Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chronomage 05-22-04, 06:58 AM	It's a weird thing. I very much enjoy running heroic adventures for my Players, and setting up situations with moral quandaries/quagmires. When they get to the gritty point where they spit in the teeth of the Matron Mother or the Wearer of Purple, saying something brain dead heroic like, "Your festering evil is about to get LANCED!" I know that something went right. My players SEEMED to be having fun. But then it happened. I come to the group and did the usual for a new campaign. "Okay guys, write down your characters class, region, where he wants to go with PrCs, and what his alignment is." They all handed me papers and on every single one, "EVIL!" So now I find myself writing an evil adventure and I must say, it's been a lot of FUN! All I did was turn everything around. Now its the players by the order of their employers that are causing the trouble and forcing the good guys, whether Purple Dragons, or Harpers, to react and fight off the menace that's being posed. For instance, I had the party hired to steal a top secret chest that was being shipped from a moonstar cell to silverymoon. NOrmally I would have told the heroes, okay the Harpers hire you telling you a top secret chest has been stolen and the Paladin that was carrying it has been killed. Find out who killed her, who took the package, and what's in the chest. How many of you have walked on the other side of the fence, as players or DM? Did you enjoy it? What kind of challenges did you run into, or what was easier than you thought? It's a fun subject. Personally, I want my group to go all the way. Not just join and take over an evil organization but FOUND one, something we can come back to when/if they play heroes again. Or, hell lead a conquest into the abyss, overthrow a demon prince and take his scepter and throne for their own.
Rasmus 05-22-04, 08:09 AM	I have never run a group with only evil characters, but I sometimes run groups with evil and good characters mixed. When you have good rp'ers, as I am fortunate to have, it's a lot of fun and provides interesting encounters and brings different perspectives and motivations into play. It only works because my players aren't: "Your evil, so I kill you!" types of players. Recently the players were travelling along the Trade Way, and was stopped at a toll post. The guards tried to cheat them by having them pay too much road tax. After some negotiation they reached the legal price and most of the group was happy about that, but the evil merchant son (aris/rogue) didn't want some low-life soldier to take his money, so he tried to take it back. He naturally failed and the guards noticed. The were fined to give the guards all their horses (which they had just bought the day before!) and was let go. The paladin of the group was a bit upset (naturally), but the rogue explained that it was his way of showing the guard the error of his ways, which led to a moral debate (the rogue was lying, naturally). It was a great rp experience, just because I allowed a NE character in the group.
Chronomage 05-22-04, 08:26 AM	I always encouraged my players to play with an evil character in their group, which is why I have them write their characters on slips of paper to hand to me, rather than say right out front what they want to do. Course, this doesn't work well for certain evil gods with no discretion, and certainly not for blackguards. Still, an evil sorcerer or evil rogue works perfectly. The test I'm putting myself to right now is to create an adventure the players could have completed as good guys, but turned the tables and made evil. Perfect example of this type was in the Baldurs Gate II game. You find this kidnappers den and roust the kidnappers. But upstairs is their latest trophy, and with the right dialog, you can ransom her off for the same reward!
Tempus665 05-22-04, 09:30 AM	At a certain point, two of the three PC's had turned to evil (promises of power and wealth, all too easy), and it affected the group in a very bad way. Since the third member was still of good alignment, they often had conflcting desires and goals. In the end, the two evil PC's decided to place a Helmet of Opposite Alignment on her head, which resulted in her escape and them, fearing her wrath, fleeing to the Astral plane. I had to make up some major story twists to mend the situation. This, and the notion that a lot of evil characters are driven merely by their own desires of gaining personal wealth and power (a desire I do not stimulate) makes it unlikely for me to allow evil PCs again.
Chronomage 05-22-04, 09:38 AM	Depends on the group I suppose. Some groups are more tolerant of each other, and understand that even evil characters can work together, with some friction to be expected. Hell, they make perfect compatriots when sharing a laugh over some blackhearted deed. BTW, I especially liked a part in my first post and am incorporating that into a little cutscene for the players. Goes something like this: The players are traveling along with a caravan to some city. Two other guests are a bard, whose composing an epic poem, and a wizard creating a corresponding book - The Bard: "And then the just knight, coming upon the foul worm, said unto its vileness, "Fiend, thou art a corruption like unto a festering wound upon this earth! Prepare to be...LANCED!" - The wizard: "Lanced! And it plays off of the double adjective, one to lance a boil as a surgeon would, the other to apply the knights lance in combat. Brillian! Bloody brillaint!" - The Bard: "Thank you, you're too kind." I imagine this as one of 3 cutscenes, just to amuse the players and possibly drive them to commit their first murder.
Chronomage 05-22-04, 10:51 AM	One thing that I mean to do in the campaign is split up the party but keep everyone OOC aware of what's going on. I want the party to get used to the idea of their fellows doing things without them which can sometimes cause backlash, or would be contrary to what another PC would like. It's a nice way of easing them into it, so there isn't a lot of suspicion that might otherwise tear the party apart. It'll be especially funny when they start using sense motive and spot checks on their errant companion, to divine as characters what they the players already know.
{SG}Veldrin 05-22-04, 04:11 PM	Try running a neutral party, you never know whats going to happen :confused: Evil parties can be alot of fun, we once played up a good and evil party seperatly, I was in the Evil party then. Our leader was a NE fighter who had a Half-Orc Barbarian as his loyal henchman who all kept us in check. He was the brother of the Paladin leading the Good party. It all came down to a showdown between the two parties, it was hilarious. The paladin tried to bribe PC`s from the Evil party over to his side, and the evil party used all manner of nasty tricks. "Move and your unconsious wizard here gets it" :cool:
Brahzs M'ahnkei 05-22-04, 11:34 PM	One of the best adventures I ever had the pleasure of playing in was set in Menzoberranzon. It was a lot of fun to role-play the male/ female heirarchy and dabble in the political intrigue. I played a Blackguard of Varaughn, and had more fun with him than any other character I've ever played; he was the sneakiest, slimiest drow that any of the party (claimed ;) ) to have ever seen. He was the only character that my DM ever advised me _not_ to play- otherwise the party was going to kill him. :P I agree, however, that it depends on your party, and whether or not they can handle the roleplaying; it can be hard on a group that is not ready to play an evil-aligned adventure. Good- aligned characters often need less of a reason to stay together as a party than do evil-aligned characters. And those evil parties that do stay together only do so (often times) to screw each other over- they are evil, after all. I am a teacher, and run an after school RPG club with some of my students. I have outlawed characters of evil alignment in my campaign b/c I don't think that all of the players could handle it. If one person isn't having fun, or otherwise enjoying the game as a whole, then there is no point to it all. Peace and cookies. ;)
Capn Charlie 05-24-04, 12:42 PM	3/4 of the group in my current game is is evil, and it makes for some of the funniest things I have ever heard or seen(in my mind's eye). I have found that one of the best parts is I can still run most of the adventures I would with a good or neutral group. These guys are essentially mercenaries willing to do anything for cash, you know, like most adventurers.
Gotrex 05-25-04, 09:15 AM	I love playing evil i find im much more creative with my evil characters than with my good ones though as other player have said you need to proper players to do it its no good if you come to a situation were you need to kill another PC (not saying this always happens but its definatly more likely in an evil or evil/good party) and then having the person get upset OOC
Gemstone 05-26-04, 12:11 PM	I actually play a Lawful Evil wiz6/ftr3 whos name is Keledar Greyeye. The thing is that no players know that he is evil and his entire plan is to shortly, use the other characters to gain personal power. However, he have developed a friendship with some of the characters, but he is still evil. Recently, he died and ended up in Hel since he was refused Valhall (a norse mythology campaign) and made a deal with the godess of death Hel, to be resurected as a Lich to further his cause and attain divinity. The players have no idea of this and they will be hired (for lots of gold and magical items) to make his dirthy work.
