Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Furious D 18 01-26-06, 01:34 AM	Do evil campaigns give you more freedom and fun than good campaigns? I just finished DMing an evil campaign for our group. The PC's kinda ran around doing whatever they wanted, killing whomever they wanted. Whenever things got dull, they simply ran to the tavern and started some trouble. Now another guy has taken over the DM role and restricted us to Lawful-Good or Neutral-Good characters because "it's too hard to DM for chaotic or evil characters because you never know what they're going to do." The quests seem to be limited to "go here, kill this badguy." We simply don't have the freedom that the characters in the other game had. And even worse, if things get dull, we can't even go to the tavern and start some trouble because there is too much important life-or-death stuff happening. Are there any things I can suggest to the DM that will increase our freedom in the game? I feel like a slave to my Lawful-Good alignment. Are there things I can do as a player to spice up the game without breaking the law or my alignment?
Lord Ian Stark 01-26-06, 11:41 AM	First off your DM restricting the alignment to LG and NG are not the norm for a "good" party. So asking if it's just as fun as an evil one isn't quite fair. Then again running around and just killing anyone isn't the average "evil" game either as most DM's use consequences. Either your DM is very new to DMing or he knows how crazy your party can be and "doesn't want to go there." How to spice it up? Well every character can have tendancies of another alignment. It even says so in the PH. Will a LG have tendancies of evil? Probrably not. However, chaotic urges are very possible. In the end I would let the DM know how the players (not characters) feel about his game and say they feel it's a little railroadish and your party would like to have a little more freedom. Does that mean run around and burn the city and kill people? No. Are the majority of your players young by chance?
Furious D 18 01-26-06, 11:57 AM	Are the majority of your players young by chance? No. We are all 24-26. I guess it seems like the evil campaign had more of a "sandbox" feel to it. They were out for blood, glory, and riches, so I put it out there and they went after it. This good campaign is about saving the world and my character would totally go for that, but as a player, I'm like "big deal, let's go slay a dragon and boast about it over an ale in the tavern." But, the campaign is still early, so hopefully things will liven up soon.
Illion the Red 01-26-06, 11:58 AM	Running around and randomly killing whatever strikes your fancy has all the hallmarks of a First-Person Shooter. If that's the kind of game you want to play, why bother with alignment or even plot at all? If the rest of the Players feel the same, maybe you should speak with the DM and explain the kind of game the group enjoys playing and that it just is not compatible with what kind of game the DM wants to run. Switch back to the other DM and have fun. Everyone being frustrated is not fun for anyone. I, personally, would have more fun in the type of game that your new DM seems to want to run, but as I'm not part of the group, that doesn't matter much, does it?
DM Dave 01-26-06, 12:11 PM	Conesquences! Where are the consequences? While just running around and killing whomever you please can be fun for a time it WILL loose its appeal... eventually :rolleyes: if your group consists of anyone with half a brain. That's why you need consequences for these things. One of the best games I ever ran was a group of evil PCs going around doing evil. Yet out of a group of six only one survived to really become someone of power. For quite some time the PCs were hunted by a group of lawful good type (justicars. Fanatical Knights of power and skill. Not to be trifled with!). Several characters fell victim to them. Then there were the deaths due to schemes running awry... deal with evil on a regular basis... evil just might come back to bite ya on yer butt! In general evil characters have a destiny with a horrid and bloody end... but it can be fun to go on the journey! :D The other problem with evil characters in the party infighting. Some players can't get along in a group if their character is evil. While this may be understandable to some extent its not realistic, and its annoying after a time. Evil people get along in groups all the time... look at the big drug cartells for example in the real world. so it is possible. However, once the distrust in the party reaches a certain level there may be no going back, and the game just degenerates into one back stab attempt after another... Yippie... oh what fun. :rolleyes: The potential for longevity in a campaign is certainly there if you ban all evil alignments... it is simply more conducive to story telling, and you do not have to railroad the players either. Just depends on the skill of the DM.
celtredleg 01-26-06, 12:13 PM	I find the plotless run around and kill what ever to grow dull very quickly. But, if thats what you want, then do that. As for fun, no I dont think evil is ,ore fun. Maybe for some it is, for others it is not. Coke or pepsi. Mcdonalds or burgerking?? There are no real absolutes about fun.
tsuyoshikentsu 01-26-06, 12:19 PM	Personally, I feel that anyone who thinks that restricting alignment because they can't deal with it is a good idea should be dragged out into the street and shot like a dog. But then, that may jsut be me being Chaotic.
