Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thecasualoblivion 08-28-07, 01:43 PM	We've all heard the complaints of players running their characters as power hungry, greedy, homicidal douchebags instead of playing heroes. In the games run by myself and my friends, the aformentioned style of play is favored by at least half of the players. There are a few roleplayers with us, who try to play heroes, and they(we if I include myself) do their best to ignore the slimeball players who will kill anything for magic items, make pacts with devils, and ask questions like "if we kill that, how much experience will we get?". I'm therefore attempting an experiment in my new game to provide the framework for a game based on heroes, and try to edit the douchbag behavior out of the game. I've talked about these changes with my players, and have generally gotten universally positive response, even from two of them who always play douchebags. Here are my rules: 1. I am only allowing LG, NG, CG, and LN alignments. No exceptions. I also expect people to live up to those alignments. 2. Characters are members of the Adventurer's guild, a good aligned organization that does not tolerate evil behavior. Characters who cannot maintain a suitable alignment are expelled from the guild(and therefore, the game). 3. I am only giving experience for completing quests. Side diversions and such have no rewards, and attacking monsters and NPCs for no good reason gives no benefit. Experience points will be awarded by the guild instead of just gained naturally, who can withold them for roleplaying/storyline reasons. 4. Magic items and treasure will be based off of level and not found in game. All players will be allowed to equip their characters based off the character wealth by level table, and are free to update themselves as they level up. 5. I am working with a few experiments in putting together a rewards system for heroic deeds. I'm thinking of a system of hero points, which can be used as a luck reroll in the game, or saved up to purchase feats, ability score increases, or an increase in character wealth used to purchase items. The standards for getting one of these would be fairly high, and would require at least some character risk or loss. My purposes are threefold. With one and two, I am limiting the nature of the game before it starts. I am laying out that this will be a heroic game, and instructing players to create their characters within that framework. For numbers 3 and 4, I am attempting to remove the motivations for douchebag behavior. All character power will be based on level and experience, which in turn is gained from completing quests and achieving great deeds. Non-heroic behavior will have no game rewards. In addition, the last entry is to give some sort of reward to players who have their characters go the extra mile and try to be true heroes. After one game, things seem to be going well so far. The roleplayers love it, the powergamers are adapting, and the one stupid player who can't manage this is drawing in-game roleplaying hate from the other characters, who are bothered by his "evil" behavior.
Witch 08-28-07, 01:47 PM	Questions: Where do these magic items come from? Howcome the evil characters they might kill don't have magic items (because they could then take them)? How do your evil NPCs achieve levels higher than 1, if the adventurer's guild is the one distributing experience points? How do you make sense of the fact that PCs become more powerful because some guild tells them they can be? Would people not in the guild be unable to become more powerful, then?
thecasualoblivion 08-28-07, 01:53 PM	1. Magic items are purchased from/supplied by the Guild. 2. Characters fight the bad guys, and the bad guys/good guys are fairly black and white. There is a Mordor like organization of evil, and all magic items carried by members of it are tainted by evil, and therefore not something a hero would touch. 3. The Adventurer's guild is not the only organization in the world supplying experience points. It is simply the only entity the players and the party will have access to.
bobothechimp 08-28-07, 02:14 PM	I have a bit of a problem with your #3. Say the players have just finished clearing the orcs out of a dungeon, as that was their quest, and come across a town being attacked by zombies. They could rescue the town, but they would gain no experience and no treasure. The only reason they would possibly have to save the town is to keep up their alignment that is required for #1 to avoid repercussions from #2.
Ack 08-28-07, 02:20 PM	I suspect that the 'town full of zombies' would not be a side quest - it would be another 'quest' that the GM has put in :D "Side quest", as I see it, would be along the lines of "I know we were told to go and fight the Evil Lich-King of Zoltan for the Sacred Spoon, but I think I'll head off and fight ogres in the woods because that's much cooler!"
Prince_of_Parkness 08-28-07, 02:36 PM	1. Hate it. A great supporter of evil I have several players who can play the alighment very well and not all are douchebags. 2. Hate it. Your characters and you may like it, but I'd hate to be within an orginization thats gives nothing but regulations. And I know my players would hate it 3. Hate it. Unless the guild leaders are gods, there is no way I would exept that and neither would my players. And I think that slaying some extra monsters should gain you skill points. 4. Hate it. IF one of my players wanted to kill someone and take all their belongings, more power to them, as long as they face the consequeces for it (like being hunted down by the pewrsons work colegies or relatives) 5. Wonderful, this is just what D&D needs and it would be good if you could post a more detailed version. I think I will try to make my own All in all, Id say no. But this is your world and you do what you want. To me though, it just sounds like you've decided how you want everyone to play and youve laid rules to prevent them from doing otherwise. I just use a system where good heroes are renouned and evil ones are hated. Then let the players decide what they do, but as I said, its up to you
Ecalsneerg 08-28-07, 02:45 PM	3. I am only giving experience for completing quests. Side diversions and such have no rewards, and attacking monsters and NPCs for no good reason gives no benefit. Experience points will be awarded by the guild instead of just gained naturally, who can withold them for roleplaying/storyline reasons. Tordek: "Ok, we dispatched a tribe of Orcs way above our CR." Regdar: "Yeah, Tordek, but we didn't... learn from it, did we?" Tordek: "Nah."
Puca 08-28-07, 03:00 PM	You know, you can impose all the rules in the world to restrict douche-bag behavior. But the douche-bags will still be douche-bags. And douche-bags will still act like douche-bags. (Because theyre douche-bags. Thats what they do.) Your campaign idea sounds fine. Just dont get your hopes up. In the games run by myself and my friends, the aformentioned style of play is favored by at least half of the players.If half your players want to play a different game from the other half, then maybe there should be two different games.
parad0cz 08-28-07, 03:01 PM	Argh... i would never ever do this, and by all the gods in the pantheon never play in this. I would recomend any player possibly lured into such a game to run, not walk away. That being said, let me be helpful. Number 1 and 2 are ok, if not stealler. So you want to run a game of shiney heros like Dudley Doright, ignoring heroes like Batman. Thats fine, if limiting. You want them part of an orginization, grand, but i'd go with something a little more specific than the 'Adventurers Guild'. Perhaps maybe one of the orginizations in the splatbooks? Maybe reflavor the Shadowbane stuff. Being part of an orginization can be great for play, but you'll have issues that i will explain later... Number 3 is bad in my opinion- but its more of a roleplaying philosophy thing. The thing is, i like my characters whether im playing or DM to be Characters. Ie- like real people with multiple motivations and a life outside The Quest. Yes, save the world, yes get the treasure, but why? Is there a girl back home? What keeps you adventuring, at what point will it be enough to retire? that sort of thing. 'Real' people. Now if you want a black/white game where the Quest is all, you end up with two dimentional carcatures like Golden Age Comics. "I do the Quest because its the Right Thing to Do, and sacrifice everything for the Quest and dont make time for anything else " isnt a hero. Its a zealot. In my opinion. And you CAN make a character like that, and an interesting one... but that can go into what you would call 'douchebaggery'. Also- how exactly does this Guild give XP? What is XP in your world? In general, XP isnt a inworld thing but a player/DM tool. At the most, its a lifeforce thing. The guild chooses to grant lifeforce to it's members? Commoners and Experts get thiers from the NPC Guild? You are basically saying in the world you cant learn or get more powerful in life unless you do The Quest. 4. Ok, lets introduce the terms 'railroading' and 'suspension of disbelief'. So every item not given by the guild will have a evil taint that will make them unusable to the PCs? And the the Magic Guild will outfit the characters for them? One- Taking away the treasure factor kills a lot of the visceral joy of the game. I'll be that blunt and sterotypical. Having all the treasure 'tainted' is the old "Drow Weapon" problem. And what if your characters want to use it anyway? Is it going to disolve in their hands? Are you going to expell them from the game? When you say 'your characater would never do that" the player isnt playing the character anymore- you are. Even in LotR people wanted to use the ring. Sure it would destroy most of them... but it was allowed. Two- Once the powerplayers get over the 'cant get loot' factor- they will realize they will be EVEN MORE POWERFUL in your system. When they loot at least you choose whats out there, and not everything is optimzed for battle because occasionally you get the Spoon of Cardboard Paste. If they can pick and choose... wow, no wasted treasure on Feather tokens- put it toward more pluses! 5. This can work well- Deadlands had something like it. Action Points are an option you can use/mod- as well as the Raising the Stakes stuff in this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=202109 But all this aside- the only way to outlaw douchebag behavior is to outlaw the douchebags. The PLAYERS. Any character- from LG to CE can be played annoyingly or intellegently. The reason we have so many alignment debates is that different people have different opinions on the matter- and even two LG characters can be bitter enemies. Taking aside that even Lord Evil can be a hero (see Villians By Necessity by Eve Forward or Raistlin), Heroes can be douchebags(see Marvel Civil War). If players want to be annoying, they will. That is a Real World problem, not a game world one. So you want to run a hero only game- fine, cool, can be great. But you are moving from 'limits for story' to just this side of 'im playing your characters for you". D&D is many things, but it isnt a play with parts to be read. You arent 'opening up roleplaying' so much as 'closing off any roles that arent what you want'. Setting the groundrules and tone for a campaign ahead of time is ALWAYS a smart idea. But removing motivation? Bad. Because you arent achiving what you want with what you are trying- you are adressing symptoms and not the problem. Treasure and sidequests arent the problem- the players are. Sit em down, talk to em. Tell em the game that you want to run, that you are going to run. If they dont like it, they dont have to play. Conversly, you can make whatever rules you want- but players dont have to play with you. Between the two lies either comprimise, or not gaming. Either is valid depending on the wants of people involved. Heck, if they want to play a boot and loot tombraider style game- that isnt a crime. If you dont want to run one fine, but they arent lesser people for it. In fantasy, from such humble beginings heroes are made. Remember- Powergaming doesnt equal bad roleplaying. If there can be Singleminded Heroes for the Quest that are considered Good Roleplaying, then there can be Singleminded Treasurelooters that are the same. Like Haley in Order of the Stick. Remember, not everyone in the Justice Leauge is the Big Blue Boyscout(Superman). There are multiple ways of being a hero, and not even heroes agree on them. You put 'evil' in quotes at the end- is he really being evil, or just not being your personal version of Hero? From the tone of your post at the end it sounds like it isnt the players that are being douchebags. Or at least, the douchebaggary is shared. The 'stupid player' that is being quote evil quote might want to play an Antihero- which is still a hero, just not yours.
jacob22 08-28-07, 03:12 PM	To each their own. But it's too bad that you seem to have to impose these sort of rules. I don't believe in using alignment as a straitjacket and my players would hate me if I tried(exempting classes that demand it). I've run evil and good campaigns and concluded that what matters is that the players make characters that they will have fun with and they will work together.
wonlee76 08-28-07, 03:17 PM	After one game, things seem to be going well so far. The roleplayers love it, the powergamers are adapting, and the one stupid player who can't manage this is drawing in-game roleplaying hate from the other characters, who are bothered by his "evil" behavior. Sounds like your experiment failed if one of your stupid douchebag players is still having "evil" tendencies that is causing the other PCs to dislike or move away from him. Unfortunately, it sounds like you got one set of players who would prefer being heroes and another set of players preferring to either be on that "grey" area between hero and villain or rather be villains. I understand the motivations for your rules but considering it has already failed to curtail the bad behavior you're trying to stop, you need to come up with different ideas. Personally, I follow the general guidelines of No opposite alignments in the group on the Good vs. Evil Axis. Either the group of PCs will be Good or Neutral or the group will be Neutral or Evil. No mixing goods with evils. Generally less headaches and greatly diminishes IC conflicts between PCs. Here's some alternative ideas to try to enforce "better" behavior for your heroic game. Penalize the players for stepping out of their role. People tend to dislike negative reinforcement methods but it is a method. Give the offensive player penalties to xp, class abilities or whatever is appropriate. NPC any player that actually fully turns to evil (for a heroic game or vice versa if you're running an evil game). Reward good behavior. PC acting heroic gets "better" rewards. Whether its XP, some magical trinket or a blessing from their god/goddess. (this tends to be a more favorable method since the "bad players" aren't being penalized but rather the "good players" are being rewarded and hopfully will lead by example).
otakutaylor 08-28-07, 03:27 PM	1. LG, NG, CG, I can understand. But LN isn't good aligned, I can see why you'd think to include it since the rules say "No being evil" and a LN character is far more inclined to follow that rule than a CN. but unless you're allowing LN so that 1 PC can make the character he desires that's (any non-good) PrC or whatever I don't think that's fair. A good game is LG, NG, and CG. A non-evil game is all but LE, NE, and CE. be fair to N and CN. they have their place. 2. and 3. I've played an Adventurers guild type game before (not DnD), and it worked great. However, it worked by the rules you stated (Exp just for missions) because there were like 9 different DM's and 50 different players that could sign up for whatever game they had the time to play. plus missions only lasted 1 day, 2 if it was a 2 part mission. If you're the only DM, and you're only running missions for 1 set of PC's (regardless of who shows up for game each week) it's not totally fair. I will say, if you do an adventureing guild game, remember this is DnD. the adventureing guild is the theme for this game and at least in that fashion it should still work. You're the DM, you have control, but your players make choices. only rewarding Exp for doing what you want them to is a bit mean. I will commend you for the idea however, an adventuring guild is a great way to get a game started. Do note, a fun part of that is if one of your players wants a stab at DMing, he can write a short quest, you'll write up a PC and he can run his quest through your Adventuring guild without haveing to make an entirely new world or new characters. (just make sure any long existing campaign ideas aren't touched or signifigant parts of the world are blown up) 4. the game i was in had this as well, since playing shop-keeper for 50+ players was impossible. so you have my go ahead with this provided your players have sufficent math skills and aren't going to cheat. You will, however, need rules in place for potions/ scrolls/ and other 1 use items. If you pay for them once, use them, and just level up and get that money back people will buy the expensive 1-use stuff they wouldn't normally since next level they get that money back. Either put it in the rules that if you buy a +2 sword you can trade it in for the same ammount of gold it's worth as normal, then when you level get that +3 sword with the extra money from leveling. but when you buy a Pearl of power, it's cost is subtracted from your new level cash each level since you can't return the "used" product. If you want a better idea for a rule on items, check out the RPGA rules on items. they have a pretty good system for buying stuff. As for the thought on stuff, I suggest you at least allow the PC's to use an item they find mid-mission for the remainder of the mission, but by guild rules they are required by law to return any items defined as "loot" in return for the guilds payment of the quest (level gold). Otherwise you're gonna have a few arguements on "the evil wizard had a scroll of stone to flesh and mike the fighter got turned to stone, but I'm not allowed to use it? Lame..." 5. I played a different game with similar rules, and I will point out it's very very hard to balance a system like this. it'd be a good idea, but only if executed properly. If you just want a little more action, add in eberrons action points. If you want them to have a little more weight, lessen how many they get but allow them to spend them for temporary access to a feat they qualify for (just don't have the means to get yet) or a +lvl/2 or 3 bonus to a single ability score. a few Permanent bonuses makes a party a suprisingly large ammount stronger. Example: Psion with 3 extra feats, all spent on complete psionic metapsionic feats that made my damage output terrifyingly strong. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
ccerose 08-28-07, 03:49 PM	Some of what you propose isn't too far off the mark with the RPGA Xen'drik Expeditions campaign. With one exception, RPGA XE campaigns don't allow evil alignments. Also, experience is given out based on what occurred in the adventure. Adventures have main quests along with side quests. Base exp is given out for completing the main quest, with additional experience awarded based on the number of side quests completed. The calculation also includes how well PC performed during encounters and the overall level of role playing. Items found in adventures aren't transfered onto your character sheet, but are calculated as earned gp to allow you to purchase what you want. Items can be purchased between adventures or in adventures if the module allows. This type of set up isn't acceptable to all players, but there are many who prefer this kind of game. I don't particularly have a problem with your suggestions. It's going to be up to your players to decide if they want to play a game as you've described. As for myself, I'm very upfront with my players about the type of campaign that I'm running. If they are interested, they are welcome to play. If they don't like what I'm running, don't show up at the table. If you join my game, but don't want to stick to the guidelines, then you'll be asked to stop coming. The only pitfall I can see is if you have a limited pool of players to choose from. If you don't have a large number of players who want to join your game, then you might get stuck with whomever you can find.
Grod_The_Giant 08-28-07, 05:49 PM	3. The guild is a good idea for the situation. Rather then make it a generic 'adventurer's guild,' though, why not make it a church? give it some flavor. 2. Restricting alignments to the ones you've chosen is good. I am with you on the ban on CN, since many bad role-players take it as an excuse to be evil, and that type wouldn't be working with an organization anyway. 3. in my games, I don't bother with experience (shock and awe). My group does site-based adventures, and after every so few, they level up. We're happy with the system, so don't criticise! You might try something like this...or simply say "I give experience based on in-game performance...killing random stuff will NOT help." and then give experience for killing the in-quest enemies. 4. This system smells bad to me. There's not much realistically that you can do to help this, other then to have strong town watches to prevent theft, and warn them of required aligments. 5. Did you look at 'faith points' in Complete Divine? Kind of like that. Award points based on RP performance. Doing heroic deeds gives you points (DM's choice), doing evil things looses them. One point to reroll an attack or damage, two point to reroll a save, and so on. maybe allow more powerful magic items to be used. Minor things, not big shiney stuff like feats. Because then players might go around saying "I rescue the cat from the tree with Mage Hand" and "I help some little old ladies cross the street. Do I get a hero point?"
deathbane 08-28-07, 06:07 PM	Disclaimer: I only read the OP's post so if I make a repeat, sorry. We've all heard the complaints of players running their characters as power hungry, greedy, homicidal douchebags instead of playing heroes. In the games run by myself and my friends, the aformentioned style of play is favored by at least half of the players. There are a few roleplayers with us, who try to play heroes, and they(we if I include myself) do their best to ignore the slimeball players who will kill anything for magic items, make pacts with devils, and ask questions like "if we kill that, how much experience will we get?". If they ask questions such as how much XP, what is the CR of ..., and related things then inform them that the characters don't know what XP, CR, HD, class levels, and so on are. They should know that is metagaming and they should never be given an answer to such questions. 1. I am only allowing LG, NG, CG, and LN alignments. No exceptions. I also expect people to live up to those alignments. I think this is a good idea until they get mature enough to play other alignments, or they understand that having the other alignments does not mean they can do whatever they want to do. 2.Characters are members of the Adventurer's guild, a good aligned organization that does not tolerate evil behavior. Characters who cannot maintain a suitable alignment are expelled from the guild(and therefore, the game). That is not needed. I am sure the towns have guards and such. Just have them thrown in jail(long enough so they cant rejoin the party) which means they have to make new characters. If they resist and fight back, just bring out higher level enforcement and the penalty for killing gov't officials(the town guard) could be death. After making enough new characters they should catch on. You should also talk to them about how their actions disrupt things, and if you already have then by all means kick them out of the campaign. 3.I am only giving experience for completing quests. Side diversions and such have no rewards, and attacking monsters and NPCs for no good reason gives no benefit. Experience points will be awarded by the guild instead of just gained naturally, who can withold them for roleplaying/storyline reasons. Guilds dont give out XP because it does not exist. I paragraph 2 should handle things and paragraph 3 is not needed. 4. Magic items and treasure will be based off of level and not found in game. All players will be allowed to equip their characters based off the character wealth by level table, and are free to update themselves as they level up. So what about when the party loots the dead body. Are you just going to say his stuff vanished? This is a not a video game, things don't just disappear. 5. I am working with a few experiments in putting together a rewards system for heroic deeds. I'm thinking of a system of hero points, which can be used as a luck reroll in the game, or saved up to purchase feats, ability score increases, or an increase in character wealth used to purchase items. The standards for getting one of these would be fairly high, and would require at least some character risk or loss. An awesome idea. I have heard of such things before.
xXOblivionXx 08-28-07, 08:16 PM	First of all, D&D is NOT Fable! Now about your rules: 1. is a very good way to handle immature players, but mature players usually don't like to have to play something they don't want. 2. Sucks. Being expelled from the guild should not mean being expelled from the game. Even in Fable, the guildmaster rebelled against the old one for not allowing the heroes to make their own moral decisions. Also, just because you are incompetent of enforcing the consequences of the players actions you shouldn't expel them from the game, you should try of enforcing them. 3. This one does not even make sense. Does the farmer bob, in order to become second level commoner, have to complete quests for the NPC guild? Even if, experience is just what the word means, experience. A concept, not something you can touch or smell or see. Except if your guild has super machines that give to the brain memories, but still it will not know how to perform the feats it performed in the memories. 4. does not make sense too, where does the guild find all those unlimited supplies of wondrous objects that, to be created, the creator must infuse to them a part of himself? So, overall, your system is fascistic and unrealistic. Exactly the opposite of what most people expect from D&D.