Selgaunt 05-26-04, 03:23 PM	I am currently playing an 8th level fighter/4th level assassin of Shar. His alignment is Lawful evil and I LOVE playing him. Althought the other members of the group are somewhat of "good" alignment, he does get along with a few of them. And then, one of the other players took a priestess of Selune(without knowing who my patron deity was) and my character did what he had to do...(that is, kill the bit.ch priestess as soon as he could) so he slit her throat while he was on guard one evening! He, he, he!!:cool: Admittedly, by buddy wasn't too pleased when the DM told him that his character was dead, but he understood that being a follower of Shar, I had no choice in killing his character! Even though my character is of evil alignment, he doesn't mind adventuring with his group, cause it pays very well, and he can do what ever he feels like doing!
Damien_Hiro 05-26-04, 04:16 PM	Good will always triumph over evil, because evil is bad and good is good. I really despise evil PCs and I go out of my way to kill them and make their experience terrible. I want a role playing experience with heores not BBEG. There is enough real evil in the world and I do not need any of my players imagining anymore. But that is just me.
Another Gnome 05-26-04, 04:35 PM	The first evil PC I let a player to run in my table tried to sell out his party members to a band of goblins. The evil PC was promptly killed and I banned evil PCs forevermore. Case closed. That said... There's nothing inherently evil about evil PCs, and in a proper group of players (proper = not even thinking about betraying party members under any circumstances whatsoever), evil PCs aren't any more difficult to handle than good PCs. To a certain degree, the only difference is who they kill, not how or why...
thalious 05-26-04, 05:50 PM	I am blessed with "good" players. They know that if they plan to play evil, their only allies in the world are more than likely the other PCs in the party, because any other ally they meet or find will more than likely be evil too, and we all know how Trustable Evil is of strangers. As a DM, I tend to keep evil parties on their toes and with little time to relax---and fight among themselves. Sometimes PC vs PC fights happen, which is fine so long as honest RP led to it and not some petty issue between players--thus far, the few interPC conflicts I've DMed have been the result of good and FUN RP. Damein...... going out of your way to kill an Evil PC just for being evil is shady at best. Be brave and just your players NO EVIL PCs, if you feel so strongly about it. Acting otherwise kinda makes you look like a powertripping DM with an abusive streak.
Capn Charlie 05-26-04, 06:18 PM	Well, to elaborate on my earlier statement, I like to let my players play whatever kind of character will make them happy. I go out of my way to give players the characters they want, and have been blessed greatly for it. For crying out loud, last wee kwas the first time in 5 years that I wasn't the Dm in town. Whenever people want to p[lay dnd they come to my campaign. Perhaps this is making the best of a bad situation, my town is rather small, but I just can't afford to send players away. OF course I keep things balanced, with the pcs being of similiar power levels for the most part, but I would rather encourage players to have fun and be creative than enforce my own idea of what a game should be. Sometimes it bites me in the ass, but for the most part I reap the rewards of giving my players free reign in designing characters. Sometimes it is a feat to bring tyhem into the campaign, but I feel I am up to the challenge. My last two players wanted a Half Succubus Nymph, and a Solar celestial. It too ka bit of work to crank out breakdowns into level form of both concepts, and a fair bit of dancing to get then into my game, but it went rather smoothly, overall, and the players got to finally play concepts they had always wanted but been denied.
Lancelot3679 05-26-04, 07:21 PM	Every now and then, with the right group, yes!! I'm sure that everyone remembers B-2, the classic "Keep on the Border Lands." Well, we did an all "evil" group that posed as good heroes come to help the town. Inevitably, we discovered the bank in the keep, and set up a plan where we killed the two guards, the thief knifed an old wizard book keeper, and the owner was entombed in the vault. We then left the town and the DM had to move us into another adventure hauling and selling our stolen loot. We laughed so hard at the fact that we bailed on the rest of the adventure, it kept us going all night. For TSR's 25th Anniversary they released "Return to Keep on the Border Lands." In it a 2nd level thief runs the old bank, a halfling named Mouse who works as a Pawn Shop and Lock Smith. The description of the building reads: “This sturdy old building was formerly a loan bank whose previous owner, the miser Hubertus, was murdered during a robbery (the murderer was never caught, nor the stolen goods ever recovered).” It made me feel good to know that this predominantly good adventure had been run through enough by evil players that TSR recognized the draw that simple 1-3 level setting would have to turning people evil. Ah, to be 13 again. The only thing better that this is to be the evil member of the team and to have your GM in on it. Played an evil priest posing as a Ranger that went along with the group. To weed the strong from the weak, he would wait until people were injured and then go to “heal” them. Oddly, no matter what he would do, characters wouldn’t recover from the healing he bestowed (no one could tell they were “injury” spells, not healing ones, that would drive characters to death). Add some “Fire and Brimstone” sermons, and the rest of the party converted to worshiping “The Great Lord.” They would later meet “The Great Lord”… Orcus, and have their souls fed to him through a ritual their “friend” would perform. Sadly, I play nice these days, even when the voices in my head tell me to do otherwise.
Desies 05-26-04, 09:58 PM	I played in an evil campaign once and the biggest thing I can tell you is DONT DO IT! It turns out that evil characters that don't agree in intrests will do anything to further themselves. This leads to a lot of PC vs PC combats and ratting eachothers evil deeds to the authorities. However I also played in a campaign where we were all Drow and evil. But, since we all had a similar ideal it worked out just fine.
Gotrex 05-27-04, 08:04 AM	Damien_Hiro if you do that then your posibly one of the worst GMs iv ever heard of if you dont want evil PCs just tell your players not to make them dont go a ruin the game for them Desies yep it happens as a DM one thing you should always make clear(and experienced roleplayers should know this) is that evil PCs must have something built into there personality, background or mission that makes them tolerate the rest of the party
Valis Moonlight 05-27-04, 09:17 AM	I am in full agreement with Gotrex. Its a simple matter as DM to specifically tell your players....Do not make EVIL characters! It is evil to say OK make an evil character then go out of your way to ruin that players fun and torment him for making an evil character. That said, we had the most fun playing in a group with a black guard, 2 drow brothers(wizard and cleric) and an evil fighter. First day out the brothers encounter the blackguard telling some shepard(really a ranger) to BOW before my dark master, then trying to kill him. We manage to sleep poison both of them from the woods, steal the blackguards sword and money as well as the rangers money. Later we meet him again on the road to town and he tells us to bow before his dark god as well, we start laughing maniacally until he runs us down on his damn dirty horse and tramples us almost to death.The fighter appeared and saved us, then requested to be paid or we would die(we paid with the black guards money).....The whole adventure after that was shadowed by 2 drow brothers trying to kill that stupid horse for trampling us. Strangely enough the Blackguard always knew when we were making an attempt on his steeds life.......Hilarious. He also never realized his sword was missing until he got into a duel with the evil fighter...The look on the blackguards face as he searches for his sword only to see my drow wizard holding it over my shoulder and both drow laughing maniacally as the evil fighter was killing him was simply PRICELESS!
Damien_Hiro 05-27-04, 11:59 AM	My group knows not to make an evil character in my campaign. I have had maybe 5 evil characters. I have run campaigns with up to 16 PCs. I have been DMing for 15 years. My PCs tell me I am the best DM they have ever had. I am saying that even if one did make an evil character, then I would kill him within the first five minutes of the game. Abusive, maybe, but I will not let a players gameplay dictate my own. I want to have an enjoyable gaming experience, but I will put my gaming fun behind anyone elses. If that sounds like a problem, play somewhere else. If it was a big deal I would not have 8 people at my house twice a week.
thalious 05-27-04, 12:12 PM	:rolleyes: That may be the case, but you're still a powertripping DM to just kill someone's evil character, rather than just grow a back bone and say NO.