Hodo 01-26-06, 12:27 PM	Evil campaigns should allow more "freedom" in that they open more options in how to accomplish goals. Evil doesn't mean doing evil whenever, or wherever you can, or finding ways to be evil in your meantime. Just as most good characters in campaigns don't go into the local tavern and be nice and generous to random people, it makes little since for evil characters (even chaotic ones) to do the same. Like most other successful campaigns, evil campaigns need some sort of structure and goal. There has to be something for the players to do, and some kind of consequences (beneficial, detrimental, or neutral) depening on what they do. Letting the characters roam the countryside doing "evil" is likely to be no more rewarding than letting good characters roam the countryside doing "good". The best way of doing this is by turning the tables on a typical adventure. Instead of saving the world- take over the world. Instead of slaying the evil dragon, ally with it to protect it from would be slayers (then slay it). Fight in a war. There are so many oppurtunities for doing dirty work in a conflict that yields oppurtunities for abuse of innocents, access to money, looting, political favors, high grade military equipment, and other incentives for evil characters. The biggest difference when playing an evil character should be how they go about doing what they do. In general, good characters try to show some respect and compassion for sapient life and the general well beings of others in all things they do, or at least consider these things. Evil characters lack such feelings, and are less likely to show respect or compassion unless it suits their needs. And evil does not equate to stupid or selfish to the point of willing ignorance (anymore than goodness does). You say your evil character doesn't care about saving the world (if he knows he has the ability to do so) and would rather slay dragons all day. Well when the world goes unsaves and ends, he won't be able to slay any more dragons and boast to anyone about it will he? Most good characters would rather not risk their lives either.
Milandros 01-26-06, 12:27 PM	The short answer: no. Either game can be fun, though to be honest I generally prefer good games. Evil games need a very good DM to work, otherwise they degenerate into "run into the tavern and kill everything" which to me sounds very boring, unless the DM plays out the consequences properly - people running and escaping, the guard being called, bounties placed, hero parties hunting down the villians, bounty hunters coming after them, etc, etc. Psycho games aren't the same thing as evil games, necessarily. They should really devolve into fugitive on the run games. I've been playing in a high quality evil game, recently. It's a very, very nasty group, with some real villians, not just "killed him 'cos he din' gimme respec'" thugs. There's little or no internal party conflict. The players are a crack team for an evil megavillian who rules a whole land. The party leader is very tough, very brutal and will kill any PC who steps out of line - plus would have enough support from fanatical party members to do it. Internal politicking has to be done carefully. We have a monk who's basically a nazi supremacist, fanitical to his lard and god and working to spread his word and power, a sorceror specialising in extra-planar activities (demons and devils and sacrifice), a goblin murderer and sneak who's becoming a goblin leader and cleric of a death god, a charming swashbuckler type whose moved beyond being ammoral to being immoral, is now basically undead and is now slipping very rapidly into vampirism. Occasional characters include a fallen celestial and a poor neutral fighter who's fallen into bad company in an attempt to get enough gold to ransom his beloved. The leader is a brutal fanatical blackguard-type who rules us with an iron fist. We've spent half our time fighting other rival evil groups. We've crossed the planes opposed by celestials, We've fought all manner of opponents, good anf bad. However, the moment that stands out the most in my memory actually happened in a break. The blackguard, the swashbuckler/vampire (my character) and the neutral fighter had a in-character conversation on the nature of love. It was absolutely brilliant - the poor fighter sighing over his missing love, how wonderful she was, the cynical and bitter undead charmer (who killed and drank the soul of the only woman he loved) and the blackguard who never felt or understood love in his life, all fully in character and brilliantly played. Superb. Conversely, I'm running a good game, with lots of player freedom - they can go anywhere, do anything - but with some solid plot hooks they can choose to take. They're gotten involved in some plot they don't yet understand, obviously involving the slaving guild, some major merchants, at least one evil temple, and nome undead and/or necromancers. This will build into an epic plot that will leave the players (many levels from now) with the desity of the world in their hands. They seem to be very happy so far and I'm really looking forward to the next game. I prefer good games; it can get a little disturbing to play evil constantly. Roleplaying torture, murder, hatred, racism, arrogance and so on is something I prefer to have as an occasional break rather than the norm. I prefer playing heroic, honest, decent, cunning, noble types.