Varia 08-28-07, 09:38 PM	Number 1 and 2 are ok, if not stellar. So you want to run a game of shiney heros like Dudley Doright, ignoring heroes like Batman. Thats fine, if limiting. Er, he just said he wanted good-aligned characters and LN. Batman is NG, how is he ignored/excluded?
NerdNumber1 08-28-07, 10:45 PM	All players should have a certain ammount of maturity to play this game. I have seen 12 year olds that have acted more mature than one 15 year old. Those without this maturity will likely get themselves killed (don't be leanient when they deserve it!), and then they will have some time to think about their mistakes while they role-up a new character. Just remind your players that their actions have consequences and say that you will not give them experience for random acts of violence or stupidity (ex: assalting town guard=bad (no xp and a bounty will be placed on the offending character's head.)) Also, give experience for avoiding encounters.
HamHam 08-28-07, 11:35 PM	Er, he just said he wanted good-aligned characters and LN. Batman is NG, how is he ignored/excluded? Batman is all alignments. (Personally I go with N or maybe CN.)
LoneStranger 08-29-07, 02:59 AM	Actually if at all possible I'd like an update on the game, how it's going and how many people you've had to kick out so far. the bit about alignments I don't have too much of a problem with, you do have the right to restrict things there. However I have to agree that the guild the group is being forced to go through is a bit heavyhanded. The Guild tells you where to go to be a hero, the Guild tells you how long before you level up, and the Guild is the only place you can go to get anything? I'd probably rebel against that just on principles, especially since "salvaging items from people who were promoted to corpses very recently" is part of the enjoyment. We get stuff, we find out who can use what, and we sell the rest to help each characters pocketbook. Someone else on this thread mentioned a lack of development of the character which does run contrary to what you're trying to do. Since I doubt this all powerful Guild would support someone going off and doing their own thing, it sounds like you're having people make 2-D characters who live only to fight and be heroes. Although now that I think about it, I'd probably take the money offered by the guild, dig out the guide to make your own home/fortress/castle or whatever, and have that built so I can retire from the game as early as possible. That is, if I showed up in the first place.
Thubby 08-29-07, 03:27 AM	for "douchebaggery" i have a very simple fix. any time a person mentions an OOC reason to do something before an IC one, something VERY bad happens to them. from epileptic seizures (resulting in HUGE mental score dmg), and xp loss, to elephants out of the sky. the only way to realy change this kind of bad behavior is to crush it. to make it so horrendously unappealing that anything would be better, so they play better. what your doing ties their hands, is doesnt make them want to change. (this advice should only be used against very bad players, and quickly abandoned should behavior change)
bobothechimp 08-29-07, 04:01 AM	Hey, look. Some giants. They probably have some valuable treasure, and I'd like to gain some EXP as well. It shouldn't take that long, let's go fight them LOL U DIE GET OUT OF MY GAME!
Madfox11 08-29-07, 09:43 AM	Each player gets their satisfaction in a role-playing game from different aspects of that game. More often than not forcing players into a style they don't like, usually doesn't solve the problem (except when they leave of course). Having said that, sometimes using rules like these really help curtail what you consider the worse of behavior, just make sure that at least once per session there is something a particular player likes. I know that in my home campaign there were some issues between the different players, so as a group we decided to restart the campaign and impose several strict character generation rules. It did wonders to the campaign, and it finally retired around level 14. The difference is though that the group as a whole discussed the issues at hand, so everybody was aware what the rest wanted from the game, and everybody agreed with the decision. I would be less certain a top-down degree would work nearly as well... One thing I don't agree with it though is only handing out xp for quest specificaly provided by the guild and not just because it wouldn't make sense. It stiffles creativity and personal character development. There are also much better tools to keep players on track, or to prevent them from going on a random killing spree. Tools you have complete control over as a DM in the form of in campaign consequences.
Frugal 08-29-07, 11:00 AM	Honestly, I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Restricting evil alignments is one thing, and can be a good idea but TN and CN should be allowed, just make sure to enforce the no evil part of things, don't let people play TN or CN as evil but reading as neutral. The adventure guild idea can work for giving adventure hooks and quests but it can also get a bit railroading. The big issue is that XP is a metagame concept and having an in-game group be the people who give this out is ridiculous and really breaks immersion and verisimilitude. Now it sounds like the big problem is that the players get side tracked or go off randomly killing or fighting random monsters for treasure or XP. Well guess what, the problem there is that you make that work. Why are they getting lots of XP or loot from this? Because you give it to them. If you make it so that they can't easily find CR appropriate creatures to fight on their own then they won't get much XP or treasure, of much of anything. Or, have it work the odd time but have there be consequences. They randomly kill commoners? Well then guess what, the law comes after them? The get arrested, or they flee and are outcasts, they can't show their faces in town, they can't buy things, they can't stay at the inn, etc. If they go hunting other monsters, well now they have new enemies that will come after them, etc. I think the biggest thing to look at is how your DM style might be encouraging the behaviour. If you allow the players to be douchebags and get away with it then you have yourself to blame. Talk to the players out of game, sure, but also stop making certain things work for them. Look at ways you can deal with it in-game that make sense but then don't hamstring player choices or force them on the your railroad tracks and punish them for any time they want to diverge from them (which could be fore perfectly valid RP reasons).
Prince_of_Parkness 08-29-07, 11:07 AM	You can no more out law "douchebag" behavour than a player can outlaw DMs explioting their PC's weaknessess. IT like telling a dog its not going to hate cats anymore. I certonally know that if I was playing in your world Id be an a****** on perpose just because you forbid doing so, and im normally not
Frugal 08-29-07, 12:02 PM	You can no more out law "douchebag" behavour than a player can outlaw DMs explioting their PC's weaknessess. IT like telling a dog its not going to hate cats anymore. I certonally know that if I was playing in your world Id be an a****** on perpose just because you forbid doing so, and im normally not Exactly, you see this kind of behaviour all the time. Like in a work environment that suddenly starts instituting all kinds of nasty measures to cut down on employee theft, you usually see a whole lot more staff stealing from the business because it's just natural to think, "well they're going to treat me like I'm a thief either way, I might as well get some benefit out of it." If you treat your players as if you expect them to be douchebags then they'll likely meet those expectations quite well. Treating the players as if you expect them to roleplay well and play the heroes is probably a better way to go.
green_girl 08-29-07, 12:14 PM	You can no more out law "douchebag" behavour than a player can outlaw DMs explioting their PC's weaknessess. IT like telling a dog its not going to hate cats anymore. I certonally know that if I was playing in your world Id be an a****** on perpose just because you forbid doing so, and im normally not Dogs don't hate cats naturally. They get that sort of behavior by interacting with dogs who hates cats. Anyway, to the OP, I guess you are restricting your players too much. Give them talk encounters to encourage roleplaying. Heck, I've ran one session with all talk encounters, and all my players are the typical hack and slash type. If you yourself roleplayed well, and it tickled their fancy, they will start to roleplay.
Ack 08-29-07, 01:48 PM	Exactly, you see this kind of behaviour all the time. Like in a work environment that suddenly starts instituting all kinds of nasty measures to cut down on employee theft, you usually see a whole lot more staff stealing from the business because it's just natural to think, "well they're going to treat me like I'm a thief either way, I might as well get some benefit out of it." If you treat your players as if you expect them to be douchebags then they'll likely meet those expectations quite well. Treating the players as if you expect them to roleplay well and play the heroes is probably a better way to go. I tend to disagree (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1280). Rewarding a behaviour will reinforce that behaviour. If the PCs are given the option to be the hero and instead get a better reward for being underhanded (and that's what being heroic is - turning down reward for the chance to do what is right) then unless that behaviour is somehow punished in a realistic fashion, they will continue to act that way - because it works.
Thanuir 08-29-07, 02:08 PM	We've all heard the complaints of players running their characters as power hungry, greedy, homicidal douchebags instead of playing heroes.Do note that if the players are douchebags, you can do pretty much nothing to help that. Except from hitting them with a folded steel chair, but that is a bit of a digression. If they are good folk but play douchebag characters, try talking to them in addition to whatever else you are doing. Open communication is always a good thing. 2. Characters are members of the Adventurer's guild, a good aligned organization that does not tolerate evil behavior. Characters who cannot maintain a suitable alignment are expelled from the guild(and therefore, the game).I'd let the players further specify the organisation when creating characters. So if it suits them, it can be a church, or a druidic circle, or an arcane guild, or whatever else the players agree to, given your parameteres and agreement. Their choice of order might also hint at the sort of adventures they want you to give them; an undead-hunting organisation is likely to send them against undead, so if they agree to such an org, give 'em undead and necromancers to fight aplenty. Ask them to define the purpose of the guild, why it wants to destroy evil (if not self-evident from the former question) and what kind of members it usually has. This gives you tools that can inspire creating compelling adventures for the party. I would always give at least two possible and interesting quests. "Hunt down this dragon who has been terrorising the countryside or find out what sort of critter has been slaughtering townsfolk near the Very Cursed Woods of Darkness. Make sure the quests are different. Feel free to escalate the situation; if party deals with the dragon, next they'll have the option of facing the army of half-fiend trolls that has grown numerous and is marching out of the Very Cursed Woods of Darkness. 5. I am working with a few experiments in putting together a rewards system for heroic deeds. I'm thinking of a system of hero points, which can be used as a luck reroll in the game, or saved up to purchase feats, ability score increases, or an increase in character wealth used to purchase items. The standards for getting one of these would be fairly high, and would require at least some character risk or loss.The idea, in general is good, but it does have a slight problem. I'd call it a flaw, but you opinion may vary. A powerful character does not have to spend hero points on rerolls and can use them to become even more powerful, while weak characters take the rerolls and never catch up with the strong ones, more likely the opposite. How to fix this? One option is that using a point gives a reroll, and after using three points (change the number to taste), the character gains a permanent bonus. This will also encourage people to use the points instead of hoarding them. Oh, yeah, for hero points: Use an actual, physical counter. Bottle caps, poker chips, candies (eat one to use it, get candy from GM by playing in the specified way), extra dice, extra miniatures, whatever. This will make sure that players remember the points and also reduces the chance of forgetting to remove/add them. Cheating ought not be a problem, anyways, since you are playing with these people.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-29-07, 02:20 PM	Exactly, you see this kind of behaviour all the time. Like in a work environment that suddenly starts instituting all kinds of nasty measures to cut down on employee theft, you usually see a whole lot more staff stealing from the business because it's just natural to think, "well they're going to treat me like I'm a thief either way, I might as well get some benefit out of it." If you treat your players as if you expect them to be douchebags then they'll likely meet those expectations quite well. Treating the players as if you expect them to roleplay well and play the heroes is probably a better way to go. I dont expect anyhting from my PCs. But I accept that some will roleplay as power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-heroes. Whilst others will be rightous slayers of evil. Others will find a balance of the two, others somethign completely seperate. What I was merely trying to say is that telling characters that they can no longer be "douchebags" and expecting them to apply just isnt going to work, at least I know it wouldnt with any characters ive ever met, and I know that it I started doing this my PC's would find a new DM
Frugal 08-29-07, 02:22 PM	I tend to disagree (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1280). Rewarding a behaviour will reinforce that behaviour. If the PCs are given the option to be the hero and instead get a better reward for being underhanded (and that's what being heroic is - turning down reward for the chance to do what is right) then unless that behaviour is somehow punished in a realistic fashion, they will continue to act that way - because it works. Note my previous post where I pretty much say the same thing. A lot of times the behaviour happens because the DM lets it happen. As in, they get good loot from random killings, or good XP, or both, with no consequences. However, I think that then taking a group that are used to that behaviour and then outlawing that behaviour is just going to make them find new ways to be douchebags under the restrictions. Why? Because the original behaviour or play style was never addressed and the players are used to that and slapping this huge pile of restrictions on the group can really build resentment, which leads to the players working toward sabotaging the campaign. I say better to talk to the players out of game a bit and stop rewarding the behaviour in game. What the OP is proposing is not punishing the behaviour, he's just trying to ban it, and I find that's rarely effective.
Frugal 08-29-07, 03:01 PM	I dont expect anyhting from my PCs. But I accept that some will roleplay as power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-heroes. Whilst others will be rightous slayers of evil. Others will find a balance of the two, others somethign completely seperate. Agreed. But my personal experience is that the power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-hero players tend to play that way because it works. It's too often a case of: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Um, 50gp and a +1 ring of protection" "Awesome, okay, now I'm attacking the next guy on the street!" Now compare this to: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Well it's going to take several rounds to search his body, during that time the other people on the street are backing away, several shop keepers are closing up their shops now, others are calling for the watch" "Okay, well what do I get?" "Hmm, clearly the person was of a lower class, his clothes are filthy and torn, as you dig through his rags you eventually come across 5 copper pieces." "Oh man, that's it? Well what do I get for XP?" "Well normally I don't give out XP immediately but let's see, he was a 1st level commoner and you're a 10th level character so, 0 XP" "Man, what a rip! Okay, I'll kill the next guy on the street!" "Well the street is pretty much empty by now, you can hear the watch coming now" Now from here you can either have some high level guards show up and capture him or maybe he runs, whatever happens there's some definite consequences. Maybe he fights going for gear or XP there but now he's really in for some trouble. If he runs well a lot of people saw him and he's in blood covered clothes (from searching the body), etc. Now that's going to establish that random NPCs aren't just free treasure and XP machines. Now to be fair, some of this can be behaviour learned from other campaigns so I shouldn't be too hard on the OP but he should look at what he does when the players do this kind of thing and establish it's not going to work rather than have it work and then complain when the players do it.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-29-07, 03:23 PM	Agreed. But my personal experience is that the power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-hero players tend to play that way because it works. It's too often a case of: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Um, 50gp and a +1 ring of protection" "Awesome, okay, now I'm attacking the next guy on the street!" Now compare this to: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Well it's going to take several rounds to search his body, during that time the other people on the street are backing away, several shop keepers are closing up their shops now, others are calling for the watch" "Okay, well what do I get?" "Hmm, clearly the person was of a lower class, his clothes are filthy and torn, as you dig through his rags you eventually come across 5 copper pieces." "Oh man, that's it? Well what do I get for XP?" "Well normally I don't give out XP immediately but let's see, he was a 1st level commoner and you're a 10th level character so, 0 XP" "Man, what a rip! Okay, I'll kill the next guy on the street!" "Well the street is pretty much empty by now, you can hear the watch coming now" Now from here you can either have some high level guards show up and capture him or maybe he runs, whatever happens there's some definite consequences. Maybe he fights going for gear or XP there but now he's really in for some trouble. If he runs well a lot of people saw him and he's in blood covered clothes (from searching the body), etc. Now that's going to establish that random NPCs aren't just free treasure and XP machines. Now to be fair, some of this can be behaviour learned from other campaigns so I shouldn't be too hard on the OP but he should look at what he does when the players do this kind of thing and establish it's not going to work rather than have it work and then complain when the players do it. Its not as if I say to my player: "You can either be selfish bastards and kill everyone. This will allow you to advance a level twice as fast due to extra Xp and will double your characters wealth scores. Alternativly toy can be a caring hero. There are no benefits from this what so ever, just many personal sacrifices. You can play either, there no consequences" My main power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-hero PC does these things and suffers the consequneces. He never bothers putting any ranks in Diplomacy because were ever he goes he gets penalties of up to -20 in that skill, even in towns hes just arrieved in. He has more magical items than other characters of his level due to looting, but has less gp due to the bribes he needs to pay. In some places he's a outlaw and cant go there without atracting an army division in a matter of hours. Also, i dont give him magical items for killing 1st level commoners, but he doesnt care. Hes not only treaure hungry, he also sadistic. He kills cause he gets kick from me decribing people beggin for their life at his feet before he kills them. This is his character and I dont intend to tell him , "Right that it, *snap* your a paladin now, no more evil deads,". Hes hapily facing the consequences for his gaming style, so it doesnt bother me
deathbane 08-29-07, 04:02 PM	The idea, in general is good, but it does have a slight problem. I'd call it a flaw, but you opinion may vary. A powerful character does not have to spend hero points on rerolls and can use them to become even more powerful, while weak characters take the rerolls and never catch up with the strong ones, more likely the opposite. How to fix this? One option is that using a point gives a reroll, and after using three points (change the number to taste), the character gains a permanent bonus. This will also encourage people to use the points instead of hoarding them. Oh, yeah, for hero points: Use an actual, physical counter. Bottle caps, poker chips, candies (eat one to use it, get candy from GM by playing in the specified way), extra dice, extra miniatures, whatever. This will make sure that players remember the points and also reduces the chance of forgetting to remove/add them. Cheating ought not be a problem, anyways, since you are playing with these people. The hero point is to get the character out of really bad situations like he rolls a 1 on a save or die spell. It is true that he could use it for a feat, but I think avoiding death is more valuable than any feat. The character should never get enough hero points to have a chance at losing count. If he can get more than 2 at once, something may be wrong. The DM may have it setup that a Dragon will destroy a village, and the party may decide to let it have the village so they can come back later(due to not being strong enough), which will save many other villages, but one person in the group may stand alone, and while not really defeating the dragon he may save the village, with a combination of trickery and courage. That deserves a hero point for standing in the face of danger alone and stopping the dragon(and jacking up the DM's plot line). If you do something so amazing it stops the game because nobody knows how to react then you may have earned a hero point.
jasper 08-29-07, 04:02 PM	1. Don't play with goobers. 2. If you must play with goobers, actions have reactions. So go a head an spit in the Mayor's son milk and drop the mayor down the privy. Hope you and the rest of your friends like lousy service. And black widows in your privy.