Damien_Hiro 05-27-04, 01:33 PM	I am sure you know what a backbone is, but that is not my problem. If you would be so kind as to not show how obtuse you are with your prejudices. I tell my people not to make evil charcters and t has come up so rarely that it is not a problem in my group. If after I say that there are no evil characters in the group and you come to my table with one, I am killing that charcter. I cannot stand it when people cannot follow simple instructions. So how does your failure to inderstand something my problem? I am not powertripping, I am being a DM. Get over it.
thalious 05-27-04, 01:43 PM	Originally posted by Damien_Hiro If after I say that there are no evil characters in the group and you come to my table with one, I am killing that charcter. I cannot stand it when people cannot follow simple instructions. So how does your failure to inderstand something my problem? I am not powertripping, I am being a DM. Get over it. Try spellcheck. Other wise, now you're making sense.
Damien_Hiro 05-27-04, 01:46 PM	Now I am making sense? Fa fangul a tui. Maybe now you started to listen. Play your game how you want but do not pretend to know me well enough to judge me.
thalious 05-27-04, 01:53 PM	Damein, get off the high horse. Your others posts mentioned nothing about telling your players NO evil PCS, you just spouted off like a powertripper. I don't know you, and from what I've read, i would not want too.
Damien_Hiro 05-27-04, 01:59 PM	Have I insulted you or did I tell you how f'ed up you are because of the way you play? No, so why don't you get off your high horse. You passed judgement on me before knowing all of the facts.
thalious 05-27-04, 02:06 PM	Whatever, go read your other posts. They were written like a L-E DM. As for judgement, I call em like I see em.
weaponsmith 05-27-04, 02:49 PM	lol, Damien_Hiro has bin my DM for 13+ years now. He always tells you the rules up front. I too hate to see PC being Evil. I feel they take away from the RP of the group. Most people i notice that play evil just want a licenses to do what they wish and destory the game for others. Trust me, we had a PC destory a few games by being evil. So everybody take a deep breath and relax...... Now give me some xp Damien. :P
Selgaunt 05-27-04, 02:58 PM	Originally posted by weaponsmith lol, Damien_Hiro has bin my DM for 13+ years now. He always tells you the rules up front. I too hate to see PC being Evil. I feel they take away from the RP of the group. Most people i notice that play evil just want a licenses to do what they wish and destory the game for others. Trust me, we had a PC destory a few games by being evil. So everybody take a deep breath and relax...... Now give me some xp Damien. :P If your players can't properly play an evil character, then they aren't very good role players!!!!
weaponsmith 05-27-04, 03:21 PM	Or maybe they are too good at RP. Only a LE would want to be in a group for a long period of time. You ever think of that!!!!!!! Most Evil PC don't want to get to close to other PC. So just say we have a group of all evil PC. Half the game would be people trying to cover their own back and thinking of way steal from the group or kill someone in it. i rather play with a group of friends and worry about the goal then, worry about witch one in my group is going to kill me. I'm just saying from my experience the game never ends well.
thalious 05-27-04, 03:31 PM	People are just plain dumb when it comes to evil. Evil can have friends, can love someone(s), be loyal, work in teams, and be successful. In my experience, more conflict happens between good and its inablilty to define what is good. Each group is different, my group has never had game ending trouble with evil alignments.
Damien_Hiro 05-27-04, 04:35 PM	Thank you weaponsmith. 500 XP for defending your DM. Brings a tear to my eye, oh nope just some crap that was being flung my way. I enjoy a better role playing experience when we have a good party. Evil will not be played in my campaigns because I do not enjoy it. Thanks for your opinion Thalios. Evil will always fall upon itself. Like I said before when I was trying to be facetious; good will always beat evil because evil is bad and good is good.
LittleCarp04 05-28-04, 10:02 AM	man damien, it sounds like you enjoy using big words to make people feel stupid... i am currently making a evil campaign for my PC's, and they all say they love the stuff ive come up with so far. the fact is that in a evil campaign there is much more freedom, and plot-ability with the whole fact of trying to evade the authorities. my current PC's are: Shadovar Fighter NE, shield dwarf fighter LE, Jerran(from BoVD) Rogue CE, and a Drow Wizard NE. while they may not have a huge strong perfect bond like a group of paladins might have...:rolleyes: they are held together by their love for the game, and the enjoyment they get from playing their characters, and all the loot they get...:D
weaponsmith 05-28-04, 10:13 AM	We have another DM when we play Evil PC but we play them very little. You always get that one PC that takes a little too far. It happens in any game but it usaully happens in Evil ones. IMO. But if it work for you, go for it. Good or Evil it's all about having fun and being with friends. :)
Kuje31 05-28-04, 11:20 AM	Isn't this a fun little flame fest. :) :angel:
Masakado 05-28-04, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Isn't this a fun little flame fest. :) :angel: I agree. And folks wonder why I barely post on these boards anymore.. :rolleyes:
weaponsmith 05-28-04, 11:42 AM	lol, this was my first posting in months.
Kuje31 05-28-04, 11:46 AM	Originally posted by Masakado I agree. And folks wonder why I barely post on these boards anymore.. :rolleyes: Well you and I have had our disagreements but I don't think I've ever stooped this low. :)
Damien_Hiro 05-28-04, 11:48 AM	Man I have not even made it through my first month on the boards yet!
Kuje31 05-28-04, 12:00 PM	Originally posted by Damien_Hiro Man I have not even made it through my first month on the boards yet! :) Ah, no fair, you mean I haven't given you a tongue lashing yet? HAHAH. Well I guess it's cause I haven't seen you post any thing that I disagree with yet...... :bounce: :P
Damien_Hiro 05-28-04, 12:09 PM	Kuje31, I have tons of things to be wrong about, so just wait awhile and I am sure I will be wrong about something.
Cthulhu 05-28-04, 01:27 PM	Many people are going to disagree with you Damien. And its just fact that many of the people disagreeing with you are going to be horribly wrong!:smirk:
Lancelot3679 05-28-04, 04:02 PM	Damien, this is not a flame at you, but I am just wondering, why don't you let your players play evil characters? I don't think that I have seen that anywhere, or a question directed at you regarding that. I mean, while it makes little sense to have an evil character join a party or good characters that are bent on destroying evil (unless the LE character and the other PCs happen to have objectives that go in the same direction, or the Evil PC has a desire to get close to the PCs and then destroy them from the inside out, or it's a plot device to have them move things along, or anything else....) I would first point out your sig that has a quote almost demanding that there are people in this world that are willing to do the dirty work otherwise good people would never take it upon themseleves to do. It doesn't mean that they have to be evil ( a CG character might do, depending upon what you consider evil in your campaign), but there might be redemers and vigilantes that qualify and are more evil than good. Just my opinion, but I think that you might be missing a very explotable and enjoyable set of story lines for your characters. More than that, characters don't need to be evil. A friend of mine is GMing a game where he wouldn't let me play a Kender. Why, not that kender are bad, or that I couldn't do it. He's actually afraid that I would play a kender right for once, and that scares him :cool:
Damien_Hiro 05-28-04, 06:25 PM	I do not allow my players to play evil characters for two reasons. First, I do not enjoy Dming for evil characters becasue in my own life I have seen too much evil. Secondly, I do not have a good time with it. I want a game where heroes triumph over good. Too many times in real life evil beats good. My signature is a reminder to people that freedom is not free. Someone must keep those things that lay in the shadows in their place. It is important to remember how wonderful our freedoms really are and the cost that is paid for them. I just detest seeing evil PC's. It is not my cup of tea. Just like your Dm does not want kenders for his own reason. I do not want evil ones for mine own. My players are free to go and play anywhere else they want, but they do not, they play twice a week at my house. Some of you may not agree with my opinion but to paraphrase Patrick Henry. " I hate everything you say, but I will lay down my life for your right to say it." By the way I do not take anything in this world personal, and I am not offended by anyone's opinion, but thank you for being courteous, Lancelot. Whew, I think this is my longest post.