Bruenor CrimsonHammer 01-26-06, 12:34 PM	if all the players in your game are lawful-good it is your fault because lawful-good is a great alignment for a group but there should be only one in your team or it will get as if you were all chaotic-evil so I say try to make all your player have a different alignment
Furious D 18 01-26-06, 01:48 PM	Believe me, I know the pitfalls of running an evil campaign. And there were consequences of their actions. Example: A PC would die from a fight that he had started. The party tracked down a cleric to raise the character. The cleric raised the character for payment, and then the party killed the cleric to get their money back. Perfectly within alignment. But as this cycle went on, there were no more clerics in the area to raise dead. Or if there were, they would not help. Consequence: No more coming back if you died. Also, the "run around and kill people" just happened between quests of sabotague, stealing, intimidating, assassinations, and all kinds of other evil stuff. And yes, there was party fighting, but I did what I could to limit it and discourage it. And in the last battle, half the party allied with the BBEG and half allied with the neutral clerics sent to dispatch the BBEG. The fight ended with the BBEG being the only one left standing. The entire party died except a gnome wizard who abandoned his allies and teleported to safety. Everyone agreed that it was a fitting ending to the evil campaign.
Lord Ian Stark 01-26-06, 02:02 PM	And in the last battle, half the party allied with the BBEG and half allied with the neutral clerics sent to dispatch the BBEG. The fight ended with the BBEG being the only one left standing. The entire party died except a gnome wizard who abandoned his allies and teleported to safety. Everyone agreed that it was a fitting ending to the evil campaign. LOL this is similar to the only evil game I played in. We were all evil goblins and were working for/slaves of a green dragon. The party thought we were able to take out this dragon so we attempted to. :( The favored soul sided with the dragon healing her (Our only healer) and had we won, the sorceror was going to fireball who was left alive and take the treasures for himself. Was fun.
Archmage Atrus 01-26-06, 02:22 PM	Personally? I think your current DM is being a bit harsh by not allowing anyone who isn't Chaotic or LN/NN/CN. If the players don't want their characters running the DM's plot, he shouldn't railroad you into it, because you just don't have fun. But I no longer allow evil in my campaigns. Been there, done that, tired of it. It becomes a game of "Kill everyone who stands in my way," which gets very boring for me very quickly as a DM, or one of "Have a superior tell the PCs what to do", which also gets very boring for me very quickly. To ever allow an evil PC again they'd have to prove to me they were of the cunning, plotting, strategizing great-scheme take-over-the-world types, not just random thugs with big spells go boom.
YRM 01-26-06, 02:42 PM	No. We are all 24-26. I guess it seems like the evil campaign had more of a "sandbox" feel to it. They were out for blood, glory, and riches, so I put it out there and they went after it. This good campaign is about saving the world and my character would totally go for that, but as a player, I'm like "big deal, let's go slay a dragon and boast about it over an ale in the tavern." But, the campaign is still early, so hopefully things will liven up soon. I run a good campaign with a sandbox feel to it. The party didn't meet in a tavern... they all signed up for a mercenary army to help retake DaggerFalls from a Zhent-backed army of Orcs and Humans. They each volunteered for a special-forces type squad (see adventuring party) as the pay was better, and got paired with each other. At first, aside from the fact that they were doing a good thing, they were working for money too. After the town was retaken, the party played a key role, and became friendly with the Lord of the Dale. They joined the Adventurer's Guild (sort of like a matchmaking service to find the right party for the right job... not too expensive, not too weak). They got to pick their next mission from a bunch of job postings suited to them. Each mission had different flavors, and many didn't involve a "bad guy". Of course, each mission had it's own twists and turns, and the mission they took turned out to be far more than what it seemed at first (no plan survives the first encounter with the enemy). This group can go where they want, do what they want... but I am able to ask for their directional decisions at the end of a session because of the way I plan it out. They can choose a path, and, I have time to plan it out in front of them based on events defined in my world calendar and goals of the various evil factions. To some extent, because I know my players, I can manipulate them into going where I want them to go. I mix that into areas between their major choices. Like, if I would have a few skilled thieves make a few attempts at stealing a cherished item, one of the thieves would probably be successful. By the third one, the party is either going to be hell bent on