Amon_WinterfallIV 08-29-07, 08:02 PM	Well, it does sound an awful lot like Fable, actually. If the Adventurer's guild has the power to dispense all items and XP in the campaign, then you have created a game with only means to get ahead--the guild. You've restricted alignments, restricted behaviors, and even banned external treasures--to what point? You may have outlawed Douchebag Behavior, but you've critically compromised your game. Unless the guild authorizes it, you gain no XP. And if the XP distribution man dislikes the PCs, you've basically locked down the game. If the PCs are incommunicado, no XP, and no additional magic items. Oh yeah, the enemies, who don't have these kind of limitations, now have a simple-clear cut strategy to screw the PCs over REAL GOOD. If they knock out the XP Engine, they've gedorkified the PCs. The physics behind this world are probably impossible to justify. Perhaps this does not matter--but I've always been the 'flesh-out the world' type of DM. I just think that the conditions you've placed on your playing group may have serious repercussions that might kill your game. Unless the guild is very free-wheeling and passive, the PCs are going to get run around by monopolostic power. The PCs can't say no to the guild if they want to survive, and this means that the PCs are already DEEPLY SCREWED.
Jenny With The Lantern 08-30-07, 01:35 AM	"This must be the worst railroad ever." Seriously, that was my first thought when I read your description. I understand what you're trying to do, but isn't D&D about choosing the things your character will do? I mean, you've basically outlawed any quests not put forward by the guild, meaning: - no looking for deeper meanings in quests (if they find trails leading away from the kobold hold, why investigate.. It doesn't bring any rewards after all) - no character development outside of the guild (don't you make them write background stories? What if that one person in it your PC loves very much gets killed? Do they go to the guild first?) I would definately not enjoy a game like that. Instead, I'd play Zelda on my WII. You can't outlaw bad behaviour, just discourage it like mentioned before. You already realise that the one guy who's the most disruptive still is. The only way to deal with this is out of game! Talk to him, tell him what you dont like and if he persists, throw him out of the group! I don't know how well you handle it when your group does something you don't expect, but to me it sounds like you're scared of those situations and made sure they don't happen any more. Well, knowing players, they will still find some way to baffle you. It's all a matter of handling their behaviour. Maybe you should encourage it, in order to become a better DM?
DMCuindless 08-30-07, 04:15 AM	I've seen a lot of negativity posted toward the "guild dispensing experience" idea, but there is one way that it could easily work: Training. The guild that these players work for takes it upon themselves to train them and equip them between missions, which is an easy way to explain how it "dispenses experience". Older, more powerful adventurers teach them feats, spells, combat maneuvers and skills. This places a significant record-keeping responsibility on the DM, who has to track their experience points and let them know when that training has become useful. This would also allow the players to continue making choices about how their characters improve, because they could ask to learn various different level-dependent benefits. This could even lead to some serious roleplaying as well, such as the possibility of one of the characters develop a strong teacher/student bond with a mentor. "Hey, Sir Telgar, I've noticed a number of times that my blade cleaved right through an enemy... is there any way to direct that energy into another opponent?" "Why sure, m'boy. Let's go to the pell and I'll show you a trick I learned when I was about your age!" Having a mentor betray the group and become an enemy yields very serious roleplaying drama in game as well. I can see all sorts of possibilities with this set up, so long as its run well. The idea of turning in magic items found during the mission isn't so bad either, since they might be more useful to other operatives on other missions. I'm not advocating that the DM assign magic items to the characters, though his higher level guild members might be in a position to make good suggestions. Lastly, somebody mentioned that they wouldn't be in an organization that only offered rules, but I think there's a way to make this organization very helpful to a group of orderly, tactics-oriented and heroic PCs. Free or reduced cost spell-casting, for instance. Guaranteed protection is another. It would also give the DM a deus ex machina for TPKs: The Guild sends a rescue party! The only problem I see is how much this would rankle a Chaotic character who enjoys personal freedom. The more I write, the more I realize this is like a military unit or government organization, making Lawful alignments paramount, though I think a Chaotic Good character could find a place in this organization, especially if it was based around altruism. Perhaps some sort of agent autonomy or prevalence of personal choice would molify the CG characters in the group. Who knows? Regardless, this gives me an interesting idea for a campaign that would allow stand-alone style adventures as opposed to the old "Adventure Path" standard.
deathbane 08-30-07, 04:51 AM	I've seen a lot of negativity posted toward the "guild dispensing experience" idea, but there is one way that it could easily work: Training. The guild that these players work for takes it upon themselves to train them and equip them between missions, which is an easy way to explain how it "dispenses experience". Older, more powerful adventurers teach them feats, spells, combat maneuvers and skills. This places a significant record-keeping responsibility on the DM, who has to track their experience points and let them know when that training has become useful. This would also allow the players to continue making choices about how their characters improve, because they could ask to learn various different level-dependent benefits. This could even lead to some serious roleplaying as well, such as the possibility of one of the characters develop a strong teacher/student bond with a mentor. "Hey, Sir Telgar, I've noticed a number of times that my blade cleaved right through an enemy... is there any way to direct that energy into another opponent?" "Why sure, m'boy. Let's go to the pell and I'll show you a trick I learned when I was about your age!" Having a mentor betray the group and become an enemy yields very serious roleplaying drama in game as well. I can see all sorts of possibilities with this set up, so long as its run well. The idea of turning in magic items found during the mission isn't so bad either, since they might be more useful to other operatives on other missions. I'm not advocating that the DM assign magic items to the characters, though his higher level guild members might be in a position to make good suggestions. Lastly, somebody mentioned that they wouldn't be in an organization that only offered rules, but I think there's a way to make this organization very helpful to a group of orderly, tactics-oriented and heroic PCs. Free or reduced cost spell-casting, for instance. Guaranteed protection is another. It would also give the DM a deus ex machina for TPKs: The Guild sends a rescue party! The only problem I see is how much this would rankle a Chaotic character who enjoys personal freedom. The more I write, the more I realize this is like a military unit or government organization, making Lawful alignments paramount, though I think a Chaotic Good character could find a place in this organization, especially if it was based around altruism. Perhaps some sort of agent autonomy or prevalence of personal choice would molify the CG characters in the group. Who knows? Regardless, this gives me an interesting idea for a campaign that would allow stand-alone style adventures as opposed to the old "Adventure Path" standard. The issue with the guild is that it takes away the player's freedom.
Stev Beren 08-30-07, 07:33 AM	I've seen a lot of negativity posted toward the "guild dispensing experience" idea, but there is one way that it could easily work: Training. The guild that these players work for takes it upon themselves to train them and equip them between missions, which is an easy way to explain how it "dispenses experience". Older, more powerful adventurers teach them feats, spells, combat maneuvers and skills. This places a significant record-keeping responsibility on the DM, who has to track their experience points and let them know when that training has become useful. This would also allow the players to continue making choices about how their characters improve, because they could ask to learn various different level-dependent benefits. This could even lead to some serious roleplaying as well, such as the possibility of one of the characters develop a strong teacher/student bond with a mentor. "Hey, Sir Telgar, I've noticed a number of times that my blade cleaved right through an enemy... is there any way to direct that energy into another opponent?" "Why sure, m'boy. Let's go to the pell and I'll show you a trick I learned when I was about your age!" Having a mentor betray the group and become an enemy yields very serious roleplaying drama in game as well. I can see all sorts of possibilities with this set up, so long as its run well. The idea of turning in magic items found during the mission isn't so bad either, since they might be more useful to other operatives on other missions. I'm not advocating that the DM assign magic items to the characters, though his higher level guild members might be in a position to make good suggestions. Lastly, somebody mentioned that they wouldn't be in an organization that only offered rules, but I think there's a way to make this organization very helpful to a group of orderly, tactics-oriented and heroic PCs. Free or reduced cost spell-casting, for instance. Guaranteed protection is another. It would also give the DM a deus ex machina for TPKs: The Guild sends a rescue party! The only problem I see is how much this would rankle a Chaotic character who enjoys personal freedom. The more I write, the more I realize this is like a military unit or government organization, making Lawful alignments paramount, though I think a Chaotic Good character could find a place in this organization, especially if it was based around altruism. Perhaps some sort of agent autonomy or prevalence of personal choice would molify the CG characters in the group. Who knows? Regardless, this gives me an interesting idea for a campaign that would allow stand-alone style adventures as opposed to the old "Adventure Path" standard. I would probably do a compromise: YOu do get to level up and get the nominal benefits of the class - BAB, Hit points, Increased spell slots etcetera. . but you go back to yon guild for Feats, new spells, skill training. .etcetera - were I to do such a system. And were you to have the guild, I can easily see the "Items turned in to the central guild and then distributed on an 'as requested' basis, with the authorities deciding need for the specific mission - sort of like "Requisitioning' equipment. Not how I would play, but were I given the assignment of running a game of that sort, it would be how I play it. And, in my games, nothing on the evil side of neutral is allowable for a player alignment> Its just how I play. There is more than enough room for creativity on the good side of the spectrum, and good doesn't have to mean 'dudley do-right'. Good doesn't have to be nice, good does not necessarily have to be ethical. Good does not have to be polite. Good does have to care about the consequences of action to other people in addition to just the consequences to the self.
Frugal 08-30-07, 07:54 AM	Its not as if I say to my player: "You can either be selfish bastards and kill everyone. This will allow you to advance a level twice as fast due to extra Xp and will double your characters wealth scores. Alternativly toy can be a caring hero. There are no benefits from this what so ever, just many personal sacrifices. You can play either, there no consequences" I think you've misunderstood my posts, I haven't been saying that's what you're doing. If you read back, I've been agreeing with all of your posts, and then using that as a springboard to elaborate. I'm not saying that you do this kind of behaviour, I've been agreeing with what you said about consequences and then elaborated on why consequences are important and why most DMs complaining about players like this (which you aren't) are at least partly to blame by not imposing consequences. If you're imposing consequences then great, you're doing the proper thing. This is his character and I dont intend to tell him , "Right that it, *snap* your a paladin now, no more evil deads,". Hes hapily facing the consequences for his gaming style, so it doesnt bother me Exactly, you can't necessarily change the type of character someone wants to play, or force them into another role, but you can impose consequences. Now if the player legitimately wants to play that kind of character and enjoys playing through the consequences then that's great, then you have a good RPer (or have turned someone into a good RPer by finding what they want). But often it's not a matter of RP it's a matter of power and players see this type of behaviour as a way to get more power with no consequences, when that happens it's not about playing a particular role it's about getting more loot and more XP. In that type of situation the DM needs to put in consequences, if it's all about power then the players will stop because there's no significant gain (or any) from the behaviour, or you discover that the player is legitimately interested in playing that type of role (as you did) and now you have a whole body of rich material to give him.
Frugal 08-30-07, 08:00 AM	I've seen a lot of negativity posted toward the "guild dispensing experience" idea, but there is one way that it could easily work: Training. The guild that these players work for takes it upon themselves to train them and equip them between missions, which is an easy way to explain how it "dispenses experience". Older, more powerful adventurers teach them feats, spells, combat maneuvers and skills. This places a significant record-keeping responsibility on the DM, who has to track their experience points and let them know when that training has become useful. This would also allow the players to continue making choices about how their characters improve, because they could ask to learn various different level-dependent benefits. This could even lead to some serious roleplaying as well, such as the possibility of one of the characters develop a strong teacher/student bond with a mentor. Except this makes the players feel like their characters are completely insignificant, there's always more powerful people to train them, why don't those more powerful people get off their asses and go save the world? They could do a better job of it right? And further: Lastly, somebody mentioned that they wouldn't be in an organization that only offered rules, but I think there's a way to make this organization very helpful to a group of orderly, tactics-oriented and heroic PCs. Free or reduced cost spell-casting, for instance. Guaranteed protection is another. It would also give the DM a deus ex machina for TPKs: The Guild sends a rescue party! This is a total cop out. If the guild comes to save the day then it completely cheapens the feeling of success. There's no, "woohoo, we won!" it's, "well, only because the guild came by and bailed us out". Then, there's always the question after that of, "wait a minute, why don't we just ask the guild for x?" Free or cheap spellcasting? Bad idea, the party will abuse it. Rescue team? Discourages intelligent play, makes the party feel like they can take any risk because if it goes wrong they'll be saved by the guild. This is not a good idea. Have you ever noticed how in every story that involves a mentor the mentor dies, or is otherwise unavailable for some reason? The reason is because the hero(es) need a chance to shine, and grow, if the mentor is always around though then guess what, he's the hero, not the PCs.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-30-07, 12:11 PM	I think you've misunderstood my posts, I haven't been saying that's what you're doing. If you read back, I've been agreeing with all of your posts, and then using that as a springboard to elaborate. I'm not saying that you do this kind of behaviour, I've been agreeing with what you said about consequences and then elaborated on why consequences are important and why most DMs complaining about players like this (which you aren't) are at least partly to blame by not imposing consequences. If you're imposing consequences then great, you're doing the proper thing. Exactly, you can't necessarily change the type of character someone wants to play, or force them into another role, but you can impose consequences. Now if the player legitimately wants to play that kind of character and enjoys playing through the consequences then that's great, then you have a good RPer (or have turned someone into a good RPer by finding what they want). But often it's not a matter of RP it's a matter of power and players see this type of behaviour as a way to get more power with no consequences, when that happens it's not about playing a particular role it's about getting more loot and more XP. In that type of situation the DM needs to put in consequences, if it's all about power then the players will stop because there's no significant gain (or any) from the behaviour, or you discover that the player is legitimately interested in playing that type of role (as you did) and now you have a whole body of rich material to give him. Sorry if i over reacted. Now that my brain has finally been able to comprehend what you were trying to say, I agree with you. Dms (especially this one) need to start imposing serios concequences for this kind of behivour, not attempt to ban it.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-30-07, 12:21 PM	Ever since reading a fantasy book, I have been wanting to make adventure guilds part of my game, and this example has been the fiinal motiviation I needed. However, just like most things in D&D, it should be optional! A character may enter a guild. He will then be expected to do some side quests and will make some enemies. In return he will have some extra reaources, knowleldge and allies.
Frugal 08-30-07, 12:50 PM	Ever since reading a fantasy book, I have been wanting to make adventure guilds part of my game, and this example has been the fiinal motiviation I needed. However, just like most things in D&D, it should be optional! A character may enter a guild. He will then be expected to do some side quests and will make some enemies. In return he will have some extra reaources, knowleldge and allies. Oh yeah, organisations can be a lot of fun and add a lot of flavour to the world, and making it strictly optional is the way to go. Then a character who disagrees with a particular org's philosophy (or methods, or goals, etc) doesn't have to go along with them. I'd recommend what you're talking about where it comes with good and bad, there are benefits to membership (resources, maybe training or access to a PrC associated with the org, etc) but that there are also drawbacks (obligations, missions you have to go on, enemies, etc). The key is to strike a good balance between, "oh man, why wouldn't I join?" and, "oh man, why would I join?"
Ack 08-30-07, 01:25 PM	Here's a suggestion; have the adventuring guild, and have it affiliated with a church that focuses in the Healing and Resurrection aspects. Players whose characters willingly fit within the adventuring guild strictures (must not be evil, must be lawful or good) and act accordingly get an XP bonus (say, 10%) and get cut-rate healing potions (brewed so that they have lesser effect on characters who are neither lawful nor good, and no effect at all on evil characters) as well as a guaranteed chance at Resurrection. Well, to bring someone back from the dead isn't easy or cheap, but they won't give you the runaround or send you away, but there is usually something they might want doing while they set about doing it... Basically, the carrot rather than the stick. You don't have to be part of the Guild, but it sure as hell makes life easier if you do. Heck, maybe you can get Guild training to give you an extra feat every few levels (chosen from a list prepared by the GM, of course). As for the stick, an all-evil (or less-than-good) party may find themselves being harassed by Guild members for their transgressions... :D Players whose characters fell from grace would also lose the XP bonus, as well as being harassed :D
Prince_of_Parkness 08-30-07, 01:30 PM	Here's a suggestion; have the adventuring guild, and have it affiliated with a church that focuses in the Healing and Resurrection aspects. Players whose characters willingly fit within the adventuring guild strictures (must not be evil, must be lawful or good) and act accordingly get an XP bonus (say, 10%) and get cut-rate healing potions (brewed so that they have lesser effect on characters who are neither lawful nor good, and no effect at all on evil characters) as well as a guaranteed chance at Resurrection. Well, to bring someone back from the dead isn't easy or cheap, but they won't give you the runaround or send you away, but there is usually something they might want doing while they set about doing it... Basically, the carrot rather than the stick. You don't have to be part of the Guild, but it sure as hell makes life easier if you do. Heck, maybe you can get Guild training to give you an extra feat every few levels (chosen from a list prepared by the GM, of course). As for the stick, an all-evil (or less-than-good) party may find themselves being harassed by Guild members for their transgressions... :D Players whose characters fell from grace would also lose the XP bonus, as well as being harassed :D Better, but I dont think there should be only one guild. It would also require another guild for evil PCs IMO. I dont like this, heres the guild, join it or regrett it style Rather, there are several guilds, each will offer unique advantages and disadvantages, choose which one is to your liking, or remain independant if u wish
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-07, 01:45 PM	We've all heard the complaints of players running their characters as power hungry, greedy, homicidal douchebags instead of playing heroes. In the games run by myself and my friends, the aformentioned style of play is favored by at least half of the players. There are a few roleplayers with us, who try to play heroes, and they(we if I include myself) do their best to ignore the slimeball players who will kill anything for magic items, make pacts with devils, and ask questions like "if we kill that, how much experience will we get?". The standard game is based on rewarding homicidal, greedy douchebags your system, however simply punished all players for the possiblity that one is a jerk. I will explain: 1. I am only allowing LG, NG, CG, and LN alignments. No exceptions. I also expect people to live up to those alignments. Alignment restrictions will neither discourage jerkisness, nor will it encourage better roleplaying. A good roleplayer can play a Chaotic Evil Hero and a bad one can play a Lawful Good Monster. The worst, most dispicable characters I've come across on these boards have been LG Paladins and Clerics. The only thing your restriction does is limit character choices for good RPer's and in doing so make the game less fun. 2. Characters are members of the Adventurer's guild, a good aligned organization that does not tolerate evil behavior. Characters who cannot maintain a suitable alignment are expelled from the guild(and therefore, the game). Again, you're introducing an element into the game that limits choice and therefore fun. Worse, it's pretty much railroading because the players are forced to do whatever the Guild (you, the DM) says or they will be expelled. They don't even have a choice of leaving as they'll just lose their character. 3. I am only giving experience for completing quests. Side diversions and such have no rewards, and attacking monsters and NPCs for no good reason gives no benefit. Experience points will be awarded by the guild instead of just gained naturally, who can withold them for roleplaying/storyline reasons. Aaaaalll aaaaboard the railroad! Mein gott, this is a terrible idea. No, seriously, even if you institute the previous two, abandon this one ASAP. Player Generated plot is one of the most fun parts of RP both for the players and the DM and you're explicitly discouraging it to make the character marionettes in a pre-written play. 4. Magic items and treasure will be based off of level and not found in game. All players will be allowed to equip their characters based off the character wealth by level table, and are free to update themselves as they level up. This... this just doesn't make any sense in game. They take down a baddie with a magic sword... and then can't use the bloody sword?! No. If you're having problems keeping wealth by level appropros, focus on learning how to build and distribute treasure better instead of foisting a nonsensical system on the players. 5. I am working with a few experiments in putting together a rewards system for heroic deeds. I'm thinking of a system of hero points, which can be used as a luck reroll in the game, or saved up to purchase feats, ability score increases, or an increase in character wealth used to purchase items. The standards for getting one of these would be fairly high, and would require at least some character risk or loss. Again, you're discouraging good RP in favor of rewarding mechanical adherence to your ideals. Please stop. I am limiting the nature of the game before it starts. You say this as if its a good thing. I am laying out that this will be a heroic game, and instructing players to create their characters within that framework. Asking nicely would do far better than railroading. For numbers 3 and 4, I am attempting to remove the motivations for douchebag behavior. Those aren't the motivators for bad gamer behavior.
