to do the bad, evil things in a world where it doesn't really hurt anyone? Where all the evil actions in the world have no repercussions?
Playing an evil party campaign, indeed is something different, and worthy of pursuit for just that reason.
If every game required you to be the good guy in a vanilla setting, I probably wouldn't play the game anymore.
Right, it's a matter of being able to do things differently every now and then. WotW (and I'm assuming the upcoming Hell's Vengeance) are pretty unique in allowing the players to break out of the usual FIGHT THE FORCES OF EVIL! shtick which can get repetitive.
@this topic in general: Sure, the group should agree that playing that kind of game is what they want to do, instead of having it forced on them, but if 90% of the table is down, why not try it? Maybe you'd find out you like more than you think!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a big deal to me to pretend to do evil things and I wouldn't want to play in a WoTW campaign as a result. I am not interested in role playing someone who would sacrifice an innocent to summon a demon lord. I don't think this is a personal failing or makes me less of a 'role player' in any way.
The campaign really, REALLY expects you to be 100% devoted to Asmodeus. Having anyone as your deity that isn't either him or one of his underlings is incredibly ill-advised.
This is untrue. The contract you sign says that you must be loyal to Asmodeus, and the high priest, yes. But later in the adventure (I think book 4,) you get to betray and murder the high priest, and throw off your shackles. You never have to actually be loyal to the high priest or Asmodeus to begin with, you simply need to sign the contract and do what the high priest tells you to do.
The high priest is a goal-oriented guy and doesn't really care about the finer details of what the PCs do, as long as they don't compromise his mission or fail. He might be annoyed if you don't worship Asmodeus, but he's not gonna kill his best medium level minions just because of that, because he doesn't have many resources. If the PCs do something particularly egregious but still aren't actively working against him, like fail an important mission or kill off another of his important minions for no reason, he'll just have the PCs punished and tortured horribly, then send them on their next mission.
Sometimes it's nice to change things up; have you ever played in an evil campaign before? Are you 100% positive you wouldn't enjoy it, just because it says "evil" on your character sheet?It's not "just" saying evil on your character sheet. The campaign asks you to do some very evil things, and while the start of the campaign has you doing them to people who are generally a*$&!$*s and wouldn't get your respect anyways you do do some genuinely awful things to genuinely good people who would be your closest allies and confidantes in a more standard campaign.
I've literally played the entire alignment spectrum at one time or another, but I'm not going to rag on someone for being queasy about torturing innocents or feeding a charmed slave to a bearded devil as part of a celebration.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it really such a big deal?
I mean, it's just a story we're telling collectively. Isn't the whole point of this kind of thing to do the bad, evil things in a world where it doesn't really hurt anyone? Where all the evil actions in the world have no repercussions?
It isn't a big deal to me, no. I've played everything from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil and never had any issues with it.
But, shocking as it is, other people have different feelings on the matter and not everyone thinks exactly the same way that I do. A revolutionary thought, I know.
The campaign really, REALLY expects you to be 100% devoted to Asmodeus. Having anyone as your deity that isn't either him or one of his underlings is incredibly ill-advised.This is untrue. The contract you sign says that you must be loyal to Asmodeus, and the high priest, yes. But later in the adventure (I think book 4,) you get to betray and murder the high priest, and throw off your shackles. You never have to actually be loyal to the high priest or Asmodeus to begin with, you simply need to sign the contract and do what the high priest tells you to do.
The high priest is a goal-oriented guy and doesn't really care about the finer details of what the PCs do, as long as they don't compromise his mission or fail. He might be annoyed if you don't worship Asmodeus, but he's not gonna kill his best medium level minions just because of that, because he doesn't have many resources. If the PCs do something particularly egregious but still aren't actively working against him, like fail an important mission or kill off another of his important minions for no reason, he'll just have the PCs punished and tortured horribly, then send them on their next mission.
Being loyal to Asmodeus and being loyal to his high priest are not the same thing, and as I recall your betrayal of the high priest comes on order from Asmodeus (due to a clause in the original contract).
I ask again: have you ever tried playing such a character?
3 years ago, we ran our last evil campaign, not only was everyone evil, but everyone was also undead. My PC was a fallen paladin, anti-paladin, who became a graveknight, though I ran him as lawful evil. Arguably, I'd say he was more lawful neutral, only because one player ran a NE cleric ghoul lord, and the things he did made all the players look at him in aghast. Compared to his actions, everyone seemed neutral in reality.
|
|
The question was actually aimed at Azih, gamer-printer. I should have specified. That sounds like a fun character, though.
It isn't a big deal to me, no. I've played everything from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil and never had any issues with it.
But, shocking as it is, other people have different feelings on the matter and not everyone thinks exactly the same way that I do. A revolutionary thought, I know.
You can cut the snark, I haven't once even remotely implied that others can't have different opinions on the subject.