Chronomage 05-29-04, 08:16 AM	stupid double post.
Chronomage 05-29-04, 08:17 AM	Well, right now I'm having a blast running my evil campaign. The characters just got to Luskan, and you know what? It's easier to get around in Luskan if you're evil. The players already made their first deal start the adventure and now they're doing some sidequests to pick up loot and xp before their first major engagement. It was cool. They went to this cheap bar and found a pirate that wanted them to steal the logbook of a Captain that found something of great value at sea. The only thing he requested was that they not kill anyone, as the crime for accomplice to murder carried a bad sentence/death. SO the party manages to get a rogue into the ship by porthole, but than the rogue can't get back out (failed the escape artist check.) So he locks himself in the cabin, by busting the lock, and the captain comes back and can't get in so they call for the locksmith. The party bribes a locksmith, who takes a long time to open the door and in the meantime slips a potion of invis to the rogue. The rogue slips out with the papers and everyone sells it back to the pirate for hefty gold. I'm looking forward to slowly bringing them to commit truly vile acts like torture. I do have limits though, and won't allow my PCs to commit rape. Rape happens usually off scree by the really bad NPCs. The party is allowed though to commit murder, torture, theft, and arrange for really bad things to happen to really good people. BTW: I consider this thread to be a place for people that ENJOY evil campaigns to talk about the fun times they've had and make notes for what doesn't seem to work in evil campaigns, or what should be avoided. So those that don't enjoy playing evil, after you're done defending yourselves, which you seem to be,...SCRAM! :)
Another Gnome 05-31-04, 07:12 AM	Something often occurring where evil PCs are concerned is the assumption that evil characters somehow have less to worry about, which in an average campaign world should be completely false. Any evil character killing innocent people or otherwise bothering the general population is asking for trouble every bit as much as a good character is, but for some reason many DMs seem to ignore crimes committed by evil characters. There are always adventurers present when an NPC villain is terrorizing the countryside, so why aren't they present when a PC villain is doing the same? And even if bad guy PCs weren't actively hunted down all the time, they should still have twice as much trouble as good guys because they have both good and evil foes against them, whereas good guys generally don't fight one another. Also, the "freedom of choice" enjoyed by evil characters is lost to me. Okay, evil characters can go to greater extremes in getting information out of captured enemies, but torture is about all there is that good guys shouldn't be doing. On the other hand, killing off captured highwaymen to prevent them from warning their comrades may be something the paladin in the party is against, but carrying out frontier justice is not something forbidden from good guys in general. And when most adventurers are assassins and grave robbers by necessity, there's ultimately very little difference between good guys and bad guys among them. For evil PCs, there are roughly two options, the heroic evil and the stupid evil. The stupid evil PC is the "Me, Myself, and I" type that doesn't deserve anything more than the knives of all the other party members (and a few NPCs just to make sure) in his back for as many times as it takes for the player of the stupid evil character to figure out not to ever play stupid evil, dammit! Then there's the heroic evil that, while not a good guy, acts like one by choice or by necessity. Either way, the heroic evil may even do evil openly but he knows not to cross the line and become a villain. The heroic evil gets along with paladins and blackguards alike, and trusts his party members like the good guys do - and is worth trusting himself. Heroic evil types are nicely exemplified by modern fictional characters, such as the Punisher, Jack Bauer, or Batman. Basically, heroic evil types are evil because it says so on their character sheet; their actions have so many evil elements that they have to be labeled evil, but other than that they're no different from "normal heroes". The latter is the kind of evil I wouldn't mind seeing in my games, but unfortunately it's all too rare to have players look past what it reads on their character sheet under alignment.
Chronomage 05-31-04, 07:34 AM	Well, I personally believe there are more types of evil than Stupid and Heroic, but another difference between those two is that the Heroic Evil takes the quests and pointers provided by the DM, and makes something of them, while the stupid evil is content to go around terrorizing a small town by kidnapping and wanton slaughter. But another kind of evil is the more mature stupid evil. This person kills yes, but it's usually for a reason that while not the best of actions usually serves a purpose of advancement. A career villain, that's doing it more than for kicks.
tWiStEdDM 06-01-04, 09:20 AM	"Freedom is not Free"... wow... that's some pretty deep bumper-sticker philosophy. How about "There's no such thing as true Freedom?" Or "Freedom means living your life the way other people want you to?" The prevailing point that seems to keep cropping up throughout this thread is the opinion that evil players are always going to turn on each other eventually. If this is true, then it's probably due to either a badly planned campaign or players/DMs who don't understand that Evil doesn't always mean crazed killer. We've been playing an evil campaign for several months now and while there have been actions that have caused mistrust and suspicion between the players, there has been no actual party conflict as yet. This is mainly because our DM has done his utmost to make all of the characters individual goals and motivations dovetail. Despite being High-level characters (We're playing a 23rd level campaign) we still work for someone more powerful still. For my character, this is currently a means by which he will take over a certain guild in Skullport. The other players also work for the same employer in various capacities, for reason that only they and the DM know. Because of this single unifying point and an understanding that an Evil alignment doesn't automatically make a character a drooling psychopath we have a very enjoyable game that is high on both tension and excitement. Besides the misconception that Evil alignment = psychopath, the other point I'd like to raise about playing evil games is that when done properly, it should generally FORCE greater co-operation. Evil characters are (usually) concerned with one thing: accumulation of Power. Now, especially at lower levels, it holds true that power is usually accrued more easily by groups than by individuals. Even high-level iconic characters like Manshoon, Fzoul, Szass Taam et al are part of, or in some way linked to, organisations, without which they would be considerably less powerful than they are (although they would still be powerful by anyone's reckoning). Players wishing to gain this sort of power must work together and continue to work together or else the whole house of cards collapses. Good aligned players on the other hand can pretty much fight evil their own way, even if part of a group. It's far easier to disrupt than to create. The third and final point is playing style. Trying to play an Evil oriented campaign with players that prefer Hack 'n' Slash is going to be difficult as this will probably produce a bunch of amoral, animalistic butchers whose natural response to anything vaguely threatening is to kill it, and this threat is most likely to emanate from within the party the fist time they find any treasure. However players who really do prefer their games to be RP intensive will find Evil-oriented campaigns great fun because they will be able to indulge in machiavellian political intrigue and power games. Even if the players aren't actively working together, they won't be at each other's throats for the simple reason they can't risk exposing themselves to those they are trying to manipulate. In summary, a good DM, a good group of RPers, an understanding that "Evil" doesn't necessarily mean "Kill Everyone" and a little common sense can make an Evil campaign one of the most enjoyable games you will ever play.