Frugal 08-30-07, 02:05 PM	I had a sudden thought, to the OP, have you ever talked to your players about what kind of campaign they want to play? The reason I mention this is that sometimes douchebag behaviour can just be a reflection of boredom or lack of interest in the campaign. The rules you're suggesting really create the impression that you want to run a very specific type of campaign and you expect all the players to get on board. That can be okay, as long as the players go along with it, but I think it's better to talk to the players about what they want play and what you want to run, try to find some common ground. For instance, in the campaign I'm currently playing in I've been noticing that one of the other players keeps coming up with weirder and weirder character concepts, and they're all ones that seem to be very disruptive to the party and almost seem to be pushing the GM to say "no" to an idea. Now I've played with this player for several years now and I know that this isn't a typical thing, sometimes he'll come up with a character that's tougher to get along with because that's what he wants to play but he's not usually so disruptive to the group. So I've really begun to question if he's losing interest with the current campaign and wants to try something different. If you haven't tried this avenue then I highly recommend you do so. You might just find that some of those "douchebag" players really just want to play a different style of campaign.
elondir 08-30-07, 04:26 PM	Let me see if I've read you right: Alignment restrictions prohibiting the freedom that is the reason a lot of us play D&D to experience Your characters are forced into an organization, even if they just want to be free roamers No xp for killing random stuff, and no rewards for acting outside the plot No "found" treasure - if it ain't in-game, how are they getting it? Dude, what's the point of even playing, then? The whole point of D&D is to wander around in the wilderness, traveling from town-to-town and dungeon-to-dungeon, killing random monsters found within and along the way to take their stuff, so that you can eventually reach 36th level and whip the BBEG's butt into the Far Realm.
Cifer 08-30-07, 05:19 PM	Dude, what's the point of even playing, then? The whole point of D&D is to wander around in the wilderness, traveling from town-to-town and dungeon-to-dungeon, killing random monsters found within and along the way to take their stuff, so that you can eventually reach 36th level and whip the BBEG's butt into the Far Realm. I think there are some other points to playing. However, I too find the rules quite... superfluous. What's the problem with simply saying "I would like to DM a campaign for heroic characters and expect those who play to not be douchebags"? Personally, I probably wouldn't like it since I prefer shades of gray instead of black vs. white and less than heroic characters, but to each their own.
DMCuindless 08-30-07, 06:09 PM	I'm reading a lot of reactions that this sort of structured playing is inherently bad, but I don't think that's the case. Maybe this is because of my long years of government service, but I think that structure can be rewarding and healthy. Nothing in the world gives a blanket of security like an organization to fall back on, and even that can create potential roleplaying. What happens when that very organization becomes villainized? Take a look at the Jedi in the Star Wars sagas, for a good example. Hell, take a look at the military in real life! I understand that a lot of gamers, myself included, like to have personal choice and freedom in the game, but playing in a structured environment can present a roleplaying challenge to even a seasoned player. I'm starting to think that this might be a game I want to run, though with some tweaking. I've also noticed that a lot of the people on this message board seem to be against the idea of alignment restrictions. If I recall correctly, the Player's Handbook actually restricts evil alignments to NPCs already, so its a well established Core Rule that evil characters aren't allowed. I understand a lot of DMs, once again myself included, allow any alignment, but since the Core Rules support alignment restrictions, I would think people would have a lot better reaction to it. Now Frugal said that having a mentor would make the PCs insignificant, but I have to disagree. Having a mentor, especially at low levels, can add direction and strength to a core concept. As the character ages, the mentor ages and can die, retire or even betray the PC, providing many avenues of dramatic tension. You said that the PCs need a chance to shine, and I wholeheartedly agree, but at low and even mid levels that doesn't mean they're the most powerful heroes out there. The level system in D&D insures that the PCs aren't the biggest, baddest heroes on the block until very high level, and by then they're the innovators. They don't need to be trained by someone better because they're the experts now and can come up with their own new, cool ideas without the benefit of someone more experienced. You also said that the idea of a rescue team is a cop-out, but I disagree on that point as well. I specifically said that that would be used in the case of a TPK, which I think would make the party feel like a valuable asset to the guild. Imagine that your beloved characters dies along with the rest of the party. You start to role up your new character, when the DM tells you he wakes up on an altar to his deity with the guild high priestess standing over him thanking the gods he's awake. His mentor walks over and says, "You gave us quite a scare. Are you all right?" You might think its a cop out, and that's a valid point, but I don't think it would necessarily take away from the game, just make it different. When the characters reached the higher levels, they would be the most powerful team in the guild, and suddenly that security blanket gets taken away. Who's going to rescue the most powerful team? Who can beat the monsters they couldn't? Suddenly, as the PCs are fighting world threatening terrors, they realize they're playing for keeps. Like I said in my post, I think this is starting to represent a military unit more than a guild, but I still think it could work with tweaking. To the OP, good luck and please give us an update on how your game is going.
Stev Beren 08-30-07, 10:21 PM	Let me see if I've read you right: Alignment restrictions prohibiting the freedom that is the reason a lot of us play D&D to experience Your characters are forced into an organization, even if they just want to be free roamers No xp for killing random stuff, and no rewards for acting outside the plot No "found" treasure - if it ain't in-game, how are they getting it? Dude, what's the point of even playing, then? The whole point of D&D is to wander around in the wilderness, traveling from town-to-town and dungeon-to-dungeon, killing random monsters found within and along the way to take their stuff, so that you can eventually reach 36th level and whip the BBEG's butt into the Far Realm. . .you are actually saying "Whats the point of playing if you can't be evil?" :rolleyes:
deanruel 08-31-07, 12:53 AM	. .you are actually saying "Whats the point of playing if you can't be evil?" :rolleyes: Honestly. This thread is freakin ridiculous. The OP hasn't even posted since the -original- post and it's not just a bunch of people who like stabbing peasants in the face talking about how that's not only OK to do but it is NOT ok to NOT do it. Long story short, although I'm sure the "Story" will continue far far after this post, it is this DM's campaign and he has every imagineable right to start it off by saying "It's a good vs evil campaign, only nuetral or better alignments allowed. You're now part of a big good group fighting a bad evil group." Period. End of story.
LoneStranger 08-31-07, 01:23 AM	I'm reading a lot of reactions that this sort of structured playing is inherently bad, but I don't think that's the case. Maybe this is because of my long years of government service, but I think that structure can be rewarding and healthy. Nothing in the world gives a blanket of security like an organization to fall back on, and even that can create potential roleplaying. What happens when that very organization becomes villainized? Take a look at the Jedi in the Star Wars sagas, for a good example. Hell, take a look at the military in real life! I understand that a lot of gamers, myself included, like to have personal choice and freedom in the game, but playing in a structured environment can present a roleplaying challenge to even a seasoned player. I'm starting to think that this might be a game I want to run, though with some tweaking. I've also noticed that a lot of the people on this message board seem to be against the idea of alignment restrictions. If I recall correctly, the Player's Handbook actually restricts evil alignments to NPCs already, so its a well established Core Rule that evil characters aren't allowed. I understand a lot of DMs, once again myself included, allow any alignment, but since the Core Rules support alignment restrictions, I would think people would have a lot better reaction to it. Now Frugal said that having a mentor would make the PCs insignificant, but I have to disagree. Having a mentor, especially at low levels, can add direction and strength to a core concept. As the character ages, the mentor ages and can die, retire or even betray the PC, providing many avenues of dramatic tension. You said that the PCs need a chance to shine, and I wholeheartedly agree, but at low and even mid levels that doesn't mean they're the most powerful heroes out there. The level system in D&D insures that the PCs aren't the biggest, baddest heroes on the block until very high level, and by then they're the innovators. They don't need to be trained by someone better because they're the experts now and can come up with their own new, cool ideas without the benefit of someone more experienced. You also said that the idea of a rescue team is a cop-out, but I disagree on that point as well. I specifically said that that would be used in the case of a TPK, which I think would make the party feel like a valuable asset to the guild. Imagine that your beloved characters dies along with the rest of the party. You start to role up your new character, when the DM tells you he wakes up on an altar to his deity with the guild high priestess standing over him thanking the gods he's awake. His mentor walks over and says, "You gave us quite a scare. Are you all right?" You might think its a cop out, and that's a valid point, but I don't think it would necessarily take away from the game, just make it different. When the characters reached the higher levels, they would be the most powerful team in the guild, and suddenly that security blanket gets taken away. Who's going to rescue the most powerful team? Who can beat the monsters they couldn't? Suddenly, as the PCs are fighting world threatening terrors, they realize they're playing for keeps. Like I said in my post, I think this is starting to represent a military unit more than a guild, but I still think it could work with tweaking. To the OP, good luck and please give us an update on how your game is going. The biggest thing about this is not that there is a guild or that there are alignment restrictions, it's why there's a guild and why the alignments are restricted in the game. Let's look at the alignments first. Yes you can only create good characters according to the book but most people have played for years upon decades, they want to stretch themselves at least a little bit. So they make that lawful evil character and try to use the system against people. And before anyone says it yes I know that's not a common example to use but it is valid. Now for the Guild. No one is arguing that having a guild is a bad thing, it's just the way it's being done people don't like. Let me ask you something DMCuindless, when you started working for the government is it because you wanted to or you had to do it because no one else would let you work anywhere else? You probably had a choice didn't you? And that is the key point people are making about this Guild, it's effective "an offer you can't refuse". You have to join this guild, you have to take their training, you have to fully submit to their will in order to do anything. Most people here have seen situations where it's more like having an option to work for this group or that group, having an option of taking a guild assignment or persuing your own goals. You say you agree with the OP about having structure, that's fine. You say you can see him limiting certain parts of the game, that's fine too. The only problem is the OP effectively has turned D&D into Fable while managing to rip out some of the parts of that game too. He thinks this will make people play better when it has the very real possiblity of boring the hell out of them due to no true challenge, no sense of personal discovery, no way to flesh out a character, and no real reason to not make cookie cutter characters time after time after time.
Thubby 08-31-07, 02:04 AM	. .you are actually saying "Whats the point of playing if you can't be evil?" :rolleyes: thats one warped interpretation of it. having the freedom to do something but not doing is better than being forced not to choose what you would not have chosen anyway. nothing about the second point suggests evil, it suggests not wanting to be the lapdog of some super guild i dont know about you, but i like doing things outside the plot sometimes, if i get myself in a fight with some schmo at the bar and win, why on earth shouldnt i be able to take his wallet, or get xp?
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 02:49 AM	I've also noticed that a lot of the people on this message board seem to be against the idea of alignment restrictions. If I recall correctly, the Player's Handbook actually restricts evil alignments to NPCs already, so its a well established Core Rule that evil characters aren't allowed. I understand a lot of DMs, once again myself included, allow any alignment, but since the Core Rules support alignment restrictions, I would think people would have a lot better reaction to it. Actually the PHB says," In general, evil aligments are for villians and monsters." The in genertal part to me means this isn't a rule. Also really I despies aligments restrictions because I have seen LG characters act like 'douchbags' . If you want to correct the problem TALK TO THE PLAYERS....I really don't why the 'role-players' like this railroading.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 08:41 AM	Actually the PHB says," In general, evil aligments are for villians and monsters." The in genertal part to me means this isn't a rule. Also really I despies aligments restrictions because I have seen LG characters act like 'douchbags' . If you want to correct the problem TALK TO THE PLAYERS....I really don't why the 'role-players' like this railroading. So because you have seen people play Lawful good incorrectly - therefore you shouldn't have any restriction from playing evil? Non sequitur anyone? Be sort of like "I have seen people have accidents at less than 55 miles per hour, therefore there should be no speed limits."
Madfox11 08-31-07, 09:00 AM	Placing restriction on character generation can actually be a fun challenge and change of pace. In my experience it even allows players to play together who prefer different play styles that don't mix very well. I find all this negativeism against alignment restriction a bit weird, but that might be just me... Granted, when I place restrictions on a character generation I make sure all my players have had there say on it so that they all like it or at least can choose to back out when they don't. Ultimately it is about fun, and if a player really doesn't like playing X, forcing him to do so does not help anybody.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 09:06 AM	So because you have seen people play Lawful good incorrectly - therefore you shouldn't have any restriction from playing evil? Non sequitur anyone? Be sort of like "I have seen people have accidents at less than 55 miles per hour, therefore there should be no speed limits." I better example of what hes saying is, "If you want to ban douchebag behavour by banning the alighments that promote it, then you have to ban all evil alighments. Also CN, and True N. LN as well, since people which that aligment can still be douchebag as can LG and and CG. In fact, so can NG. All of them are now band. So now that we no longer have any douchebag behavour, anyone wanna play my improved version of D&D?
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 09:15 AM	I better example of what hes saying is, "If you want to ban douchebag behavour by banning the alighments that promote it, then you have to ban all evil alighments. Also CN, and True N. LN as well, since people which that aligment can still be douchebag as can LG and and CG. In fact, so can NG. All of them are now band. So now that we no longer have any douchebag behavour, anyone wanna play my improved version of D&D? Which utterly ignores that while you can find SOME douchebags at any alignment the MAJORITY are found within a certain set which in letter codes go _E where the blank can be L, N, or C. The slippery slope argument really doesn't work. "After all, anyone _can_ be in an accident. Why not just ban driving altogether?" would be an approximation of your newest argument.
Orion__ 08-31-07, 09:23 AM	Which utterly ignores that while you can find SOME douchebags at any alignment the MAJORITY are found within a certain set which in letter codes go _E where the blank can be L, N, or C. The slippery slope argument really doesn't work. "After all, anyone _can_ be in an accident. Why not just ban driving altogether?" would be an approximation of your newest argument. I disagree. In my experience, if you have mature players and talk with them beforehand, they tend to roleplay evil characters (at least not CE) quite well. I think I've had more problems with LG paladins...
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 09:27 AM	Which utterly ignores that while you can find SOME douchebags at any alignment the MAJORITY are found within a certain set which in letter codes go _E where the blank can be L, N, or C. The slippery slope argument really doesn't work. "After all, anyone _can_ be in an accident. Why not just ban driving altogether?" would be an approximation of your newest argument. Actually your argument adds up to that. "Few people can play evil alighment so lets ban it all together". What about the people who can and enjoy playing evil?
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 09:30 AM	I disagree. In my experience, if you have mature players and talk with them beforehand, they tend to roleplay evil characters (at least not CE) quite well. I think I've had more problems with LG paladins... In which case they weren't playing lawful good. They just wrote it down on their sheet. Pretending that all alignments 'cause problems' equally is a bit farcical. And note that you said "Lawful good paladin' - a Paladin is only a small subsection of Lawful good - which indicates you have had problems with that CLASS. Compare the amount of problems caused by playing Neutral good and Chaotic good with Neutral evil and Chaotic evil, for example. Chaotic neutral I would probably also just say no on flat out unless I knew the person and their proclivities REALLY well. Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 09:33 AM	Actually your argument adds up to that. "Few people can play evil alighment so lets ban it all together". What about the people who can and enjoy playing evil? People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. . Note that evil is different from "Is a bit selfish" "Isn't nice' or 'has rough edges'. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. You mean to say you ENJOY playing that?
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 09:37 AM	In which case they weren't playing lawful good. They just wrote it down on their sheet. Pretending that all alignments 'cause problems' equally is a bit farcical. And note that you said "Lawful good paladin' - a Paladin is only a small subsection of Lawful good - which indicates you have had problems with that CLASS. Compare the amount of problems caused by playing Neutral good and Chaotic good with Neutral evil and Chaotic evil, for example. Chaotic neutral I would probably also just say no on flat out unless I knew the person and their proclivities REALLY well. Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up. Only if the evil characters are alowed to get away it. Reasons for a LE party to stay together? Ithere are so many. Strength in numbers, ill weight till we get all the treaure then start my plans for world domination, this way my enemies have a lesser chance of killing me
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 09:42 AM	People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. . Note that evil is different from "Is a bit selfish" "Isn't nice' or 'has rough edges'. You mean to say you ENJOY playing that? Yes i do enjoy playing it and i have. most notable though is a character of mine, not myself. He's a vampire mage/life drinker, the one i described earlier.He loves the game and i really enjoy Dming it
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 09:45 AM	Only if the evil characters are alowed to get away it. Reasons for a LE party to stay together? Ithere are so many. Strength in numbers, ill weight till we get all the treaure then start my plans for world domination, this way my enemies have a lesser chance of killing me Yes. That can work. .SHORT TERM. Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 09:47 AM	Yes i do enjoy playing it and i have. most notable though is a character of mine, not myself. He's a vampire mage/life drinker, the one i described earlier.He loves the game and i really enjoy Dming it Why did you leave the definition of evil out of my quoted statement? “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Which part of that exactly do you find enjoyable?