getting back their item, or hell bent on finding out who's trying to steal from them. They don't HAVE to do this... but I know them. There's no way they let a thief get away with a key item. Good characters don't have to be perfect either. Every good character can have a vice, played in a subtle way. What if a Paladin finds himself, over time, addicted to some Thayan drug that the Paladin just thought was helping to clear his head for prayer? What if an otherwise good Dwarf has an overwhelming hatred of Elves, or humans with beards? What if a good natured Barbarian enjoys getting into subdual fights at bars? The thing is... you're not helping the DM if your PCs run around doing things with no rational motivation. Even evil characters rarely start trouble just for the sake of starting trouble. The best evil characters ACT good, and take advantage of their society at large... keeping their dark side out of the public eye. You can also have a good character, like a Tiefling, who projects outwardly a sullen, evil personality, and maybe is actually somewhat ashamed to be honorable, so tries to keep the good deeds quiet. Be creative, stop thinking of Lawful Good as "DUMB AND NOBLE!" and come up with a realistic way to play a flawed character who tries to follow the law and generally do good work. The flaws are what make it fun.
xtyrannyofsoulsx 01-26-06, 02:45 PM	Sorry this is a little long, but im sure youll enjoy it. OK, i can completely relate to what you are saying. My current DM is very big on restricting us...or "gimping" us as we like to call it. This can be a major problem for characters. I mean, would you play a video game that you didnt like? or that you didnt have as much fun as another? NO, you wouldnt....what you have to reolize is that the player does need to have fun, or the DM could be out of a job so to speak. After all, it is a role playing game, you should be able to play a role as you see fit. All players go through the evil phase now and again...cuz it is honestly pretty fun. But as a part-time Dm, i know how DMs may see it. They think that you get to powerful if your evil, There is nothing holding you back. You can take houses and gold and whatever you want right? Well there are things a Dm can do about that to help keep a sence of order in an evil campaign. Such as introdicing a good party of NPCs. I mean, when your good you battle to fight the bad guy right? Well ...instead of trying to make a "good" style campaign( save the people kill the bad guy, do this to get that...) you should try playing on the other side of the specter. Be the bad guy who is trying to overthrow the good guys, try to take over a layer of hell, Strive for infamy. I mean..this is what bad guyes do after all, unlike the modest good guyes. This will give the charscters something to strive for, instead of occupying their time with pointless tavern tyranny. This gives then something to strive toward and work for, so they arent so unpredictably insane. Now on the hand of the boring good campaign, this doesnt have to be the same way either. Yor DM restricting your alignment so harshly is a very bad idea. This takes alot of the RPG out of the RPG. If a DM has to chain you down just to keep you from going off track, then he isnt doing a very good job at DMing. Its his obligation to keep you sucked into the story. Everyone thinks of a good campaign as the true 'good guy'. Does his deeds for who he workes for, Coincidentally running into pointless monsters, only fighting evil because its your job, you know. This can get very boring. All good characters dont have to be the goody tooshoos. You can make your hero, the 'antihero'. Instead of being the all good superman/spiderman type hero, who always saves the inocent and defeats his aponent mercy and as little harm as possible, he can be more like a blade or a spawn, using your powers of darkness to vanquish all evil. You are a true darkness banisher. You arent as much praised and loved as you are feared and respected. People see you as having great powers and quiver at your feet, but you always destroy evil. You kill evil without mercy or remorse. You slaughter them , bloody and violent, directly in the face of young children. Though you may not be thi kings first choice to vanquish the evil vampire lord, in the end he knows your the best for the job. You care more about preventing evil than you do protecting goog. You may kill a few inocent to ensure the death of evil, but that doesnt bother you. You might not come to the rescue of a town of innocent being ravaged by a pack of wolves like the paladin would, because you dont see the wolves as evil, as a true threat to anyone else other that the townspeople, but you would be the first to jump at the chance to destroy an evil sorcerer who is planning to summon demons to help him destroy a metropolis. Even though more people may be dying from the nuetral wolves, and the evil lord may pose no current threat, he would be your first choice. This antihero proves as a vent to players who cant trully enjoy fallowing law and good and rightousness. he can still fallow storyline as long as it proves to contain evil enemies to slaughter.