Lancelot3679 06-01-04, 09:54 AM	I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the point that evil games force cooperation from evil characters. One of the best evil games I've had is one where two groups of 4 PCs played opposite each other every other weekend through the GM. He staged this epic game where the two parties were suppose to gain knowledge and power enough for a battle that would either sway the ballance of the world towards good or evil for the next 500 years. After some great gaming on the part of our good team, we arrive to meet the evil team at the last item that will turn the balance, and no one from the evil team showed up. As it turned out, one of the players turned on the rest hoping to acquire ultimate power for herself and ended up killing off the rest of the team and then dying with out the support that she needed to complete the campaign. Best gaming that I've ever had, and it gave us a real feel on how evil turns on itself. Not to say that it always happens, but... too many babas spoil the soup.
tWiStEdDM 06-01-04, 10:25 AM	But doesn't this prove my point? It has all the classic ingredients that I was talking about earlier... The accumulation of power, the need to co-operate... By working together this group of evil characters may well have obtained this "Ultimate Power" and the ending could have been quite different... but instead one of them allowed their greed to get the better of them and look how it all turned out... Still, it is a eloquent example of mindless evil destroying itself. I'd just like to point out that the key word there is 'mindless'. True Evil, the kind that endures, is always directed by a keen intellect and long-term goals. More in line with NE or LE than CE. Just remember, short-sighted amateurs won't survive long in the darkness :smirk:
VanRiper 06-01-04, 01:37 PM	I'm currently running a high level (ECL 18) evil campaign and am loving it. I've found that you can adapt most modules out there and make it suitable for evil PC's. You just have to change what motivates the PC's. Don't forget that evil PC's can and do fight evil NPC's. I'm currently running the free game "Matters of Vengeance" (from wizards.com) with slight alterations - mainly upping the ECL of the encounters. To cut down on PC backstabbing, I said the PC's had to be either NE or LE and I set up a group they had belonged to previously like this: You were a famed mercenary group called “The Wraiths.” The four members were inseparable, trusted each other more than they trusted their own family and were never defeated. To identify themselves to their victims, The Wraiths had their symbol, a ghostly image of an armored warrior wielding a sword, emblazoned on their armor/robes/clothing and weapons. Five years ago, having acquired much fame and wealth, the group decided to split up so that each member could go after their own individual goals and desires. This is the first time the members have seen each other in those 5 years. For all of the PC's, the Wraiths are the only family they've ever known and feel very free to accomplish things with their support. I don't foresee any backstabbing at all. As their main goal for the campaign, each of their deities sent an emissary to them who said this: Your main objective, said each servant, is to assemble seven life-forces of powerful beings which will be stored in a crystal that one of you will carry. Each victim has been pre-selected based on race, alignment and powers. Upon completion of the last mission, a new being will be created that will free all of the fell forces trapped in Clymph Tower of the Rawlinswood (north of the Great Dale). In conclusion, each servant promised you rewards. They ranged from fortresses to demi-planes of your own and artifacts that you desire. You’ll be contacted after the successful conclusion of each slaying to direct you to the next objective. Of course, their are side quests and the like. Basically I go where my PC's take me - but the main story line is still there. Anyway, that's how I'm handling it and, so far, things are going great! Good luck in your game!
Lancelot3679 06-01-04, 04:10 PM	Nice set up VanRiper. I like it, and it sounds like a good reward base. I would actually be interested in hearing what the PCs wanted as rewards for the missions.
VanRiper 06-02-04, 11:59 AM	Funny you ask that. We've been playing for over 3 months now and I've never had them clarify what each one wanted :) They just agreed to the mission. I'll ask tonight and let you know when I know.
Masakado 06-03-04, 12:40 PM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Well you and I have had our disagreements but I don't think I've ever stooped this low. :) You did. ;) I seem to recall a thread where at one time you called my intellect into question, and then after I was somewhat vindicated by someone (WizO_BigSister, I think), you called me childish for celebrating my reviction. My "gloating" struck a nerve.. That was a while back, so it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. That, and my celebration at your expense was indeed juvenile, so it's not like I wasn't at fault either. In the pursuit of being right, we often make foolish spectacles out of ourselves, which is why I don't post on these boards with the frequency I used to.
Kuje31 06-03-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by Masakado You did. ;) I seem to recall a thread where at one time you called my intellect into question, and then after I was somewhat vindicated by someone (WizO_BigSister, I think), you called me childish for celebrating my reviction. My "gloating" struck a nerve.. That was a while back, so it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. That, and my celebration at your expense was indeed juvenile, so it's not like I wasn't at fault either. In the pursuit of being right, we often make foolish spectacles out of ourselves, which is why I don't post on these boards with the frequency I used to. Oh yea had forgotten about that. :)
Mystery Man 06-03-04, 01:44 PM	Originally posted by thalious In my experience, more conflict happens between good and its inablilty to define what is good. Good point which brings to mind.... It's more fun too, pitting good against your good players has more value IMHO. Some examples: Each side is convinced that their course of action is the one that must be taken in order to achieve some goal that will do great good or end a terrible evil, however the methods are opposed. For instance - If one side is utterly convinced that destroying this artifact will accomplish that goal, but the other good side believes finding that artifact will cause mayhem and disaster. ------------- "I (super duper good guy) cannot allow you (super pooper good guy) through, because if I do, my town down there will be destroyed because some evil super duper pooper scooper has threatened to do so. Prepare to defend yourselves, for I fight for the lives of my fellows!" ------------ Attitude and personality conflicts: Sometimes heroes get so worked up or emotional that they feel the need to knock some sense into someone else. Super do-gooder heroes and adventurers are often cocky and arrogant. Leads to trouble everytime. ----------- Misinformation. One or both of the parties is believing in false information, contradicting what the other knows, and leading to conflict. ----------- Protection vs Possession/destruction is a easy one and can be used for prophecy, the question is who is right. For example, trying to stop Karsus from destroying Mystryl and the weave which kills hundreds of thousands but if this is done millions of unborn children will never have existed. ----------- A Group of good knights - "We must return this sacred relic to its holy resting place in our shrine, where our order has guarded it for hundreds of years." Greedy but basically good political figure - "I will use this relic to enhance the standard of living in my city, making things better for the downtrodden citizens while simultaneously making me richer because of the enhanced tax base." Group of good-tinged druids - "We must liberate this relic and return it to its original source location, which is not the same as the shrine that the knights are talking about." All of those are ways to pit good against good, what will happens depends on the moral character of your ...eh..characters. :) Evil will just take the path of least resistance - kill 'em all and take their stuff. :D Originally posted by thalious People are just plain dumb when it comes to evil. Evil can have friends, can love someone(s), be loyal, work in teams, and be successful. This is true, evil can also take it from both ends as well. Even more so since aliances and truces are often ones of convenience until one side becomes a threat, or one side is strong enough and ready to take the other out.
tubal-kaz 06-04-04, 12:13 AM	The best campaign that I ever DMed began with a detailed reading of Lords of Darkness and the simple premise: what would it take to break the Night Masks stranglehold on Westgate? There might be a handful of good characters within the city walls, but, in a city in which "anything goes and everything has its price," who is going to save the day? The answer: no one. So the only solution is to fight evil with evil. I proceeded to tell my players that I wanted no paladins, no rangers, and, in fact, no good-aligned characters. In short, I wanted one part the James Gang, one part Sopranos, and one part the Punisher. The results were amazing: we had Drezzen Hadjuk, the charismatic fighter/rogue who came to dominate our little "family;" Baldamir Hadjuk, Drezzen's hot-headed sorcerer cousin, the only CE member of the bunch who Drezzen had to continuously rein in; the triplets - Lothario, Gonsalvo, and Malvolio Negroponte, who we affectionately named the "Hanson Brothers," all ruthless enforcers and thugs (two LE fighters and a NE urban ranger) who provided the muscle for the group, Javal Serunik, a LE priest of Kelemvor, whose view of the world was that the only way to glorify his god and, thereby, increase his personal power was to destroy the vampire Night Masks and create a power vacuum which the church (meaning he) would fill. My players did a masterful job of roleplaying. There were plenty of arguments, but, in general, the characters became a highly dysfunctional family whose members were extremely loyal to each other. Unlike with most evil parties, there was no violence towards other party members until Baldamir's brashness (he revealed the identities of the group's members to an agent of the Night Masks and slew a member of a very prominent Westgate family among other things) led Drezzen to whack him, which he did with a tear in his eye. Through subterfuge, espionage, and very adroit manipulation of government officials, the militia, and the mercantile families, the party was actually able to acquire enough power to make a move against the Night Masks. On three-consecutive daylight raids they decimated two-thirds of the Night Mask leadership, and, in an epic two four-hour session battle, took out the Faceless and Dahlia Vhammos. Two of the Hansons died in that battle. Finally, the Night Masks were defeated and my players' army of thieves and cutthroats ruled the city. Then, Javal made his move against Drezzen. However, Drezzen commanded greater loyalty among his followers, if not greater personal power, and Javal was forced to flee his city. In Selgaunt, Drezzen's lover and party member, Sephora, bard/sorcerer, killed Javal while he was being "entertained" in a fancy brothel. Now, Westgate is still a den of thieves, but businesses now flourish (at least those who pay their protection money), people walking the streets at night still worry about muggings, kidnappings, and the like, but not vampires, and Drezzen and Sephora have married and started a family. The people of Westgate see the party members as "heroes," even though their really bad guys. Evil does not mean simple-minded, one dimensional, and repulsive. On the contrary, evil characters can exhibit the spectrum of human emotion, and be immensely likeable.