Shadowhowler 08-31-07, 10:05 AM	Agreed. But my personal experience is that the power and treasure hungry sadistic anti-hero players tend to play that way because it works. It's too often a case of: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Um, 50gp and a +1 ring of protection" "Awesome, okay, now I'm attacking the next guy on the street!" Now compare this to: "I attack that commoner!" "What? Okay roll attack dice" "Sweet, natural 20!" "Okay, the guy's dead" "Sweet, I loot the body, what do I get" "Well it's going to take several rounds to search his body, during that time the other people on the street are backing away, several shop keepers are closing up their shops now, others are calling for the watch" "Okay, well what do I get?" "Hmm, clearly the person was of a lower class, his clothes are filthy and torn, as you dig through his rags you eventually come across 5 copper pieces." "Oh man, that's it? Well what do I get for XP?" "Well normally I don't give out XP immediately but let's see, he was a 1st level commoner and you're a 10th level character so, 0 XP" "Man, what a rip! Okay, I'll kill the next guy on the street!" "Well the street is pretty much empty by now, you can hear the watch coming now" Now from here you can either have some high level guards show up and capture him or maybe he runs, whatever happens there's some definite consequences. Maybe he fights going for gear or XP there but now he's really in for some trouble. If he runs well a lot of people saw him and he's in blood covered clothes (from searching the body), etc. Now that's going to establish that random NPCs aren't just free treasure and XP machines. Now to be fair, some of this can be behaviour learned from other campaigns so I shouldn't be too hard on the OP but he should look at what he does when the players do this kind of thing and establish it's not going to work rather than have it work and then complain when the players do it. Bravo... beautifuly said. Have a cookie. :cookie:
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:22 AM	Which part of that exactly do you find enjoyable? I enjoy doing things in game that are stricly forbbiden and horrible in real life. I enjoy the idea of the evil side winning once in a while. I enjoy the role-playing challange of having a PC who cannot comprehend the idea that there is a life that is equal to his, i enjoy ruling over people with a merciless iron fist
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:23 AM	Why did you leave the definition of evil out of my quoted statement? Because when i cant quote your own quotes and i couldnt be bothered to write it in. You know its there and so do I , as does anyone else who has read your poast. shorly thats enough
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:26 AM	U said "Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up." Well what does eventually mean? Halfway through the game? Not if theres a good DM and reasonable players. After the game shas ended in the closing speech? who cares then?
Shadowhowler 08-31-07, 10:41 AM	Ok... As another poster already mentioned, the OP seems to have abandoned this thread... so reply is mostly pointless. So... of course I'll put in my two cents. :P First... in response to some recent comments about douchebag behavour and alignments. I agree with the thoughts expressed by some here that restricting alignments will do NOTHING to quell douchebag behavour... becuase the two are entirly unrelated. Douchebag behavour is, as some have already said, entirly an OOC player problem... either a player is a jacka$$ and thus, all his characters will be jacka$$es, or he is not and they won't, or he is, but he has the roleplaying ability to not infect his characters with his jacka$$ery... which is a rare thing indeed. Either way... making all your players play good character will not stop a$$hat's from acting like a$$hats. However... I will say I have *NO* problem at all with a DM restricting alignments for other reasons. The OP said he wanted to run a more clasic 'heroic' game... more LoTR with a more black and white feel to it. Thats fine... if thats the sort of game the DM wants to run... and he tells this to his players before hand... they have the CHOICE to play the game the DM wants to run and have fun within that framework... or to not play. A DM puts a lot of work into making the game work... a lot more then the player. So he/she has the right to run whatever the hell kinda game he/she wants to run... just as players have the right to play or not play, as they chose. Just like TV or the radio... watch or listen if you like it, don't if you do not. Now... I'll address the OP's points: 1. As I already mentioned, I have no problem with alignment restrictions when preparing to run a game to define the style of game you wish to run. However, I would have left LN out. If you are truling looking for an epid 'Hero' style game, stick with the good. 2. I'm iffy on the guild. It could work... if handled right... but I don't know if I like the idea of the players HAVING to stay part of the guild or be removed from the game. What if all the player decided, as a group, that they wanted to branch out from the guild, fly solo? Would that be allowed? What if they wanted to start their own guild? See... I'm all for creating a background and laying out restrictions BEFORE the game begains... to aim the game in the direction I want... but once the game is underway... those characters belong to the PLAYERS... and I do NOT like to railroad them or force them to do something they don't want to do. I front-load my games at creation to make sure everyone is on the same page... but once the game is underway, I do NOT like to tell players how to play their characters... and I sure don't like anyone telling me how I should play mine either. 3. I don't like the idea of the IN game guild controling an OUT of game mechanic like EXP. Smells like a metagaming mess too me. Also, if the characters go off on a side quest and fight a friggin Dragon and manage to live threw it... you better BELIVE I'm going to give them exp for that, weither the guild thinks they should get it or not. No way you live threw a fight like that and don't learn something from it. This is poorly thought out and even WORSE implamented system for railroading players, IMO. 4. REALLY don't like this... more metagaming, and as others have mentioned, your sort ofshooting yourself in the foot here also. When found treasure and magic items are controled by the DM... you can insure to some degree that no one gets TOO 'chessed out'. However, if you just let em buy everything... you can expect to see some optimization that will make your head spin. Not to mention it cheepens the 'feel' of the game... at least from my perspective. 5. Depending on how you work the system... this could be good. Positive reenforcment of the sort of behavour and characters you want in the game is a good thing. So... all in all... while I sympathize with you not wanting to deal with douchebags and I also prefer an epic heroic style of D&D, I feel you are going about achive that ALL WRONG. Just one man's opinion.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 10:49 AM	I enjoy doing things in game that are stricly forbbiden and horrible in real life. I enjoy the idea of the evil side winning once in a while. I enjoy the role-playing challange of having a PC who cannot comprehend the idea that there is a life that is equal to his, i enjoy ruling over people with a merciless iron fist Point made.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:50 AM	Just one man's opinion. No its not just your oppinion, alot people on this thread agree with you
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 10:51 AM	U said "Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up." Well what does eventually mean? Halfway through the game? Not if theres a good DM and reasonable players. After the game shas ended in the closing speech? who cares then? Eventually as in: Over the course of a full length campaign.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:56 AM	Point made. ? Which point, the one "People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. .". Cyz funny you should say that, i go to a psychologist, and she seems to find me normal (apart from an inability to control certain anger outbursts) and all my friends kno me as a very kind and helpful person they know they can count on when they need help (as long as im not in too much of a lazy mood at the time)
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 10:57 AM	Eventually as in: Over the course of a full length campaign. I disagree. as i said a good Dm shoulb be able to keep a party of LE PCs together for an almost unlimited amount of time without doing anything strange
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 11:05 AM	? Which point, the one "People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. .". Cyz funny you should say that, i go to a psychologist, and she seems to find me normal (apart from an inability to control certain anger outbursts) and all my friends kno me as a very kind and helpful person they know they can count on when they need help (as long as im not in too much of a lazy mood at the time) Enjoying that sort of stuff? Disturbing.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 11:06 AM	I disagree. as i said a good Dm shoulb be able to keep a party of LE PCs together for an almost unlimited amount of time without doing anything strange ONly if the Lawful evils don't play like they are lawful evil.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 11:10 AM	Enjoying that sort of stuff? Disturbing. No...its role playing an evil character
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 11:15 AM	ONly if the Lawful evils don't play like they are lawful evil. Lawful Evil, “Dominator”: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. A group of those adventurers could work, they just need a party hierachy, which if anything is fun for the game
Cifer 08-31-07, 11:26 AM	Eventually as in: Over the course of a full length campaign. How long is a "full-length campaign"? What if it's finished as soon as the evil high-priest/overlord/deity tells the characters "Ok, your job is done, do whatever you want to. That means I won't eradicate you anymore for infighting cause I don't really care what you do now"? Enjoying that sort of stuff? Disturbing. You wouldn't believe how many actors say they like their evil roles more than their heroic ones.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 11:32 AM	You wouldn't believe how many actors say they like their evil roles more than their heroic ones. Thats a very good point
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-07, 11:33 AM	People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. It's been a while since I've risen to such obvious bait, so be honored. Why play evil? Because I can. Because I like to stretch my acting and writing muscles beyond the stock motivations of god, guts, glory, and vengeance. I play every character. I've played happy go lucky impish dwarves and cruel, manipulative children. I've played those who think the right makes might and those that take what they want by way of might. Evil is just another character choice. And you don't have to be BoVD cartoonish to do it. I've gotten more mileage out of an evil character that saw people only as game pieces in his game for glory than any amount of blood and guts. Similarly, I've gotten more mileage out of a character whose concerns were expressly for their party than any stuffed shirt 'hero' that the OP would approve of me playing as Good. And really, considering that this is the DM boards, I've got to ask; do you DM? Do you enjoy it? Guess what? DMs generally play the bad guys -- evil characters. That would mean... that you also need to watched closely. Not my words, yours. But that isn't the point of why this is a bad, bad idea. The reason the OP's idea is bad is that he's plainly and blatantly railroading players and belittling them every step of the way. He's taken away every ounce of choice they have aside from 'cast/fight/evade' and that sucks.
green_girl 08-31-07, 11:52 AM	People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. . Note that evil is different from "Is a bit selfish" "Isn't nice' or 'has rough edges'. You mean to say you ENJOY playing that? By your logic, males who play female PCs have homosexual tendencies. Actors who play as villains are internally disturbed. DMs are have multiple personality disorders, and, as stated above are disturbed because, surprise surprise, they almost always play the villains.
Shadowhowler 08-31-07, 12:00 PM	Hm. Yeah... I'd like to think of myself as a pretty good guy. I am VERY loyal to my friends, I would take a bullet for someone I care about gladly. I treat others as I wish to be treated, try to be honest and forthright in my dealings... *I* enjoy playing an evil character from time to time. As a DM, I REALLY enjoy creating interisting evil characters to oppose my party. When I run games and play games... I prefer for the GAME to be heroic fantasy... meaning the players are good guys. If I'm the DM tho... that makes ME the bad guys... and I LOVE playing them. Sometimes, I like to explore evil as a PC as well. Not to often, I prefer the heroic good types... but it *IS* fun to crawl into that headspoace from time to time. Guess I need watching too... :rolleyes:
Ecalsneerg 08-31-07, 12:03 PM	There is nothing wrong with an Evil campaign. Heck ,if it means you can do all the sadistic, psychopathic stuff you shouldn't do in RL. In effect, you have an earthing mechanism, wherein you conduct evil acts in a fantasy environment, preventing repercussions elsewhere. And, yes, you do get people who take it into RL. But these people haven't been warped by an evil campaign. They were severely warped individuals to start with.
Khadmus 08-31-07, 12:19 PM	Batman is all alignments. (Personally I go with N or maybe CN.) In some story arc (Hush, I think), Batman said that Superman was a good person at his base. Batman said that he [batman] wasn't.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 01:50 PM	People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. . Note that evil is different from "Is a bit selfish" "Isn't nice' or 'has rough edges'. You mean to say you ENJOY playing that? I am sorry I am unsure how to quote a quote but your defination of evil is a very lose statements. Also I will point out what PHB says about alignments in general. You know the part that there aren't meant to be strait jackets. And two people who are LG can (and will) come into conflict, Or even that people are always constantly their aligments. Also evil people are still humen (or atleast sentinent creatures) so they can experience love, friendship and such. They don't have to be the murderous monster you say they have to be. Also my orginal statement is that ruling out aligments don't stop 'douchbag' behavoir because a player who is a 'douchbag' will always be a doiuchbag.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 02:06 PM	I am sorry I am unsure how to quote a quote but your defination of evil is a very lose statements. Hes using the definition of evil from BoVD. basically he reports everything he can find that support his argument and completely ignoring anything that contradicts it (like the fact that BoVD says its perfectally alright to have an evil game)
MrCustomer 08-31-07, 02:39 PM	If you want magic items and treasure to be gained only via the guild then what about the monter's loot. Surely there is no credibility in not being able to loot the magic sword that the dead evil knight was poking you with? I suggest you leave the treasure in the game but alter it instead to being prize money sort of like a throwback to the old navy times. If you captured an enemy ship it and it's cargo would go to a prize court and a share of the ship's value would be paid out to the capturers. Similairly, all treasures secured by the party would goto the adventurer's guild. For this treasure the party would receive an additionaly share as prize money on top of their normal pay, the guild might also decide to share out magic items found in the treasure as well. The party could go on side quests for other gear and treasure but would still have to turn it over to the guild, in order to have a share of that treasure they would have to justify their methods of obtaining it, thus they would have to abide by the guild's code of conduct. Raiding a mage's tower for magic items for example would not be approved by the guild, the guild's prize court would deny their claim and fine them for damages to recompensate the mage's losses. But the party could say clear out the goblin caves and the guild's prize court would rule in their favour. Your system will otherwise cause the poor PCs to ignore obvious adventure hooks because they feel they won't get rewarded. For example they see a group of orcs raiding a town and killing everyone, "well the guild never sent us to help them, so there is nothing to be gained from helping the villagers, I'm going to sit back and watch the chaos, anyone got popcorn?" The players should be encouraged to sidequest in these situations, stopping the Orcs would gain them experience and the Guild should dmost certainly award them full shares in the prize money from the orc's loot. The key would be the Guild provides more experience for Guild assigned activities then non-guild activities, this is represented in the guild providing training based on services rendered. If you use the guild to completely control the PC actions then the players will feel they have no control over their characters, allow them some leeway to act independently and not be completly dominated by the guild law. Remember that finding treasure is is one of the enjoyable rewards of D&D.
Anathema 08-31-07, 03:19 PM	"After all, anyone _can_ be in an accident. Why not just ban driving altogether?" would be an approximation of your newest argument. I don't see that as the argument at all. The argument is "bad drivers will be bad drivers regardless; banning evil alignments is the same as taking fast cars away from bad drivers". To continue on with your driving analogy that is. People will act out if they want to act out. Forcing a Good alignment on them isn't going to discourage them from acting out.
DMCuindless 08-31-07, 03:25 PM	Wow, this thread has degenerated from a respectful debate about the pros and cons of structure and restriction in campaigns and character generation to an name-calling fest. Anyone who enjoys playing evil characters is disturbed? I think that's an undefendable position. I'm all for playing heroes, and have especially enjoyed playing several of my "good guys", but I think just as much satisfaction can be derived from exploring the darker depths of human psychology. I know I enjoy it as a DM when my players cringe at the pure and utter evil that I portray when I bring in a true villain. There's been some discussion as to the nature of evil as well, and I think I'll add my two cents. I think of good and evil as being altruistic versus purposefully hurtful. The sliding scale in between those two is where the grey areas exist. When does being indifferent become callousness? When does being manipulative become Machiavellian? When does being orderly become tyrannical? These are difficult questions, but I think that a person transits from being neutral to true evil when both intent and action become evil. Extracting information through torture, rape, cold-blooded murder. These are all good examples. I also think that any truly evil character or creature is going to have some sort of psychosis or other psychological pathology. Someone asked if I had a choice when I joined the government service, and I'll tell them that the answer is, of course, yes I did. After college I had a degree that would allow me to get a job in any of various research facilities, but I chose to enter government service for several well-thought out reasons. I think the poster who asked me that missed a vital point here, though, and that is this is roleplaying. If a DM said, "Okay in this game the characters are part of a good paramilitary adventurer's guild with a lot of structure, rules and benefits." It would then be up to the player to make a backstory as to why his character chose to join the guild. The player still has a choice: He can decide not to play. I've opted out of several games run by good friends that I thought were strange or poorly conceptualized. I'm just saying that I don't think this kind of campaign is inherently bad, especially if run well. One question: I don't know what Fable is. Could someone help me out?
Cifer 08-31-07, 03:37 PM	One question: I don't know what Fable is. Could someone help me out? A video game made by Lionhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable_%28video_game%29)
Prince_of_Parkness 08-31-07, 04:15 PM	Wow, this thread has degenerated from a respectful debate about the pros and cons of structure and restriction in campaigns and character generation to an name-calling fest. Anyone who enjoys playing evil characters is disturbed? I think that's an undefendable position. I'm all for playing heroes, and have especially enjoyed playing several of my "good guys", but I think just as much satisfaction can be derived from exploring the darker depths of human psychology. I know I enjoy it as a DM when my players cringe at the pure and utter evil that I portray when I bring in a true villain. There's been some discussion as to the nature of evil as well, and I think I'll add my two cents. I think of good and evil as being altruistic versus purposefully hurtful. The sliding scale in between those two is where the grey areas exist. When does being indifferent become callousness? When does being manipulative become Machiavellian? When does being orderly become tyrannical? These are difficult questions, but I think that a person transits from being neutral to true evil when both intent and action become evil. Extracting information through torture, rape, cold-blooded murder. These are all good examples. I also think that any truly evil character or creature is going to have some sort of psychosis or other psychological pathology. Someone asked if I had a choice when I joined the government service, and I'll tell them that the answer is, of course, yes I did. After college I had a degree that would allow me to get a job in any of various research facilities, but I chose to enter government service for several well-thought out reasons. I think the poster who asked me that missed a vital point here, though, and that is this is roleplaying. If a DM said, "Okay in this game the characters are part of a good paramilitary adventurer's guild with a lot of structure, rules and benefits." It would then be up to the player to make a backstory as to why his character chose to join the guild. The player still has a choice: He can decide not to play. I've opted out of several games run by good friends that I thought were strange or poorly conceptualized. I'm just saying that I don't think this kind of campaign is inherently bad, especially if run well. One question: I don't know what Fable is. Could someone help me out? It may not be bad, but the way the OP presented it it certainaly is. I think this thread has produced some promising ideas, but they all start at one point: Dm: In my adventure, there are some very powerful adventure guilds. Joining them has many consequences, some good some bad. Do you want to join? Version 1: PC: Yeah, ofcourse. It sounds fun. Dm: Great, remember to include your reasons for joining in your background story. Version 2: PC: No, id rather remain independant. Dm: Ok fine then, this will be the kind of quest we played last time As other people has pointed out, D&d's main advantage over a computer game is the PC gift of choice!