Epicweaver 01-26-06, 03:07 PM	I have no problem with someone playing Evil. I highly discourage the ever popular unofficial "Stupid Evil" alignment that's so popular. The problem with DMing an Evil (or highly chaotic) party is based around two things: #1 Taste - When you kill the helpless children in the orphange that the corrupt Duke wanted you to burn down... It just makes me feel... bleh... Some DMs really have no taste for the main actors in an adventure to be vile, disgusting, rapist, axe-murder, genocidial psychotics. #2 Planning/Logistics - Writing effective adventure hooks and plots is extremely difficult for the 'Stupid Evil' spot-light *****s. And further difficult to the Chaotics who won't decide to work with the party on something. Without a solid agenda, an Evil campaign falls apart... as the Evil tend towards pursuing their own ends, to their own betterment over everyone else. That's it. Those are the two reasons Evil campaigns don't work. It depends on the Tastes of the DM (if he can't handle it, it really won't be fun)... And there needs to be a unification of some sort to keep the group together... I have no problems with betrayal, murder, and other darker things... I do have a problem with a character suddenly deciding to convince the party to drop an adventure, teleport to the other side of the continent, and start waging war on the 'goodie goodies' without raising an eyebrow to me. Planning is everything... if players don't keep you in the loop, you can't write for an evil campaign... With enough foreknowledge as to the direction the party wants to go, it's easy to fill in the blanks and make things interesting enough to go along. (P.S. The Evil-campaign in-party drama is hilarious to watch occasionally!! I love it!)
Cantankerous 01-26-06, 03:24 PM	Straight up, you have no more freedom at all, and probably less, if your DM is worth a powdered blow to Hades, in an Evil campaign than in a Good campaign. Why? Quite simply because most of the communities you will interact with will at the dead least be tolerant of Good actions, if not actively supportive of them, which will be the overwhelming case. Conversely no community that doesn't rest on a basis or insanity has ever promoted the values that D&D sets for Evil. Thus, Evil is far less restricted. BECAUSE... If the DM is doing his job at all, if he's not just a poor figurehead, there are always consequences to actions. In fantasy literature, IRL, even in the movies, there are ALWAYS consequences to grostesque stupidity, such as simply stepping out the doors of the tavern (or saloon) and killing or raping or causing mayhem for no other reason than idiot ego gratification. ALWAYS! That is the very function of society, all socieites; to provide for the safety of their constituents. If the DM isn't pimp slapping the living dog snot out of the Character who simply goes out to start trouble, with the very normal consequences of their actions, then he's a VERY poor excuse for a DM. On the other hand, a well run Evil campaign has every bit as much to offer as a well run Good campaign. The thing is, just because the PCs are Evil doesn't mean that consequences stop coming. THEY are what makes for the spice, the action, alot of the fun in an Evil campaign. THEY become the opponent in large part. Isshia
Roxlimn 01-26-06, 03:37 PM	Generally, I have more fun handling and playing good, upstanding, and generally morally upright heroes. Roleplaying depraved murderers out to torture, maim, and kill leaves a distinctly bad taste in my mouth. Of course, you can play Evil PCs who are actually sane people, but those tend to be morally and mentally draining.
Sulaco 01-26-06, 03:43 PM	Do evil campaigns give you more freedom and fun than good campaigns? I just finished DMing an evil campaign for our group. The PC's kinda ran around doing whatever they wanted, killing whomever they wanted. Whenever things got dull, they simply ran to the tavern and started some trouble. To me that is the very definition of dull. There is nothing I find so tedious as players who take "evil" to mean "run around and act like and idiot and do whatever I want! Woot woot leet!" Some very few players see evil as a way to explore differnt types of PCs and their interactions with the world, but unfortunately most view it as a chance to act like a :censored: idiot.