Unleash 06-06-04, 09:03 PM	My Philosphy: Alignments are rules for black and white personnas. If you're characters' essences contain shades of grays like all mine do, then they're just guidelines. Thus, even if you're CE, you too can have brothers-in-arms who relish in bloodshed as much as you do or you too can enjoy a warm meal served by an affectionnate mother after a hard day's butchering. The 2 things you need to play EVIL adventures: A) Some creative thinking OOC with all the persons involved to assure a cohesive party. That means detailed backgrounds also that explain why your PC finds it normal to torture goblins. B) A mature group of players who won't go sour OOC if they're characters EVER slit each others throats and who are aware that EVIL means anything goes. My EVIL experiences: In my major campaign, the players are aged from 21-26 years old , 4 guys and 2 girls. The PCs are all NE-LE characters unwillingly working for the Zhents, and they went from level 1 to 12 over the course of the past year RL. It's a lot of work to justify our staying together but it yields some very satisfying and entertaining gameplay. Anyway, in my experience it's almost always been just as much work to make a team of good aligned characters stick together! Fact to point: My newest character is of the aristocratic-type, LG aligned. Even though he's good, I'm having difficulties incorporating him in an existing CG group merely because the other PCs perceive him as a Mr. Fancypants. Unbeknowst to them that he's a Psionic Powerhouse that can hold his own on any battlefield. Guess they missed the LG tag on his forehead :P. Thus, Mistrust, Suspicion and Prejudice are concepts present on every side of the alignment Axis. Oh and :thumbsup: to Vanriper ! That sounds like some darn nice planning :)
Jaan Tur 06-20-04, 07:55 AM	I can imagine, that playing an evil group can be a lot of fun. :b: Right now, i'm creating a new character for the next group. It will be a chaotic evil psychopath.:b: He admires killing, but he does not necessarily have to kill others. For this reason this can be a character that is not too hard to play. As CE you can do what you want, if it pleases you, it's ok. Of course you can make your DM a hard life, if just kill everybody and if you don't serve the main purposes of you campain. But the way you serve can be as evil as you want. But a Dm who is not flexible can of course not want you in a party. You're too difficult to handle with. But good DM always should allow evil characters in their groups. It allows a lot more of 'real roleplaying', cause there's always good and evil on this and other worlds :D . Greetz :b:medri:b:
WraithXIII 06-24-04, 09:56 PM	I have played evil characters and I must admit, its a breath of fresh air to be able to let steam off in the character's actions, doing things I would never do IRL. As far as DMing, when I last DMed, I was a bit of a pushover, maybe fudging a roll here, or letting a check slide there. Now I am actually going to be actively trying to off my PC's when we begin again, which they don't know. My only anchor is an NPC named Arcygius. This guy is a cross of Elminster's look and attitude, but the kindness of that old character from the D&D cartoon all those years ago. Perhaps he'll be a cynical Obi Wan type, anyway, that will be the only help I give them really. I am really going to enjoy this. :b:
WraithXIII 06-24-04, 10:06 PM	Originally posted by Damien_Hiro Evil will always fall upon itself....good will always beat evil because evil is bad and good is good. I think that an evil force with an purpose is capable of working together against its enemies, so a thought process like that can get a good PC killed. To use a novel briefly, look at the Solamnics when they heard about the Knights of Takhisis. They scoffed at first, then got their butts handed to them. Of course many of the KoT turned on each other after Takhisis' fall, yet they are still a force to be reckoned with. To successfully run an evil campaign takes order, so its concievable to run a group with a LE character, and sometimes even a CE character, though that takes talent. Just ask one of my old DM's. He had the best time out of all of us when a couple of PC's went bad!
warlockco 06-25-04, 07:27 AM	I personally have no problems with Evil PCs in my games unless I have LG PCs already in the party. ALL PCs brought in my game much be approved by me after they are created. I go over each character and veto anything that I don't like. I have run several Evil games successfully, most of them were Drow based. They were all from the same family, all the players were either servants or lesser memebers of the family. Anyone dying except due to enemy action had to be explained to the Matron Mother or the Elder Daughter by each and every member of the party personally. Something that none of the players wanted to do. As to the Evil characters in a good game, I tell them up front, whatever happens to you, is brought down upon yourself either from your own actions or the actions of the other PCs if they don't like what you did. In an Epic that that I'm playing in, my character comes the closest to being the only evil character in the group (CN Drow Cleric 8/Ninja 8/Divine Champion 5/Divine Disciple 3) rest of the group is either LN, NG, or CG, my character has had to do things that the rest of the party has not been able to do due to alignment restrictions (or they considered it beneath themselves). The DM knew my character was the "weakest," my ECL is 4 or more below the rest of the party. We both were quite shocked when I failed my saving throw and spell resistance vs a True Domination spell (caster rolled a 20 for caster check, I rolled a 1 for save). I had single-handily incapacitated or killed the rest of the party. Part of the problem with the group is too many of them are prone to giving up easily. Fleeing from monsters that we can only do maybe 10 points of damage to each round unless we crit because of damage reduction, while as long as half the group stays around I will be going toe-to-toe with said monster. Biggest problem with the party we have is we have no combat monsters. For some reason the two people in the party that could have been combat monsters just don't want to have magic items or have weak magic items. The party consists of: 1 ranger, 1 bard, 1 halfling rogue/shadowdancer, 1 half-celesital pixie rogues/ninja of the cresent moon, 1 asamar cleric NPC, 1 young gold dragon/monk, 1 dwarf barbarian (for some reason had no epic weapons/armor), 1 dwarf wizard. 1st action was get rid of the cleric, who had a nasty major artifact warhammer. I did not kill the cleric, hammer would have did a True Res, instead I incapaciated him and made sure to knock the hammer from his hands. (Poisons that reduce Str/Dex/Wis are just nasty). Next using my sword and an amulet I Gated in two CE Infernals with the orders to kill everyone but me. After that I activated an Anti-Magic Field (GM ruled was I still controlled, since it was a permanent control) around myself and took everyone else out melee, with several of my own magic items still working (major artifact sword & armor). Taking out the wizard first then rest depending on who was stupid enough to get close to me first. In the end, I was freed from the dominate because my Infernals attacked everyone but myself like I told them, which meant they killed the cleric that had dominated me.