DanteApollyon 08-31-07, 06:25 PM	My friends and I have come up with a simple and easy plan to keep our characters the way we want them. And as a DM you have to adjust to what your players do. If you are tired of your players going off and killing everything and not going by the way you set the adventure, then too bad. D&D is about Role Playing, you are they to tell them what is going on and provide the world for them to play in. If you are going to complain about how your characters act do something less rash about it like making the game suck with a ton of rules and just kill them. And you can have lots of fun doing it. For instance my friends and I have Good Characters and Evil Characters, guess what we do with them. We play good Campagnes and Evil ones. That way we can get what ever out of our systems we want. And at the same time we can have a more diverse time playing the two Characters at different times. Now back to killing PCs there where two of my friends whos dad made their characters and it was freaking stupid they had all 18s and they where stupid and everyone hated them it was dumb, and these where our good characters so what i did with them was led them into a town that was under control of mindflayers who lived underground and the town above was controlled by them, kind of like their cattle that the would feed on every so often. And i led my Players down into a cavern underground where they met 5 beefed up Mindflayers, 7 level 18 PCs died that night very quickly, and they learned a good lesson that day. DONT MESS WITH THE DM! :D
Frugal 08-31-07, 06:27 PM	An excellent example of LE in a completely playable and party-friendly member is the over zealous fighter of evil. You know, the guy who is completely dedicated to fighting evil but has started to blur the line with his methods? The one who takes things a little too far. Like maybe tortures that goblin captive for information because it serves the "greater good", or who slays the kobold women and children so that they don't continue to breed more evil-doers? That sort of character concept can offer a ton of rich RP potential and yet is also fully compatible with a party where most of the characters are Good or Neutral without it ever having to mean that he's going to kill the other PCs in their sleep. Now yes, any good-aligned party member should argue against some of his methods but if that's handled well in-game that can also provide rich internal conflict without tearing apart the group (this really comes down to if you have players that can handle in-game conflict without taking it personally or turning it into out of game conflict). Certainly he could have a place in a neutral party without too much issue other than some disagreement that he goes too far sometimes.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-07, 07:28 PM	Wow, this thread has degenerated from a respectful debate about the pros and cons of structure and restriction in campaigns and character generation to an name-calling fest. To have degenerated, it would have needed to not have used the word 'douchebag' like twenty times.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 08:28 PM	Hes using the definition of evil from BoVD. basically he reports everything he can find that support his argument and completely ignoring anything that contradicts it (like the fact that BoVD says its perfectally alright to have an evil game) I am using the definition of evil from the SRD. Verbatim. I have never even READ the BOVD. As to the rest: Yes I do 'play' evil characters as a GM - evil characters that are there to be defeated, not glorified, in the end.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 10:07 PM	I am using the definition of evil from the SRD. Verbatim. I have never even READ the BOVD. As to the rest: Yes I do 'play' evil characters as a GM - evil characters that are there to be defeated, not glorified, in the end. As I said it uses words like 'some' and 'others'. That really doesn't sound to me as a clear cut to me as the be all and end all defination. I would suggest reading the entire description of alignment. Sometimes the evil NPCs are there to be redeemed. I guess we won't see eye to eye on this because your game is simple and straight foward. I and the people I play perfer a complex game.
Stev Beren 08-31-07, 10:34 PM	As I said it uses words like 'some' and 'others'. That really doesn't sound to me as a clear cut to me as the be all and end all defination. I would suggest reading the entire description of alignment. Sometimes the evil NPCs are there to be redeemed. I guess we won't see eye to eye on this because your game is simple and straight foward. I and the people I play perfer a complex game. . . so now you think a game which has all of the players good is 'simple'? All of the some or others talks is giving the WHY not the WHAT. There is nothing inherently more 'complex' or 'nuanced' about playing 'evil'. And evil redeemed IS evil defeated as it is, in fact, no longer evil. .and therefore. .defeated and not glorified.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-07, 10:54 PM	There is something fundamentally complex about playing a hero who is not led by his moral fiber and, in fact, may be going against his own personal morality in doing what needs to be done. The paraphrase a character from a show I'm fond of: "Yes, we're evil, yes, but if the world is destroyed, so are we and we're not about to let that happen, no matter how much we hate your goodness and light."
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 11:21 PM	. . so now you think a game which has all of the players good is 'simple'? All of the some or others talks is giving the WHY not the WHAT. There is nothing inherently more 'complex' or 'nuanced' about playing 'evil'. And evil redeemed IS evil defeated as it is, in fact, no longer evil. .and therefore. .defeated and not glorified. Wow now you can read minds....no a game of all good characters is not simple. But when you sum the concepts of good and evil in a paragraph then yes that is simple. What about the evil PC that the othert PCs redeem...wow that will make a awsome RPing. Also I am still curious how does alignment restrictions stop 'douchebag' behavior? I mean like I said I have seen well played LG completely destroy party unity...because will the player was a douchebag.
green_girl 08-31-07, 11:22 PM	I am using the definition of evil from the SRD. Verbatim. I have never even READ the BOVD. As to the rest: Yes I do 'play' evil characters as a GM - evil characters that are there to be defeated, not glorified, in the end. Still, you made your point something like playing evil characters=disturbed. It is called a roleplaying game for a reason: you roleplay something that you are not. Roleplaying Romeo does not make you romantic in real life. Sure, you have to empathize with the character. But who on earth didn't have evil thoughts ever? Like stealing your sister's bike because you are jealous. You might or might not do them, but they are still evil thoughts.
Thubby 09-01-07, 01:02 AM	its a simple fact that evil exists, it is also a fact that good doesn't always win. the fact that you think it is "disturbing" for players to play out the part is laughable. I find it disturbing that you think you can judge other people, people you don't even know, based on a preference in a fantasy game, in a world very much detached from our own.
green_girl 09-01-07, 02:43 AM	its a simple fact that evil exists, it is also a fact that good doesn't always win. the fact that you think it is "disturbing" for players to play out the part is laughable. I find it disturbing that you think you can judge other people, people you don't even know, based on a preference in a fantasy game, in a world very much detached from our own. Well said.
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 04:10 AM	I am using the definition of evil from the SRD. Verbatim. I have never even READ the BOVD. As to the rest: Yes I do 'play' evil characters as a GM - evil characters that are there to be defeated, not glorified, in the end. Soryy, i stand corrected
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 04:23 AM	. . so now you think a game which has all of the players good is 'simple'? All of the some or others talks is giving the WHY not the WHAT. There is nothing inherently more 'complex' or 'nuanced' about playing 'evil'. And evil redeemed IS evil defeated as it is, in fact, no longer evil. .and therefore. .defeated and not glorified. Your game seems simple to me because you give evil 2 options: defeat or redeemtion. There are many other things that can happen to evil N/PC. They can walk away (assuming there not the BBEG) telling the (good) PCs, "You've given me alot to think about. I still dont quite get that "compasion" thing you keep mentioning, but I must admit I do understand your race beter now. Well, I enjoyed fighting along side you, until next time, goodbye," They can flee, swearing vengance (cliche i know)
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 04:26 AM	People who enjoy playing evil are extremely disturbing and I would tend to want to watch them very closely. . Im assuming you've abandoned your stand on this argument
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 06:10 AM	Still, you made your point something like playing evil characters=disturbed. It is called a roleplaying game for a reason: you roleplay something that you are not. Roleplaying Romeo does not make you romantic in real life. Sure, you have to empathize with the character. But who on earth didn't have evil thoughts ever? Like stealing your sister's bike because you are jealous. You might or might not do them, but they are still evil thoughts. Playing it and enjoying it are seperate things and. .no, not really> I do find it somewhat disturbing when someone enjoys playing evil, especially when they seem to ALWAYS want to play evil. Its not a deal breaker but. .yes, it does put one check mark in the alarming column if the first thing someone does on all of their characters is mark an "e" in the alignment column. And there is a distinct difference between 'having evil thoughts' and 'being evil'
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 06:19 AM	Wow now you can read minds....no a game of all good characters is not simple. But when you sum the concepts of good and evil in a paragraph then yes that is simple. What about the evil PC that the othert PCs redeem...wow that will make a awsome RPing. Also I am still curious how does alignment restrictions stop 'douchebag' behavior? I mean like I said I have seen well played LG completely destroy party unity...because will the player was a douchebag. If evil is meant to be redeemed in the campaign then its not an evil campaign> Its a redemption campaign. Since you apparently could read minds in declaring my campaigns simple based on one sentence. or in total less than a paragraph of posts? You make about as many assumptions. On the other hand - Evil has both the paragraph and quite a bit of accumulated traditional meaning. Evil isn't venial. It wouldn't 'stop' them. Still, the main point was. .if you are playing the percentages, removing the 'evil' alignments will remove allot more of the 'douchebags' than any other similar ban. Either because they will quit, or they will play the alignments that tend to contain many less 'douchebags.' Still, I find there are very few campaign types that NEED evil PC's to play. Redemption doesn't.
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 06:23 AM	Separate issue - playing a part in a play or movie that is evil is not really the same as roleplaying it - acting you are reading lines someone else wrote and taking a set of scripted actions> Roleplaying is a BIT different than that.
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 06:37 AM	Still, I find there are very few campaign types that NEED evil PC's to play. Redemption doesn't. Evil can play alot more campaigns than good can
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 06:40 AM	Evil can play alot more campaigns than good can If you like, 'burn the villages, and murder your way through the countryside' as a campaign, then I suppose so. HAving more campaigns doesn't make them good ones to play.
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 06:43 AM	If you like, 'burn the villages, and murder your way through the countryside' as a campaign, then I suppose so. HAving more campaigns doesn't make them good ones to play. I ment types. A evil character can have a "'burn the villages, and murder your way through the countryside' and it can also have a save the world. "I hate you, but if your enemy succeeds, hell destroy the world and then i cant rule it so im in
Frugal 09-01-07, 10:11 AM	Playing it and enjoying it are seperate things and. .no, not really> I do find it somewhat disturbing when someone enjoys playing evil, especially when they seem to ALWAYS want to play evil. Its not a deal breaker but. .yes, it does put one check mark in the alarming column if the first thing someone does on all of their characters is mark an "e" in the alignment column. And there is a distinct difference between 'having evil thoughts' and 'being evil' I think it depends on how you derive the enjoyment. A lot of players get tired or bored with the black and white morality or just playing the same thing and want to stretch. So sometimes they play a more reprehensible character and act it out. The "fun" then is in playing something new or in exploring darker sides of your personality (which everyone has) in a safe environment. For some it's about blowing off some steam from school or work. Now yes, sometimes you will run across a player who just seems to enjoy playing evil characters a little too much, or it reveals a little more than you wanted to know about their personality. That can be disturbing, sure. However, that doesn't mean no one can play an evil character or that anyone playing one is "disturbed". Quite honestly, throughout this whole thread the only thing that I've found revealed is that clearly you are uncomfortable about the idea of playing evil characters. Now I could go on with some theories on what that might suggest about your personality but I don't know you well enough to really say. But the mistake you're making is you being disturbed by the idea vs. it being an idea that disturbs others, or assuming that because it disturbs you, anyone who wants to play it is disturbed.
Marstead 09-01-07, 11:07 AM	I'm surprised, because I actually just randomly improvised a "Hero Points" system into my own campaign. I was incredibly impressed with how well it worked--and I improvised it *before* I even knew what they were going to do! Basically, at the very start of the campaign, the PCs broke out of the "RPG prison cliché" and came across a dying guard. The cleric healed him to positive hit points, and he offered to accompany the party out of the dungeon. The barbarian said "Screw that!" and immediately delivered a coup de grace to the downed guard. I asked the party first if anyone intended to stop him; they all declined. I declared "Okay, you kill the guard, and the Party gains 5 Evil Points." After that, the party suddenly took a turn for the Good, and stopped wantonly slaying NPCs, but actually going out of their way to save them. I began awarding them "Hero Points" for good deeds as well. It was like a DM's wet dream--they all stopped being douchebags, and I hadn't even told them (nor did I know, yet) what "Evil Points" meant! Basically what I've done with it is this: Hero Points are gained usually in multiples of 5 for good or heroic deeds, and is attributed to the ENTIRE PARTY, *not* to individuals. One Hero Point can be spent by any one member of the party to add one to any d20 roll; multiple points can be spent on the same roll with no upper limit (other than the amount of Hero Points the party has). A character wishing to use a Hero Point on a roll may do so before or after rolling, but must receive the consent of the entire party to spend it. I'm also considering allowing Hero Point build-up for things like extra actions, reuse of spent spells and abilities, etc. (Like action points, but earned rather than automatic). Evil Points are actually "Railroad Points" for me. These are even more of a DM's wet dream, really. Basically, whenever the party gains Evil Points, I as the DM can spend them to facilitate an NPC, but to an advanced degree--I add (HeroPointsSpent)d6 to any roll I make for an NPC, and make these rolls public rather than behind the screen. Most DMs who want to railroad do it by obviously cheating players--if a bard attempts a Diplomacy check on the King of Demons and gets a 30, and you roll a 22 for the King, you can just say "He ignores you", fudging the roll. With this I can show them the direct consequences for their evil actions by physically rolling the d6 and keeping them aware of how many Evil Points I'm spending to thwart them. I call "Evil Points" my "Railroad Points" because I don't use them to kill the PCs, but I use them to keep the PCs from killing my precious recurring villains and similar things DMs can't stand. I find it works pretty well.
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 02:30 PM	I'm surprised, because I actually just randomly improvised a "Hero Points" system into my own campaign. I was incredibly impressed with how well it worked--and I improvised it *before* I even knew what they were going to do! Basically, at the very start of the campaign, the PCs broke out of the "RPG prison cliché" and came across a dying guard. The cleric healed him to positive hit points, and he offered to accompany the party out of the dungeon. The barbarian said "Screw that!" and immediately delivered a coup de grace to the downed guard. I asked the party first if anyone intended to stop him; they all declined. I declared "Okay, you kill the guard, and the Party gains 5 Evil Points." After that, the party suddenly took a turn for the Good, and stopped wantonly slaying NPCs, but actually going out of their way to save them. I began awarding them "Hero Points" for good deeds as well. It was like a DM's wet dream--they all stopped being douchebags, and I hadn't even told them (nor did I know, yet) what "Evil Points" meant! Basically what I've done with it is this: Hero Points are gained usually in multiples of 5 for good or heroic deeds, and is attributed to the ENTIRE PARTY, *not* to individuals. One Hero Point can be spent by any one member of the party to add one to any d20 roll; multiple points can be spent on the same roll with no upper limit (other than the amount of Hero Points the party has). A character wishing to use a Hero Point on a roll may do so before or after rolling, but must receive the consent of the entire party to spend it. I'm also considering allowing Hero Point build-up for things like extra actions, reuse of spent spells and abilities, etc. (Like action points, but earned rather than automatic). Evil Points are actually "Railroad Points" for me. These are even more of a DM's wet dream, really. Basically, whenever the party gains Evil Points, I as the DM can spend them to facilitate an NPC, but to an advanced degree--I add (HeroPointsSpent)d6 to any roll I make for an NPC, and make these rolls public rather than behind the screen. Most DMs who want to railroad do it by obviously cheating players--if a bard attempts a Diplomacy check on the King of Demons and gets a 30, and you roll a 22 for the King, you can just say "He ignores you", fudging the roll. With this I can show them the direct consequences for their evil actions by physically rolling the d6 and keeping them aware of how many Evil Points I'm spending to thwart them. I call "Evil Points" my "Railroad Points" because I don't use them to kill the PCs, but I use them to keep the PCs from killing my precious recurring villains and similar things DMs can't stand. I find it works pretty well. A clasic example of how certain induviual points out of this idea are promising put the actual idea is bad
johnkretzer 09-01-07, 02:44 PM	If evil is meant to be redeemed in the campaign then its not an evil campaign> Its a redemption campaign. Since you apparently could read minds in declaring my campaigns simple based on one sentence. or in total less than a paragraph of posts? You make about as many assumptions. On the other hand - Evil has both the paragraph and quite a bit of accumulated traditional meaning. Evil isn't venial. It wouldn't 'stop' them. Still, the main point was. .if you are playing the percentages, removing the 'evil' alignments will remove allot more of the 'douchebags' than any other similar ban. Either because they will quit, or they will play the alignments that tend to contain many less 'douchebags.' Still, I find there are very few campaign types that NEED evil PC's to play. Redemption doesn't. I have found most campaign 'types' don't need good either or any alignment for that matter. Also redemption types( though I really find campaign types a very simplistic terminology) do need evil characters. If you run your game like a story you have to know what the evil people that they are trying to make up for. So for atleast the 1st adventure they have to be evil. Also the 'percentage' is no true for me if I had to go with your logic I'll have to say Lawful leads to more douchebag behavoir. But I don't because I judge the player not the alignment. A 'douchebag' will be a 'douchebag' whether he is CE or LG. The only way tyo deal with it is to talk to the player. If that doesn't work kick him out. Now if you want to say you can uise alignment as a early warning sign of a problem player that I can see, but you shouldn't punish good players by taking away their choices because of bad players.
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 04:36 PM	I think it depends on how you derive the enjoyment. A lot of players get tired or bored with the black and white morality or just playing the same thing and want to stretch. So sometimes they play a more reprehensible character and act it out. The "fun" then is in playing something new or in exploring darker sides of your personality (which everyone has) in a safe environment. For some it's about blowing off some steam from school or work. Now yes, sometimes you will run across a player who just seems to enjoy playing evil characters a little too much, or it reveals a little more than you wanted to know about their personality. That can be disturbing, sure. However, that doesn't mean no one can play an evil character or that anyone playing one is "disturbed". Quite honestly, throughout this whole thread the only thing that I've found revealed is that clearly you are uncomfortable about the idea of playing evil characters. Now I could go on with some theories on what that might suggest about your personality but I don't know you well enough to really say. But the mistake you're making is you being disturbed by the idea vs. it being an idea that disturbs others, or assuming that because it disturbs you, anyone who wants to play it is disturbed. I play evil NPC's. I don't like evil characters being the hero of the story.
Prince_of_Parkness 09-01-07, 05:10 PM	I play evil NPC's. I don't like evil characters being the hero of the story. Just idly curiosity, why? Sure id be pretty worried if a homicidly maniac was annouced as a British war hero, butthat in real life. This is a game.
Amon_WinterfallIV 09-01-07, 05:20 PM	Ok, the one contribution that this thread seems to offer is the idea of Hero points. And that's saucy. I have other aspects of my game I try to emphasize, so I don't use hero points. Anyway, the problem is that you've taken too much from the players-, you've opened them up to a whole bunch of weaknesses, and perhaps worse, you've eliminated any hope of player ingenuity--they will never go out and find things to do, as they would never be compensated for it. You've screwed them, and once they realize this, you are going to be DMing Stuffed Animals. @Stev Beren: Although I respect your views of Evil, I am convinced that Evil winning must be allowed as a possibility. It would not be an enjoyable prospect, but somewhere in the campaign must be the topic of "What if the PCs lose? What if they run, hide, and planeshift?" What I'm trying to say, is that Evil that is clean and can be neatly packaged and carted away is not the kind of Evil that makes campaign memorable. If the question becomes "who kills the evil" instead of "will someone kill the evil", the campaign has lost a lot of potential. Just be careful.