GenghisUber 01-26-06, 03:48 PM	My first gaming group went through a phase where we had a few evil campaigns in a row. I was the first to tire of it, so I offered to DM the next campaign and basically laid down a "no evil characters" rule. Everyone grumbled, but made good and neutral characters, planning on just acting evil anyway to make me mad. I ran them through a few adventures to get their levels up a bit, and then that's when I started the main story of the campaign. The land was basically overrun by orcs. I had a huge horde of orcs storm the campaign setting and take over the area where the characters lived. The characters basically became freedom fighters, engaging in hit-and-run attacks on humanoids, trying to liberate sections of their home and build up the power to mount a counter attack against the humanoids. I won't go into all the details (mostly because I'm getting old and I forget them), but it was a hit. By the end of the campaign, the characters had ALL drifted towards good, even the ones who started out neutral. It wasn't the "being evil" that they wanted, it was the "being hunted and raging against The Man" that we REALLY wanted from our game, but since we typically played in relatively standard good-aligned societies, this impulse manifested itself as the desire to be the bad guys. Maybe it's the same for your group.
Warboss Morgrum 01-26-06, 04:18 PM	Evil games, IMHO, are more fun and more "honest" than Good games. Someone on these boards (I forget who) described the difference between Good and Evil games quite well: The only difference between Good and Evil campaigns is that in an Evil game, the creatures who you rob and murder in their homes will be pretty and smart, instead of ugly and dumb. Call me cynical, but I have a very dim view of Good in D&D. The entire system is built around combat, yet truly "good" PCs wouldn't solve that many problems with combat. If the DM doesn't play every last creature as a suicidal maniac who cares nothing for it's own life or the consequences of its actions, then negotiation can take the place of many combats. The problem is, talking your way out of fights is boring to most people, and they want to resolve things in a dramatic way that involved some blood (This is a game after all). The PCs can kill things to their hearts content, and be true to their alignments, if they are just Evil from the get-go. Yes, there should be consequences for their actions, but those consequences can be excellent plot elements, not just the DM crushing the PCs for daring to "act out." You can also get around this by only using mindless or overtly hostile villains (Most evil outsiders, animals, oozes, etc); it just irks me that "Good" PCs slaughter so many sentient beings without any thought to their motives.
nastynate 01-26-06, 04:40 PM	Evil campaigns can be very entertaining, until they get out of hand. There are so many more ways an evil party can come into conflict with one another than a good party, it's just crazy. In my experience everything goes well for a while, but then somebody has a disagreement, and things spiral out of control. Maybe there is a dispute about who should get a wand, or somebody gets left for dead when wounded, or someone has a personal goal that nobody else gives a darn about. When the whole party is evil, the PCs tend to let their evil tendencies show a little too transparently. Nobody in the party has any real long term loyalty, and friendships seem to crumble when greed or ambition get in the way. If anybody does anything to earn the ire of a fellow party member, alliances begin to from, and lines in the sand start to get drawn. I remember playing in a large party of predominently evil PCs. I played a cleric of Hextor, and was pretty tight with the cleric (Wee-Jas) / wizard/ theurge. There was a CE rogue/assassin, and a chaotic evil half-orc barbarian/ frenzied berserker, and a few other neutral PCs. In time as my cleric got powerful (which they all seem to do once they get divine metamagic) my alliance with the theurge crumbled...For many levels we all just did our own thing without ever really coming into conflict with one another, but once my character started to earn a reputation as the most powerful party member, everyone was out to get me. People were always trying to loot magic items from fallen foes, while I was still engaged in battle, and I supect they were up to more. Now I'm not saying they were ever unjustifed in their fear...my cleric was one bad mofo, but I had never actually done anything to earn their enmity. It was just a power struggle over dominance, and control. My character could handle any one of them one on one, and they didn't like that. Eventually the assassin tried to kill me, with justification to this day I don't know, but he failed, and when I murdered him in retaliation my fate was sealed. My closest ally the theurge shifted sides, and one day they just abandoned me in a fight with several trolls...I think there were around ten of them and I was 9th or 10th level if I recall correctly. My point is, that while it can be really interesting, it's very difficult to keep everyone focused on the same goal, and maintain civil order in a party of ruthless murderers. One selfish act can condemn you, and sometimes you won't even do anything at all, but find yourself the target of your companions. Adventuring is dangerous enough for people who work as a unit, but when you add in the possibility of betrayal, you're chances of long-term survival get even worse. Party cohesion is often required for success, and evil parties have a much more difficult time maintaining that level of trust. Good parties can be steered in a particular direction, by moral obligation alone, but evil characters will need more incentive. Good parties can be expected to work together just by virtue of their friendship, but to evil characters friendships don't often mean nearly as much. Good parties will share treasure and information, but evil parties will horde both until it becomes absolutely neccessary to do otherwise. In the long term, an evil party will either disband or kill each other. Good parties however, can expect to adventure together until they retire. So it seems to me at least, that evil is fun for a short term campaign, with well defined objectives that require the full cooperation of all party members, but long term campaigns require good PCs.