WraithXIII 06-25-04, 08:02 PM	Originally posted by Damien_Hiro I do not allow my players to play evil characters for two reasons. First, I do not enjoy Dming for evil characters becasue in my own life I have seen too much evil. Secondly, I do not have a good time with it. I want a game where heroes triumph over good. Too many times in real life evil beats good. My signature is a reminder to people that freedom is not free. Someone must keep those things that lay in the shadows in their place. It is important to remember how wonderful our freedoms really are and the cost that is paid for them. I just detest seeing evil PC's. It is not my cup of tea. Just like your Dm does not want kenders for his own reason. I do not want evil ones for mine own. My players are free to go and play anywhere else they want, but they do not, they play twice a week at my house. Some of you may not agree with my opinion but to paraphrase Patrick Henry. " I hate everything you say, but I will lay down my life for your right to say it." By the way I do not take anything in this world personal, and I am not offended by anyone's opinion, but thank you for being courteous, Lancelot. Whew, I think this is my longest post. First and formeost, let me tell you that I agree, there is too much evil in our world, I agree in that respect. Lord knows what you have endured in your life, but so too have many of us endured evil actions against ourselves or those close to us. I really do feel you and respect your decision, because I guess if its your game, then I would never be bothered to play, and here's why.... 1. As Dungeon Masters, we perpetuate evil everytime we pull up to that table. We kill people, we kidnap the innocent, lay waste to villages and cities, bribe and poison government officials and we try to get away with it. After all, the evil we commit give players something to fight against. How is the evil we commit any different from what a PC might do? We have vast powers at our disposal, we can summon a dragon horde to murder the innocent, theives that steal, wizards that delve into horrific arts to help themselves. We create that evil. We make it real for the players, and nothing a PC can do can ever match what we have done in this game. I have found myself disgusted trying to create a realistic game for my players, just because of some of the things you have to use. (Demons, devils, etc.) On the converse, if we do not create evil then there is nothing for the players to do, thus negating any reason to play whatsoever. So for all the talk of detesting evil PC's and whatnot, you shouldn't play this game at all. Logically speaking of course. 2. As an object lesson to the paladin in my game, I decided to rip away the veil seperating adventurers and reality. He caught a man stealing in Calimport, and promptly went into his 'All evil must repent or die" mode. The man attacked him, just trying to get away, and the paladin beat him to within an inch of his life. The paladin demanded he repent, and the man refused, but not for the reason you think. He didn't repent because he was evil, but because he knew he would do it again. Stubborn still, the paladin dragged him to a local 'magistrate' and told the officer what had happened. The officer took the man in custody, intending to amputate his hands for his crimes. Satisfied that justice had been done, the paladin and party left, only to face my LE assassin PC/NPC a week later. Before the paladin could do anything however, the assassin showed him what his actions had wrought. Because of the man's capture and maiming, his wife, already ailing, died soon after and the children were put into the slave trade, not by the father of course. No, it was the very same authority who had meted out "justice". One family completely destroy by the narrow minded mentality of a paladin who only fixed what he saw, but did nothing to truly help. So while the father was guilty of a crime, the paladin now had the destruction of one family on his shoulders. What was the man stealing? Food for the family that waited for him at home. I think what irked the paladin most of all was that now he couldn't fix his actions, and it took an evil person to show him that his actions needed to be thought through before just blindly persecuting evil people. As the assassin was my character, I had to play him as an evil creature, taunting the paladin with images of his "Holy" work. That assassin is the part of me that has seen alot of evil things, both done in the name of good and evil. Moral of the story is thus: You better be sure your actions in the name of good do not have evil results. 3. I noticed in an earlier post you said that you killed evil character in five minutes. That is, whether you like it or not, abuse of power. That is the reason I would never play in your game, no matter how good your games were. I, like those who DM with me, have never abused our position because we didn't like a character's beliefs. It's negative, tantamount to reaching over and tearing up a player's character sheet because you don't like something about it. Why don't you instead give the other PC's a mission like attempting to help the evil one see the advantages of good? Or utilize a character like that to do something that good PC's would not be able to do? You can't quote Patrick Henry about dying so that other's have choices, then blatantly limit a player's choices. Like I said, I respect your opinion about the whole thing, but it's the hypocrisies that really set my teeth on edge. Ultimately it's your choice, that I realize, I am just saying the picture is a bit bigger than most of us can really see. Anyways, you have a good one, and it's been fun having this debate. PEACE.
Vyceras 05-27-05, 11:36 AM	My old group wasn't down with the evil stuff. I tried DMing a drow campaign, but that ended in RL squabbles and it sort of tainted the experience. I've done some one-offs before, but nothing major. I would LOVE to DM the "bad guys" but one player in my group is uncomfortable with the idea, so we're only going so far as "anti-hero." Maybe when he leaves for college, since the players I'm with now would probably be into changing it up a bit. The important thing, of course, is giving the group reason to be together. You also need to know what "evil" means. My games are pretty subjective; the only things that are evil are certain monsters - everything else is just a matter of perspective.
Jerryd 05-28-05, 12:15 AM	I'll try to avoid the personal judgements in this topic (although I do have them, and strong ones), and still to just the issue of the game itself. 1. As Dungeon Masters, we perpetuate evil everytime we pull up to that table. We kill people, we kidnap the innocent, lay waste to villages and cities, bribe and poison government officials and we try to get away with it. After all, the evil we commit give players something to fight against. How is the evil we commit any different from what a PC might do?There's a big difference, at least to me. I won't speak for other DM's, but when I DM the difference is one of intent. As a DM, I don't perpetuate evil. I set up an evil scenario with the express purpose that it will be defeated by the players — while I try to make the process of defeating the evil challenging for players, their eventual victory has to be more or less assured. As a DM, that's part of my fun and part of the satisfactory conclusion of any adventure or campaign is that I see evil get defeated by my players. If the players screw up sideways and fail to defeat the evil (I try to set it up so that they will most likely win but if they get really stupid or really unlucky I'm not going to bend the rules or lie about my own rolls), then I've lost my fun as well. Players who play evil characters, however, play with the intent that their evil characters prevail, which is something I wouldn't tolerate either. The bottom line is, at the end of the adventure or campaign good has to prevail and evil has to be beaten or it's been a crappy game that I don't get any fun out of whether I'm a player or the DM. Since the players also need to have their characters prevail in order to have fun, that means that in any game I run the players can't be evil because evil is destined to lose. In short, the difference is one of intent - players play evil characters intending them to prevail, while decent DMs (what I consider to be decent DMs, anyway) set up evil challenges and portray evil NPCs with the intent that they lose after providing a challenge to the players. This difference, in my opinion, is fundamentally significant.3. I noticed in an earlier post you said that you killed evil character in five minutes. That is, whether you like it or not, abuse of power.Not necessarily; it depends on the context in which it is done. If a DM gives no prior warning he doesn't allow evil PC's and a player creates one, then it would indeed be wrong and abusive for the DM to penalize the player for it in any way, much less 'killing him in five minutes.' As Damien Hiro made clear, that's not the situation. His players know beforehand that he does not allow evil player characters; it's one of his pre-existing house rules. If a DM announces and makes clear a house rule before the campaign starts then a player deliberately rolls up a character that violates the announced rule, then that player deserves whatever he gets. Personally I would first have made one — and only one — attempt to rectify the situation: "Look, I said before, no evil characters, and I meant it. Make him non-evil, now, and stick with it" If the player still refused, and insisted on playing an evil character, then I'd have no hesitation whatsoever in engineering the swiftest and most gruesome end for that character I could. It would be either that, or ejecting the player from the group (which the character killing may effectively turn into anyway). Punishment for defying a rule that was previously stated clearly is not an abuse of power. You might try to defend the offending player by saying that he might have fun playing an evil character and he's got a right to have fun in the game. Well, the DM has just as much right to have fun and he's running the game, so if the DM does not get fun out of the triumph of evil (and of course any player playing an evil character will seek to triumph in his goal) then it doesn't belong in the game. Period. No player has a right to fun at the expense of the DM's, and no DM has a duty to sacrifice his own fun for that of his players.