Terric 09-01-07, 05:34 PM	Sounds like a different system to use, but a wee bit unrealistic. What happens when they fight an NPC? Won't they have magical items just like a PC? Why can't they grab the magic items from the villain? Sounds like an old videogame. If they all agreed well enough that it'd be a good change, then I'm all for it. But to be frank, it sounds like you weren't asking so much as telling them what was going to take place. D&D's about fun for the whole lot of people playing, and maybe they were having fun playing the way they were. If they weren't (which I doubt, 'cause I know being a savage in D&D is fun) then I guess you're right to set it straight, but do keep in mind it's all for fun. I agree with awarding a luck reroll system. I'm planning a similar method. I'm gonna repurpose Action Points from Eberron into roleplay rewards. It's not a benefit that stings anyone who doesn't get it, but it's still a nice benefit to possess. I just think that if you want to teach them not to be 'douchebags', then accurately respond to it. If they're just barbaric in every way they talk, why should some kind noble like them, or even talk to them? They would get no quests unless they began nomadically runnin' about.
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 06:22 PM	Ok, the one contribution that this thread seems to offer is the idea of Hero points. And that's saucy. I have other aspects of my game I try to emphasize, so I don't use hero points. Anyway, the problem is that you've taken too much from the players-, you've opened them up to a whole bunch of weaknesses, and perhaps worse, you've eliminated any hope of player ingenuity--they will never go out and find things to do, as they would never be compensated for it. You've screwed them, and once they realize this, you are going to be DMing Stuffed Animals. @Stev Beren: Although I respect your views of Evil, I am convinced that Evil winning must be allowed as a possibility. It would not be an enjoyable prospect, but somewhere in the campaign must be the topic of "What if the PCs lose? What if they run, hide, and planeshift?" What I'm trying to say, is that Evil that is clean and can be neatly packaged and carted away is not the kind of Evil that makes campaign memorable. If the question becomes "who kills the evil" instead of "will someone kill the evil", the campaign has lost a lot of potential. Just be careful. Oh, I didn't say it is impossible for evil to WIN - just that evil should not be the protagonists, the heros, the main characters.
Thubby 09-01-07, 07:10 PM	Oh, I didn't say it is impossible for evil to WIN - just that evil should not be the protagonists, the heros, the main characters. and why not? what makes it somehow worse to follow the villains side instead of the heroes? its the same story from a different perspective.
Anathema 09-01-07, 07:51 PM	Oh, I didn't say it is impossible for evil to WIN - just that evil should not be the protagonists, the heros, the main characters. You must hate movies like Goodfellas, Casino, Heat, The Godfather Trilogy, Resivoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Sin City, American History X, Schindler's List, American Psycho, Scarface, Natural Born Killers, The Usual Suspects, A Clockwork Orange, Bound, Snatch, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, or Traffic; just to name a few examples. This doesn't even take in to account where the 'evil guy' is the antagonist but still walks away as the biggest presence on the screen; movies like The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, or The Empire Strikes Back. Evil characters can certainly be the protagonists, heroes, or main characters. Even if you disagree, they have been many times, and will be many more times in the future.
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 10:16 PM	You must hate movies like Goodfellas, Casino, Heat, The Godfather Trilogy, Resivoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Sin City, American History X, Schindler's List, American Psycho, Scarface, Natural Born Killers, The Usual Suspects, A Clockwork Orange, Bound, Snatch, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, or Traffic; just to name a few examples. This doesn't even take in to account where the 'evil guy' is the antagonist but still walks away as the biggest presence on the screen; movies like The Shining, Silence of the Lambs, or The Empire Strikes Back. Evil characters can certainly be the protagonists, heroes, or main characters. Even if you disagree, they have been many times, and will be many more times in the future. Actually you are right: I don't like most of those movies. .although "Schindler's list' really doesn't fit very well in your grouping.
Stev Beren 09-01-07, 10:17 PM	and why not? what makes it somehow worse to follow the villains side instead of the heroes? its the same story from a different perspective. Following that side and glorifying it are two seperate things. And making evil the 'hero' of the game is, in essence, celebrating it.
Frugal 09-01-07, 10:52 PM	[QOUTE=Stev Beren]Following that side and glorifying it are two seperate things. And making evil the 'hero' of the game is, in essence, celebrating it.[/QUOTE] Why does it have to celebrate it? I already proposed a perfectly viable LE (or in retrospect, possibly NE as well) character that fits into a more or less good campaign, or at least one where the goal is to fight evil. Evil can fight evil just as much as it can fight good. It can even be done with the idea of achieving good, as I suggested, but simply be a matter of the methods used. A character with "the ends justify the means" type of attitude could work really well in a campaign that still centers around fighting evil. Now clearly you prefer more black and white morality and want your players to wear the "white hats", that's fine, you can have a lot of fun with that. However, some of us like to have some more moral ambiguity in our campaigns where things aren't so clear cut, we want to explore characters that have a darker side. That doesn't mean we're celebrating evil acts, it just means that sometimes it's fun to explore that side of humanity. Sometimes the fun of playing a roleplaying game is to explore subject matter or actions that would not be possible in real life. For some that's casting magic, or slaying a draong, whatever, for some it's for exploring darker subject matter in a way that doesn't have a broader social impact. And honestly, I don't get what's so disturbing about most of the "evil" acts that can be done in D&D, oh we're going to complain about murder? Well how about all the killing that's done in D&D, but they were evil creatures killed? Why is that a distinction, it's still "glorifying" killing, all that's changed is possibly the alignment of the victims and perhaps the provocation, but the it's still killing. Now the big problem I have is simply that you seem to think that the fact you have a problem with this type of roleplaying means that the people who want to do it have problems. The fact that you're not uncomfortable (or possibly, mature enough) to handle these topics doesn't mean they can't be handled. Sometimes playing the anti-hero is fun. If it's not fun for you then don't play it but I fail to see how others playing this way, and enjoying it, in a healthy manner affects you in any way.
Thubby 09-01-07, 11:03 PM	Following that side and glorifying it are two seperate things. And making evil the 'hero' of the game is, in essence, celebrating it. there are so many examples i could use right now to prove you wrong, but unfortunately i don't think you'd know them. (deathnote, chronicles of riddick, the list goes on)
Marstead 09-02-07, 12:55 AM	A clasic example of how certain induviual points out of this idea are promising put the actual idea is bad Eh, it works in my campaign, because I have a "Fate" system that's hard to enforce (Norse Cosmology) without obviously railroading the group. I use this so they can see any railroading I do is a direct consequence of their actions.
Stev Beren 09-02-07, 06:18 AM	[QOUTE=Stev Beren]Following that side and glorifying it are two seperate things. And making evil the 'hero' of the game is, in essence, celebrating it. Why does it have to celebrate it? I already proposed a perfectly viable LE (or in retrospect, possibly NE as well) character that fits into a more or less good campaign, or at least one where the goal is to fight evil. Evil can fight evil just as much as it can fight good. It can even be done with the idea of achieving good, as I suggested, but simply be a matter of the methods used. A character with "the ends justify the means" type of attitude could work really well in a campaign that still centers around fighting evil. Now clearly you prefer more black and white morality and want your players to wear the "white hats", that's fine, you can have a lot of fun with that. However, some of us like to have some more moral ambiguity in our campaigns where things aren't so clear cut, we want to explore characters that have a darker side. That doesn't mean we're celebrating evil acts, it just means that sometimes it's fun to explore that side of humanity. Sometimes the fun of playing a roleplaying game is to explore subject matter or actions that would not be possible in real life. For some that's casting magic, or slaying a draong, whatever, for some it's for exploring darker subject matter in a way that doesn't have a broader social impact. And honestly, I don't get what's so disturbing about most of the "evil" acts that can be done in D&D, oh we're going to complain about murder? Well how about all the killing that's done in D&D, but they were evil creatures killed? Why is that a distinction, it's still "glorifying" killing, all that's changed is possibly the alignment of the victims and perhaps the provocation, but the it's still killing. Now the big problem I have is simply that you seem to think that the fact you have a problem with this type of roleplaying means that the people who want to do it have problems. The fact that you're not uncomfortable (or possibly, mature enough) to handle these topics doesn't mean they can't be handled. Sometimes playing the anti-hero is fun. If it's not fun for you then don't play it but I fail to see how others playing this way, and enjoying it, in a healthy manner affects you in any way. WHite and grey. There is plenty of maneuver room to move around without being black - and even there, you can have evil ISSUES in the game without the PC's BEING evil. There is, after all, a significant difference.
Stev Beren 09-02-07, 06:20 AM	there are so many examples i could use right now to prove you wrong, but unfortunately i don't think you'd know them. (deathnote, chronicles of riddick, the list goes on) YOU think the Chronicles of Riddick aren't Glorifying him? And naming movies isn't an argument. Just because someone made a movie of it, doesn't invalidate anything. I never said you CAN'T make evil the hero, or you CAN'T glorify it, but that I don't think you SHOULD. Rattling off even an infinite number of movies with evil 'heros' doesn't change that one iota. And to edit an earlier statement after thought: Evil should be in a campaign to be "Opposed'(Rather than defeated).
Orion__ 09-02-07, 07:33 AM	In which case they weren't playing lawful good. They just wrote it down on their sheet. Pretending that all alignments 'cause problems' equally is a bit farcical. And note that you said "Lawful good paladin' - a Paladin is only a small subsection of Lawful good - which indicates you have had problems with that CLASS. Compare the amount of problems caused by playing Neutral good and Chaotic good with Neutral evil and Chaotic evil, for example. Chaotic neutral I would probably also just say no on flat out unless I knew the person and their proclivities REALLY well. Lawful evil can sometimes work. For a time. But it eventually gets really contrived finding reasons why the LE party keeps acting as a whole together whenever conflicting interests come up. I guess you have a point. But given good roleplaying and background, and mature players, everything but CE is completely playable. I mentioned "paladins" specifically (and not just "LG") because it's an aspect of the game generally lacking good roleplay, which is what I think that happens with CN/LE/LN alignments too. What I'm trying to communicate is that I believe the "douchebag behavior" to be something related to players' roleplaying skills, not necessarily alignment. Agreed, many times they choose these alignments to justify their stupid actions, but banning them won't stop those players to f.. up somewhere else. I'm sorry, I can't express myself very well in English.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-02-07, 07:57 AM	Chaotic evil is perfectly playable too. Stupid people just forget that even chaotic characters have survival instincts. In general, people tend to forget that evil characters have survival instincts. If killing people out of convenience is a) not convenient, or b) not worth possible risks -- guess what? They won't do it. Further, while they aren't above killing/torture/hurting people's feelings, that doesn't mean its thier hobby or even something they enjoy. They're just willing to go farther in accomplishing thier goals and most. And those goals may even be noble in and of themselves. Character X wants to protect the orphanage but it can't afford the taxes. So Character X holds a hostage for ransom, waylays people on the road, or simply offs the vicars when they come to collect. Thier intentions are no less noble than the guy thay holds a bake sale or sells his house, but his methods are what are suspect. Arguing that there is anything inherently wrong with playing and enjoying evil characters is astoudingly ignorant of the complexities of motivations and character.
Stev Beren 09-02-07, 08:59 AM	Chaotic evil is perfectly playable too. Stupid people just forget that even chaotic characters have survival instincts. In general, people tend to forget that evil characters have survival instincts. If killing people out of convenience is a) not convenient, or b) not worth possible risks -- guess what? They won't do it. Further, while they aren't above killing/torture/hurting people's feelings, that doesn't mean its thier hobby or even something they enjoy. They're just willing to go farther in accomplishing thier goals and most. And those goals may even be noble in and of themselves. Character X wants to protect the orphanage but it can't afford the taxes. So Character X holds a hostage for ransom, waylays people on the road, or simply offs the vicars when they come to collect. Thier intentions are no less noble than the guy thay holds a bake sale or sells his house, but his methods are what are suspect. Arguing that there is anything inherently wrong with playing and enjoying evil characters is astoudingly ignorant of the complexities of motivations and character. I will stand by it: Playing a campaign that makes evil characters the hero of the story is not, in my mind, really a good thing.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-02-07, 12:31 PM	I get it. You simply aren't divorcing the concept of evil from people who display evil traits. A common fallacy, but I'm certain its not worth continuing a two page railroad with more inflammatory remarks about how people that view evil characters differently than you are mentally unstable.
Scipio 09-02-07, 01:09 PM	I ment types. A evil character can have a "'burn the villages, and murder your way through the countryside' and it can also have a save the world. "I hate you, but if your enemy succeeds, hell destroy the world and then i cant rule it so im in Case in point for a CE villain from a TV show that is this way... Spike from BtVS. He specifically worked t save the world at the end of season 2. His reasoning? "I rather like this world, you have dog racing, Manchester United, and then there's people. Walking around like big happy meals with legs." Sometimes Evil works to good ends, not to "douchebag" ends.
Stev Beren 09-02-07, 06:33 PM	I get it. You simply aren't divorcing the concept of evil from people who display evil traits. A common fallacy, but I'm certain its not worth continuing a two page railroad with more inflammatory remarks about how people that view evil characters differently than you are mentally unstable. People can display some 'evil traits' without BEING evil. And no - it doesn't make them mentally unstable, but it is a checkmark in the worrisome box. And you complain about people making generalizations and simplifying things while engaging in the selfsame behavior yourself?
CrippleMrOnion 09-02-07, 07:11 PM	Mymymy, quite away from the OP, aren't we? Ah well, such is the nature of alignment in D&D. First, I'd like to comment on the OP's idea. Kudos to you, my friend, if all of your players are willing to comply. I've said for years that the concept of "the game" is the thing that should be most nurtured in D&D, and as long as your ideas (or anyone else's, for that matter) don't hurt their game, then I think no debate need be had. However, if you find yourselves struggling with some of these ideas, players not wanting to play and leaving you without a large enough group, debates being had too often after "side quests" that the players considered to be "main quests," then, perhaps, you'll need to revisit your five core concepts. At their core, I see no problem with any of them. I think the wording of #3 is a little awkward; learning is not something done by one person but collected and distributed by another. I think what you're actually discussing is an XP-less system. To prevent headaches from spells or crafting that require XP, you're centralizing an organization to keep track of the XP, but perhaps you should look into alternatives for XP-less systems to stop the argument about whether or not an organization can control XP in its tracks. I get what you're saying, I just think other people are reading it too literally. You sound like you have a very personalized game world based on your experiences as a DM and player in the past, and whether others will admit it or not, so do they. You've just structured yours into a set of rules by which you've defined expected behaviors in your game. Don't let the rants and off-topic arguments here deter you. Enjoy it as long as the game thrives, but be ready to change them if the game fails. I doubt it will, though, as long as all the players understand the five core concepts ahead of time. As for off-topic stuff, well, I don't particularly like the idea of evil campaigns, but that's just for me. I fully understand the variety of reasons (many perfectly healthy, some others unhealthy) that some people would want to play evil characters. I don't think that people who are douche-bags always want to play evil, in fact, I find that every alignment can be compatible with d-b behavior. Consider jerk-off paladins, idiotic CG rogues, moronic LN monks, untrustworthy TN druids, and so forth. D-bs can appear anywhere, and do, and the problem is not with alignments, but with the players understanding what's acceptable to the DM and vice versa. To make "the game" thrive, lots of things must be nurtured and balanced correctly, DM vs. Player input (imbalance leads to railroading or destruction of DM's plans), story vs. mechanics (imbalance leads to complaints of too much roleplaying or not enough), and characters' vs. NPC power levels (imbalance can lead to PCs with no behavioral limits or PCs that are too timid and feel constantly confined. These are only a few of the things that need to be examined to have a healthy game, and all of these things can only be balanced by discussion and acceptance between players and DMs, something that's all too often lacking. Enjoy.
smoker 09-02-07, 07:21 PM	Could you provide us some history as to what occurred in your games to go to those extremes? smoker
RedRory 09-02-07, 09:14 PM	Just to respond to the op. Rather than institute some rather straitjacketing regulations (sounds like a sure recipe for railroading) as you've mentioned I would look at the group you're playing with. If you want to run a heroic style as you've outlined, find the players who want that. If they want to be cutthroat bastard pirates or chaotic stupid douchebags that's fine. They just need to find a different DM. Lastly, the hero points or reward for heroic deeds check out Pendragon published by Chaosium. It was an Arthurian rpg with a system similar to what you're proposing.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 06:19 AM	Mymymy, quite away from the OP, aren't we? Ah well, such is the nature of alignment in D&D. First, I'd like to comment on the OP's idea. Kudos to you, my friend, if all of your players are willing to comply. I've said for years that the concept of "the game" is the thing that should be most nurtured in D&D, and as long as your ideas (or anyone else's, for that matter) don't hurt their game, then I think no debate need be had. However, if you find yourselves struggling with some of these ideas, players not wanting to play and leaving you without a large enough group, debates being had too often after "side quests" that the players considered to be "main quests," then, perhaps, you'll need to revisit your five core concepts. At their core, I see no problem with any of them. I think the wording of #3 is a little awkward; learning is not something done by one person but collected and distributed by another. I think what you're actually discussing is an XP-less system. To prevent headaches from spells or crafting that require XP, you're centralizing an organization to keep track of the XP, but perhaps you should look into alternatives for XP-less systems to stop the argument about whether or not an organization can control XP in its tracks. I get what you're saying, I just think other people are reading it too literally. You sound like you have a very personalized game world based on your experiences as a DM and player in the past, and whether others will admit it or not, so do they. You've just structured yours into a set of rules by which you've defined expected behaviors in your game. Don't let the rants and off-topic arguments here deter you. Enjoy it as long as the game thrives, but be ready to change them if the game fails. I doubt it will, though, as long as all the players understand the five core concepts ahead of time. As for off-topic stuff, well, I don't particularly like the idea of evil campaigns, but that's just for me. I fully understand the variety of reasons (many perfectly healthy, some others unhealthy) that some people would want to play evil characters. I don't think that people who are douche-bags always want to play evil, in fact, I find that every alignment can be compatible with d-b behavior. Consider jerk-off paladins, idiotic CG rogues, moronic LN monks, untrustworthy TN druids, and so forth. D-bs can appear anywhere, and do, and the problem is not with alignments, but with the players understanding what's acceptable to the DM and vice versa. To make "the game" thrive, lots of things must be nurtured and balanced correctly, DM vs. Player input (imbalance leads to railroading or destruction of DM's plans), story vs. mechanics (imbalance leads to complaints of too much roleplaying or not enough), and characters' vs. NPC power levels (imbalance can lead to PCs with no behavioral limits or PCs that are too timid and feel constantly confined. These are only a few of the things that need to be examined to have a healthy game, and all of these things can only be balanced by discussion and acceptance between players and DMs, something that's all too often lacking. Enjoy. Four about the third time: I don't event try to claim that those problem players play nothing but evil - but I do find that there is an aproportional bias among them towards evil or Chaotic Neutral.