psionichamster 01-26-06, 05:19 PM	i frequently play CN characters. because that's how i feel, most of the time. but, just once, I played a LG human fighter (samurai). worked for a mercenary group called the Black Company. was eventually promoted to some officer-rank in the company. party members included a raging half-orc barbarian, LE druid, NE cleric (necromancer), LN fighter (TWF), and a CN wizard. and the LG samurai was the nominal "head" of this group. our "good" actions included bombing rome (the world's equivilant) and while all the clerics shielded the holy places, rained death on the city/citizens. people were rising as zombies, mass disease and death reigned, and we had our revenge. the slight? they wore their muddy, metal boots into my house, and were entirely unapologetic about it. yeah, evil campaigns can run to some fun times, but they really depend on the group. if i'm dm-ing for my current group (which happens bi-weekly now), they really can't handle the evil impulses. if im there (usually as the face/leader), the evil gets directed outwards, and much destruction happens. on the other hand, that campaign ended up with us plunging 90% of the land mass under the toxic water. and the other evil camp. i ran ended up with mass summoned dinos, huge fire elementals, and the death of the party at their own hands. good is no more, or less, fun to play than evil, given a good group. hope that helped. namaste' the hamster
DwarfPcfan 01-26-06, 06:21 PM	I've had many problems in the past with evil campaigns. But with experience a muturation, I've learned they can be just as entertaining. the only stop I place is EVIL can be great not VILE. Call me childish but I've little taste or stomach for filthy Pcs who go around sacrificing children to evil gods and rapping women, eating souls, torturing people for hours on end of game sessions etc. Truly good evil Pcs are motivated by desires normal morality can at it's base understand. some of the best fantasy characters/pulp characters have been evil. Consider Lex Luthor ( not smallville or the movies, the core comics version), he's power hungry, manipulative, hateful, proud ( one of the best examples of LE). Yet he's motivated by the simple desire of best, to show the world and to heal his wounded pride. There's nothing wrong with playing Evil Pcs. But they should be colorful, evocative not disgusting, replusive to a point where you wonder how a player can stand him. Good characters are not bound to be sissies who fight for truth, love and justice. good characters are motivated by veried goals and find whole gamuts of approaches ( batman/superman axis), Paladins aren't forced to be ninnies who ride white horses and have a rose in one hand and a poem in the other. They can be grim, cynical defenders of justice. They can have as varied personalities as any human. ( Sturm Brightblade from dragonlance was tormented individual with many inner struggles). I'm playing a dwarf fighter/cleric ( yes , a classic) of Moradin but he's grim, proud, glory seeking, narrow-minded, over bearing he's only motivated by adventure, glory a proving to the world his god is THE ONLY worthy god ( he was a true monotheist for a long while, till he was proved other gods exist, now he sees them as lesser individuals), he even tried converting elves and halflings to Moradin ! Yet he's a good person, he's heroic and he's on this adventure to stop evil. Litterature is full of cool heroes and cool villains. Nearly every kind of Pc can be excellent, it's all a question of playing them well. " My name is the Count of Monte Cristo, but my friends call me Edmon Dantes"
JD 01-26-06, 06:58 PM	It's often a good idea to have a much darker campaign world to go with your evil PCs. In the standard world that tends to feature honest (or indifferent) citizens, evil PCs stick out like sore thumbs. But if the city they're in is gritty and nasty, it makes it a lot easier for them to fit in and gives them more reasons for being evil. (The exception to this is in GenghisUber's post: when the characters are very definitely against whatever the status quo is, the campaign has a very different feel. You all start taking more ranks in Hide and Move Silently, for a start. :D ) Evil characters spring up far more readily and feel more natural in evil settings. Look at Irvine Welsh's books, the Sin City graphic novels or the Grand Theft Auto games: all feature evil protagonists in grim (sometimes cartoonishly grim, however) settings.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-26-06, 07:03 PM	Games that aren't OCD about good vs. Evil is more fun to me than a campaing themed around 'being' either.