Freakboy 05-28-05, 02:45 AM	I think there is nothing wrong with evil characters. Just because a group is of evil alignment doesn't mean that they will fall to cutting each other to ribbons at the first opportunity. Evil in many respects is nothing more than a point of view. To the "good" elves, the orc tribe is evil because they attack inocent villages and plunder the forest. To the "evil" orc tribe, the elves are evil because they oppress the natural vigor of the orc warriors and insist on slaughtering helpless orcs for hurting a bunch of worthless trees. There are universal evils like rape, murder, etc. However, most evil parties I have DM'ed or participated in didn't focus on the "distasteful" overt evils. Usually they wanted to play Drow or something similar and most of their "evil" was caught up in the inter house warfare and political intrigues that are so typical in Drow society. I always insist that if my players are going to play an evil party that they can't fight each other. It simply is too difficult to keep someone from getting upset when their comrade backstabs them or something. Evil characters can have friends and loved ones just like good ones. Champions of Ruin has some great suggestions for why a party is evil and how to DM and play such a party. Definately a must have for anyone thinking about running an evil campaign in the realms. I have found evil campaigns to be just as fun as good ones, but that is largely because all my players understand this is a game and don't worry about it being symbolic of a greater world morality or something. If that was the case, then they wouldn't play D&D at all, because even "good" PC's engage in daily in acts that any reasonable person would see as evil, like murder (every time they kill an opponent) and thievery (every time they loot some forgotten tomb). Folks should lighten up and recognize this is a game and not take it so seriously.
Mr. Wilson 05-29-05, 02:50 AM	My personal opinion is that LE works well in parties, and in my experience, LE has worked better in parties than anything but LN or NG characters because while they may try to take control of the party, in general they are extremely loyal to the party because it serves as a means to power and an affirmation that what they are doing is in some sense, the "good" thing to do. I firmly believe no one actually believes that they are evil (well, except for psychos, but I revoke their humanity) and I'd go so far to say that actually LE characters seem to be the characters I'm most attracted to. The last party I GM'd had 2 LE characters, a N character going on NE, and a CG going on NG character (who started as CN). The party I'm in now consists of a three N characters and a NE character. We've only played one session, but I know my character is heading more than likely towards LE or LN which will crush my bard build, but I play the character, not the stats. In general, as long as the group is mature, I think evil in the party is ok, as long as they don't have a Pally with them. On the other hand, as long as everyone knows the Alignment restriction going in, I don't have a problem limiting alignment in game, mainly because sometimes plot dictates circumstances at the beginning of a game.
Mr. Wilson 05-29-05, 02:55 AM	To further what I'm trying to get at, alignment shouldn't be a straightjacket for play, but rather a guide for players trying to grasp the particular hard edges of personality in a character that evolves throughout time. It's perfectly ok, in my eyes, to change aligment to better suite the personlity, rather than change the personality to fit the alignment. I'm not a huge fan of Eberron, but I admit I like the fact alignment means less there than in some other worlds.
KUGOR!!! 05-29-05, 11:15 AM	I have never run a group of all evil characters. I dont allow evil characters. It makes it a little more fun I think.
Deathhammer 05-29-05, 05:21 PM	I love evil characters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so used to be given a dungeon, but forget that now i am the dungeon it in some means easy it up for the DM .But i guess it depends.You got to look at evil in a different angle. It isn't always the same when you got 1 evil guy making it unfun for the rest thats when a DM needs to say HOLD UP!But what i mean is you got to play a good guy and bad guy before you can say they SUCK IM SO SMART I CONFUSE MYSELF!!!!!!! :cool: ;) ;) :eek: SWEET!!!!!!!!!!! :cool: :P
Unamis 05-30-05, 07:04 AM	Now do I! Heck, everything I know about the Realms is based around its evil aspects. Cult of Dragon? Me old buddies! Church of Bane? Good sponsors to the very end! Nine Hells? Welcome home, son! Harpers? Who the heck are they, or do you mean the guy I hanged down from the tree? I enjoy evil a lot, though playing neutral or sometimes even decently good characters can be rewarding as well. I've played me share of some evil loonies and killers, and it's been OK. You just have to play it correctly, without ******* everybody off. Black humour does the trick, IMO. It's also a good idea to get some strange mental reason to like your party, I tend to and not all of them are sexual ;) Still, I like Lawful Evil just a tad more than the rampant killing, since you don't have to be evil to be evil. Kinda confusing, but you get the hang of it soon enough. It's the classic evil who reveals himself only at the end. Now that I really enjoy. Say E! Say V! Say I! Say L! Gooo EVIL! :cheer:
DungeonMasterJD 05-30-05, 07:42 PM	My take on this whole thing is whether or not you are going to run an "evil" campaign depends entirely on what the PC's want. If my players come to me and say "We would like a change of pace; can we play an evil party?" my job as DM isn't to question the moral value of that request, it's to facilitate the players having an experience they will enjoy. As DM, I consider the game to be more about the PCs having fun at the end of the day than about taking the game too seriously in terms of moral issues, etc. I found that the Book of Vile Darkness supplement really dealt with the idea of evil well, both in terms of evil in your campaign and evil PC parties; ultimately it IS up to the DM to decide but it should be a decision reached in conjunction of the wishes of the players. Personally, I have both taken part in as a player and DM'd the evil party scenario - in my experience the difficult aspect of such games isn't neccesarily the moral aspect of the game but the motivational one. How do you ensure that the evil individuals stay together and don't end up killing each other? This isn't actually as difficult to do as it sounds, but it needs definite work again between both the players and the DM to create either circumstantial or plot-related reasons for the party to adventure together. In some cases it's actually easier for the PC's to agree on an "evil theme" and all create characters affiliated with the same organization (ie. Cult of the Dragon or the Zhentarim).
Sephyrill 06-01-05, 10:22 PM	Yep, our group plays evil ;) I think most parties will have problems, if there is too much a mix of Alingments. But it wholly depends on the players. We played a good/neutral party campaign once and the PC relations were a catastrophe. we had two LG Paladins, one (weak in speech) LG exalted cleric of Ilmater who did't know where his place was, a CG gnome Ranger who always thought only of his job and a CN Wizard who only thought of himself. We were "friends", yes, but we were always arguing about stealing, lies, betrayal, helpfulness and such things. Now we have a party with two NGs, one CG Paladin of Freedom and one NE Warlock and everything is ok. The Paladin even knows that the 'lockie is evil, but "as long as he doesn't do anything evil, it's just his decision and his point of view" - I so love those CG pallies IMO evil parties work well, if a) most of them are LE or b) they all belong to the same Organization. Otherwise there is a big risk of the PCs hacking and slashing each other. It might work, but then you need very mature players. At the moment we are starting a LE campaign based on a new cult of Asmodeus and it's really fun. You go out, act just like normal people on the streets and plan the next murder together in the evening. Since we are all new to this, we have to learn to play "truly" Lawful and "truly" Evil both together and it's so much fun to see how everyone tries to be the leader of the party and tries to explain why only HIS plan will be the right one - and still stays best buddy with each other due to loyalty and friendship. I play the cleric of the party and I've never played such a sarcastic, arrogant, lovely, silvertongued badass before. She's always the nice girl, loves her rough uncle, gets along well with the Tyrpriest, plays the cook for the miners, but comes up with an arousing voice in the taverns, playing with the males, always thinking that she's surrounded by idiotic humans, calls the plans of the others (which are not so good per se) childplay and the Anti-Paladin of the group a "mommie" and "beastie-lover", but no one would dare to be angry with her for that. I love this character :cool:
75RD Drum Clip 06-03-05, 11:21 PM	In my campaign, I allow characters of varying alignments. I am currently playing a mostly evil party and it is loads of fun.