Marstead 09-04-07, 07:40 AM	Idea: Ban anyone from playing D&D who looks at the alignment, picks one, and goes "I picked X alignment because it means I can do whatever I want!" Just kidding. I find that's my biggest hassle, especially with True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral characters.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-04-07, 08:02 AM	And no - it doesn't make them mentally unstable, but it is a checkmark in the worrisome box. And you complain about people making generalizations and simplifying things while engaging in the selfsame behavior yourself? What generalizations? I'm making a very specific statement about some very specific inflammatory baiting.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 09:07 AM	What generalizations? I'm making a very specific statement about some very specific inflammatory baiting. Since I have specifically said you could have a campaign that explored within it some evil 'traits' without having an evil campaign, saying that "You have trouble divorcing the concept of evil from evil traits" comes to mind, among other things.
Frugal 09-04-07, 09:46 AM	Since I have specifically said you could have a campaign that explored within it some evil 'traits' without having an evil campaign, saying that "You have trouble divorcing the concept of evil from evil traits" comes to mind, among other things. I'm curious where you draw the line they and how you do differentiate the 2? I ask because the impression that I've gotten from your earlier posts is that you find playing a character who displays these evil traits is "disturbing", perhaps I just haven't understood your position though.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 10:13 AM	I'm curious where you draw the line they and how you do differentiate the 2? I ask because the impression that I've gotten from your earlier posts is that you find playing a character who displays these evil traits is "disturbing", perhaps I just haven't understood your position though. I find a character who 'displays some evil traits' to be different from a character with an evil alignment where 'The evil traits are the norm and he might display some good traits' Unless you are exalted or Vile, you aren't going to be 100% good or evil - so even a good or neutral person will display some evil traits. Just as even an evil person will display some traits that could be described as 'good'.
Ecalsneerg 09-04-07, 10:46 AM	Four about the third time: I don't event try to claim that those problem players play nothing but evil - but I do find that there is an aproportional bias among them towards evil or Chaotic Neutral. There is a definite bias amongst boy racers for souped-up cars (yes, I'm stealing everyone's car analogies in a slightly more relevant way). There is a definite bias amongst thugs for carrying weapons instead of fist-fighting. Basically, there are certain biases in everything. I like Chaotic characters, and Evil ones. Am I a douche? Well, hopefully not. But these alignments allow more outlets in a rolepalying situation.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 11:10 AM	There is a definite bias amongst boy racers for souped-up cars (yes, I'm stealing everyone's car analogies in a slightly more relevant way). There is a definite bias amongst thugs for carrying weapons instead of fist-fighting. Basically, there are certain biases in everything. I like Chaotic characters, and Evil ones. Am I a douche? Well, hopefully not. But these alignments allow more outlets in a rolepalying situation. What outlets do you find you NEED evil characters for? Not "Mean" Or 'Nasty' or 'unpleasent' or even 'selfish' but _EVIL_?
Ack 09-04-07, 11:47 AM	Well, to take the classic example, sometimes you are fighting a group of foes, and the last one throws down his weapon, gives you all a big toothy grin, and says, "I surrender!" Sometimes you just want to stick your sword through him anyway just because he's an annoying little git :P Good characters will get in alignment trouble for that. Evil characters won't :D
Scipio 09-04-07, 12:05 PM	What outlets do you find you NEED evil characters for? Not "Mean" Or 'Nasty' or 'unpleasent' or even 'selfish' but _EVIL_? Often playing an evil character will let you "blow off steam" so to speak in ways a good character can't. It let's you do all thse things you wouldn't really do and take out frustrations etc in a way that no one gets hurt. It's kinda like when I'm having a really bad day and I load up Doom. I get the fun of blasting away indiscriminately at a bunch of computer simulated demons, without any danger to myself or others.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 12:30 PM	Often playing an evil character will let you "blow off steam" so to speak in ways a good character can't. It let's you do all thse things you wouldn't really do and take out frustrations etc in a way that no one gets hurt. It's kinda like when I'm having a really bad day and I load up Doom. I get the fun of blasting away indiscriminately at a bunch of computer simulated demons, without any danger to myself or others. Fine. For a one - shot. Not a campaign.
Ecalsneerg 09-04-07, 01:58 PM	Fine. For a one - shot. Not a campaign. Long term venting? :P But, seriuosly, do you genuinely believe being an Evil character is wrong? Do you believe playing violent computer games (I'd give names, but that'd lead to MORE debates and stuff) twists and corrupts young minds?
Shadowhowler 09-04-07, 02:02 PM	I'm gonna give Stev some... not a lot, but some... support here. It obvious that, for him, the want and desire to portray evil... and enjoy portraying it... is a little disturbing to him. Thats fine, and totaly understandable. I think that viwe would be VERY common... OUTSIDE the roleplaying comunity. What is confusinf everyone, I think, is that that sort of opinion is coming from WITHIN the roleplaying comunity in this case. Even for me... when I play evil characters... it's very rare. I think my ratio is like 9/1 on good vs evil characters. I *DO* like to play an evil character now and then... and explore a differant aspect of roleplaying... but for the most part, D&D for me is about heroic fantasy, good opposing and conquring evil... you know, the clasics. Seems to me most newer players, or maybe it would be more fair to say most CURRENT players... find that clasic 'good vs evil' to be trite, played out, or just plain boring. More and more players want to explore non-core races and classes, and explore non good and evil allignments... that want to do less traditional things with their D&D game. Not me... I've been gaming for 25 years and, when it comes to D&D at any rate, I still prefer the clasic heroic fantasy. However... since I enjoy the 'walk on the dark side' now and then, someone eles who also does so dose not strike me as 'disturbing' or 'needing to be watched'. However... something Stev said recently did catch my eye. He said that it's the people that always, or almost always, play evil characters that worry him. Well... I'll be honest, if I knew and played with someone like that, they would probably worry me too. Of my old gaming group... a rotating cast of 3-10 or so players I played with for 15 years... most of the good/evil rations were similar to mine. Maybe some of them were more like 7/3 or even 6/4... but I did not play with ANYONE that played MORE evil characters then good... or evil almost exclusivly. I might... (I say might becuase, I'm guessing, I don't have the real world experince to draw on here) might... find such a player a little bit... worrisome. I might wonder, WHY does he always want to be evil? Why again and again do his characters have to be nasty, sadistic son's of &*%#@'s? I think Stev's viwepoint is a little closed minded and is he laying down a blanket sterotype that most likely does not apply to the players he is laying it on. At least, not most of them. However, I begain to see his point a little better anyway. At any rate... he belives the way he does... and is uncomfortable with people that he thinks enjoy playing and 'gloifing' evil... and I highly doubt a barrage of 'Your wrong becuase of this' or 'Evil is more versitle' or whatever is going to sway his opinion on the matter... so I'd let sleeping dogs lie on this one. Anyway, one mans opinion.
Ack 09-04-07, 02:12 PM	Philosophical question: is someone who chooses an evil alignment better or worse than someone who chooses a Neutral alignment (such as CN aka Chaotic Stupid) and then plays evil nearly all the time anyway? At least with the former, you know what he's like beforehand :P
DMCuindless 09-04-07, 05:21 PM	Well, to take the classic example, sometimes you are fighting a group of foes, and the last one throws down his weapon, gives you all a big toothy grin, and says, "I surrender!" Sometimes you just want to stick your sword through him anyway just because he's an annoying little git :P Good characters will get in alignment trouble for that. Evil characters won't :D Actually, I don't think you have to be evil or even non-LG to do that. I had a Paladin who declared before every combat, "I know your sins, evil-doer. I will give you no quarter!" Then fought every enemy that registered as evil to the death. He didn't get in any trouble alignment-wise because he was only slaying evil, and he declared his intention honorably before hand.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 05:30 PM	Long term venting? :P But, seriuosly, do you genuinely believe being an Evil character is wrong? Do you believe playing violent computer games (I'd give names, but that'd lead to MORE debates and stuff) twists and corrupts young minds? Wrong? No. It just does not thematically fit what I want to play in any game I play in or DM.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 05:34 PM	I'm gonna give Stev some... not a lot, but some... support here. It obvious that, for him, the want and desire to portray evil... and enjoy portraying it... is a little disturbing to him. Thats fine, and totaly understandable. I think that viwe would be VERY common... OUTSIDE the roleplaying comunity. What is confusinf everyone, I think, is that that sort of opinion is coming from WITHIN the roleplaying comunity in this case. Even for me... when I play evil characters... it's very rare. I think my ratio is like 9/1 on good vs evil characters. I *DO* like to play an evil character now and then... and explore a differant aspect of roleplaying... but for the most part, D&D for me is about heroic fantasy, good opposing and conquring evil... you know, the clasics. Seems to me most newer players, or maybe it would be more fair to say most CURRENT players... find that clasic 'good vs evil' to be trite, played out, or just plain boring. More and more players want to explore non-core races and classes, and explore non good and evil allignments... that want to do less traditional things with their D&D game. Not me... I've been gaming for 25 years and, when it comes to D&D at any rate, I still prefer the clasic heroic fantasy. However... since I enjoy the 'walk on the dark side' now and then, someone eles who also does so dose not strike me as 'disturbing' or 'needing to be watched'. However... something Stev said recently did catch my eye. He said that it's the people that always, or almost always, play evil characters that worry him. Well... I'll be honest, if I knew and played with someone like that, they would probably worry me too. Of my old gaming group... a rotating cast of 3-10 or so players I played with for 15 years... most of the good/evil rations were similar to mine. Maybe some of them were more like 7/3 or even 6/4... but I did not play with ANYONE that played MORE evil characters then good... or evil almost exclusivly. I might... (I say might becuase, I'm guessing, I don't have the real world experince to draw on here) might... find such a player a little bit... worrisome. I might wonder, WHY does he always want to be evil? Why again and again do his characters have to be nasty, sadistic son's of &*%#@'s? I think Stev's viwepoint is a little closed minded and is he laying down a blanket sterotype that most likely does not apply to the players he is laying it on. At least, not most of them. However, I begain to see his point a little better anyway. At any rate... he belives the way he does... and is uncomfortable with people that he thinks enjoy playing and 'gloifing' evil... and I highly doubt a barrage of 'Your wrong becuase of this' or 'Evil is more versitle' or whatever is going to sway his opinion on the matter... so I'd let sleeping dogs lie on this one. Anyway, one mans opinion. A side note: Its not even 'Portraying evil' - I do that as a DM, after all. Its making evil the protagonist of the game rather than the antagonist. Making evil the good.
DMCuindless 09-04-07, 05:37 PM	To Stev and Shadowhowler. I DMed for a group that I really enjoyed. The only player who bothered me always played evil or chaotic neutral characters. I finally figured out that what she really wanted was attention. She would have her characters act out in ways that were intended to shock and disgust. So I decided to play a little game I like to call Roleplaying Chicken. I spoke to the rest of the group, who were all mature and over 25, and explained to them what I was going to do. I then proceed to one-up the hell out of her. Every evil act she committed I described in mind-numbing, disgusting detail. I had her character hook up with an evil NPC who pushed her to even greater (is that the right word?) acts of depravity and sickness. It took about a month, or 4 sessions, to break her. She had her character "go insane" and leap into a magma stream, gibbering about rising demon lords. Her next character was a prim, very proper LN wizard. Success! What I'm getting at is, playing evil characters all the time isn't necessarily a sign that the person is evil. Maybe they're acting out because they want attention, or maybe they're confused as to what evil means. Someone on this board earlier said that they like playing evil characters because it allows them to kill the surrendering villain instead of tie him up and redeem him. There are ways good characters can do that. I agree with Stev that evil isn't misunderstood, it isn't "mean", it isn't nasty or brooding. It's sick, vile and twisted. It's greedy, malicious and cruel. That being said, I disagree with Stev when he implies that evil characters have no place in D&D. I've played several and have allowed players to play them in my games. There's lots of RP potential and fun to be had with evil characters. Sometimes people enjoy exploring darker sides of themselves.
Ecalsneerg 09-04-07, 06:02 PM	Wrong? No. It just does not thematically fit what I want to play in any game I play in or DM. Then you should have said that, and took it no further. But (and it's not just you, it after all takes two to tango), the argument has escalated by you questioning others who do participate in Evil campaigns.
ForestFawn 09-04-07, 07:01 PM	We've all heard the complaints of players running their characters as power hungry, greedy, homicidal douchebags instead of playing heroes. In the games run by myself and my friends, the aformentioned style of play is favored by at least half of the players. There are a few roleplayers with us, who try to play heroes, and they(we if I include myself) do their best to ignore the slimeball players who will kill anything for magic items, make pacts with devils, and ask questions like "if we kill that, how much experience will we get?". Why the hatred toward players that don't play the same way you do? Many people enjoy playing different types of characters. Power gamers are almost self motivated. The DMG 2 talks about different types of players and what they look for in a game. Although I do agree with you " if we kill that how much exp will we get? " Is the wrong way to go about things - Just because they don't want to be Butt Kicking hero's they are bad roleplayers and you should weed them out and punish them for trying to have fun? Irresponsible, Outliers and Lurkers are not butt kicking hero's either, lets cut all of them out of our games? If everyone tried to be a hero in every group I ran my games would become a bit bland. Other types of players bring new things to the table, after adapting the group correctly with the right DM maybe each and everyone of you can get something more from the game then you do right now! We all play this game to have fun, attempting to Punishing other players for how they enjoy the game / or mold them into other players seems wrong.
Stev Beren 09-04-07, 08:33 PM	Then you should have said that, and took it no further. But (and it's not just you, it after all takes two to tango), the argument has escalated by you questioning others who do participate in Evil campaigns. I would note that they also questioned ME. And while they obviously do have a perfect right to do whatever they please or find fun that doesn't harm fellow gamers, children, or small furry animals - I still find evil campaigns, one where evil is central, one where evil is the hero of the game rather than the antagonist or the thing to be opposed, disturbing. And, in general, I find the long - term playing of an evil person as a person you WANT to succeed creepy. I am sorry if that bugs you but. .oh well.
Ack 09-05-07, 02:45 PM	I think part of it might be the challenge. So very rarely does Hollywood allow 'evil' to triumph in the movies; even subconsciously, you might be asking yourself, "Why can't this character win? He's competent enough..."
Shadowhowler 09-05-07, 03:34 PM	I think part of it might be the challenge. So very rarely does Hollywood allow 'evil' to triumph in the movies; even subconsciously, you might be asking yourself, "Why can't this character win? He's competent enough..." For me, why I sometimes enjoy play an evil character is becuase of how differant that mindset is from mine. Sometimes it's very intresting to try and 'slip on the skin' of a character so wholy differant from yourself. However... my best characters and the ones I had the most fun playing were good... and I certainly play a LOT more good characters then I do evil ones. I find it much easier to totaly imerse myself in a good character... becuase I better understand and FEEL his motivations. Evil is fun... for a time. However, past a certain point, it's hard for me to TRULY portrary the character... being that his motivations and values are so far removed from mine.
Lethanic 09-09-07, 10:29 PM	I think part of it might be the challenge. So very rarely does Hollywood allow 'evil' to triumph in the movies; even subconsciously, you might be asking yourself, "Why can't this character win? He's competent enough..." That is because, generally, people don't want to see evil triumph .
DMCuindless 09-10-07, 04:16 AM	Evil is fun... for a time. However, past a certain point, it's hard for me to TRULY portrary the character... being that his motivations and values are so far removed from mine. That, and I often find that I can't stomach roleplaying evil deeds for that long. Every evil campaign I've played in has fizzled out after about 10 levels or so. Playing a group of rapists, murderers, tyrants, cultists, monsters, sadists and sociopaths eventually lost its luster...
Senevri 09-10-07, 08:01 AM	...It's the Bioware Stupid Evil effect. *Sigh* Play plotters, masterminds and opportunists instead. CE is a bit trickier than rest of the alignments.
Shadowhowler 09-10-07, 01:53 PM	...It's the Bioware Stupid Evil effect. *Sigh* Play plotters, masterminds and opportunists instead. CE is a bit trickier than rest of the alignments. Bioware? Why... becuase of KotOR or another game they made I'm not aware of? Well, *MY* own eventual lack of intrest in evil games has nothing to do with Bioware.... being that the only Bioware game I ever played was KotOR, and I first played that three years ago... and have been gaming over 15 years, and have had my opinions and prefrences about good/evil in games for a LONG time.
Passivearmada 09-10-07, 04:23 PM	First, I would have all the characers agree on a good or evil campaign. Good guys and evil guys in one party is interesting (such as in Promise of the Witch-King), but only for awhile, until almost all of them die (also in Promise of the Witch-King), from their "allies'" blades, or from the enemies'. And just really restrict the "douchebag" behavior. If they ask how much xp they'll get if they kill Gandhi, then threaten to kill off their character or find some other means of showing that you mean business. I've had this problem before, and you just need to talk to the guy or guys. If they ask about xp for bad deeds, then respond "you'll get an angry battlemage guard or ten." Let them know that they are powerful and badass, but not the best. Typically, all they need to know is that they're all vulnerable. Then they'll surrender.
Hopeless 09-11-07, 07:59 AM	1. Magic items are purchased from/supplied by the Guild. 2. Characters fight the bad guys, and the bad guys/good guys are fairly black and white. There is a Mordor like organization of evil, and all magic items carried by members of it are tainted by evil, and therefore not something a hero would touch. 3. The Adventurer's guild is not the only organization in the world supplying experience points. It is simply the only entity the players and the party will have access to. Good excuse for the items it might be worth looking a BOVD if they decide to ignore this perhaps possession, but then again maybe not...
Stev Beren 09-11-07, 08:35 PM	Bioware? Why... becuase of KotOR or another game they made I'm not aware of? Well, *MY* own eventual lack of intrest in evil games has nothing to do with Bioware.... being that the only Bioware game I ever played was KotOR, and I first played that three years ago... and have been gaming over 15 years, and have had my opinions and prefrences about good/evil in games for a LONG time. I follow your lead on this. . I have had a severe distast for evil oriented games for a long time. I can play an evil NPC to present a challenge to the characters - but I can't really stomach making an evil character the heroic center of a story.
Shadowhowler 09-11-07, 10:42 PM	I follow your lead on this. . I have had a severe distast for evil oriented games for a long time. I can play an evil NPC to present a challenge to the characters - but I can't really stomach making an evil character the heroic center of a story. See, I'm not ALL THE WAY with you on this. I can enjoy playing Evil characters... for a time. However, invaribly, they will grow distant from me... I never get QUITE as attached to them as I do to heroic PC's. Also... I *DO* find that players who want to play Evil character in heroic games... or players that want to play evil character more often then good ones... tend to be the sort of player that I don't enjoy gaming with and don't get along with on a basic level. However... some of my LONG term evil NPC's... ones I might set up as a nemisis for the party or maybe one character in the party... I have grown attached to them and fell a touch of sadness when they are eventualy destroyed... but thats most likely do to years of development and investment into them.