bhu 01-26-06, 08:32 PM	Evil campaigns are generally a complete nightmare. The Pc's are playing evil usually to just be complete asses. It starts well, until the first disagreement, and then the player vs player killing starts. And then when new characters are made (which are inevitably weaker) the party kills them over and over again. Eventually people start to take things personally, and actual real life relationships start to disintegrate. Or, if they can manage to keep it together, the DM is bored out of his mind, because anything he plans they deliberately avoid or ruin, constantly forcing him to ad lib. Eventually he wont put any work at all into the campaign because of this, and it'll disintegrate still. If you all like evil campaigns where you mindlessly indulge, and the new DM doesnt, call it quits now. it wont get any better, because he wont have any fun running an evil campaign, an you wont have fun playing one that isnt. If hes restricting your alignment that much, he assumes you'll be evil if he doesn't, or that he can fell free to "punish" you for violating alignment when you try. its bad either way.
Furious D 18 01-27-06, 01:25 AM	It wasn't the "being evil" that they wanted, it was the "being hunted and raging against The Man" that we REALLY wanted from our game, but since we typically played in relatively standard good-aligned societies, this impulse manifested itself as the desire to be the bad guys. Maybe it's the same for your group. This is so true. You've given me an excellent idea. I think when I get the DM job back I'll place the PCs in an evil society. That way, they can rage against The Man, like you said, and avoid all the party fighting associated with evil campaigns. And they won't feel like they have to go around saving babies because all the babies are evil.... wait, evil babies? Ok, maybe this idea still needs some work, but I'm sure it's still a great idea. Thanks!
Kadasbrass 01-27-06, 02:52 AM	I tried an evil campaign last year after Heroes of Horrow came out. I tried to add plot and story elements into it. I tried dropping in the idea that 5 or 10 years had past and that the players were feared villians. In addition to losing those memories, the players had lost the level of power they 'had' back then. They didn't realize that sooner or later the rest of the 'heroes' of the story would of found this out too and eliminate them. Despite my best efforts to make it a truly unique campaign, I ended up canceling it because I got tired of baby-sitting a bunch of twenty plus year old “kids” that just wanted to quote “kite commoners.”
Neverwrong 01-27-06, 07:02 AM	My players always mutilate bodies or burn them so you can't do speak to dead(Who killed you?). Generally however, the evil campaign allows more choice in how to acomplish goals, if not much difference. Evil campaigns can both involve killing evil mastermind OR good and kind king of a small kingdom. Just make sure they see the consequences(Even if the consequences are just that they spent 15 minutes killing a hamlet and only end up with 50gp and a lot of bloody peasant clothing).
Callista 01-27-06, 07:26 AM	It just seems to be a difference in DMing style. You people seem to like a flexible DM, and the newest DM, who happens to like Good-aligned games, isn't very flexible. It could easily be the other way 'round; the new, unflexible DM might prefer Evil games. Of course, your old DM might have been a bit unrealistic in that you seemed to have gotten away with a lot of trouble. Sure, a couple of bar fights are no problem; but eventually, after you've killed enough good guys, the paladins are gonna come after you. (Same for Good campaigns: Bad guys eventually hear about you. Difference is, with Good campaigns, the bad guys are the point; with Evil ones, the Good guys are often just a hindrance.) Not that that wouldn't be just as fun as said bar fights; even in Evil campaigns, the DM has to keep to a reasonable CR. I don't think there's much you can do about this, except perhaps to generate your own quests--for example, have a character start a business, or use divination to find a place where you can help someone (use specific diviniation: For example, a cleric might ask the wizard, "Find me a place where they're having problems with undead."--otherwise you'll just turn up the DM's next plot hook). Have a character buy a ship and become a merchant; or start a business as wilderness guides. Find a mercenary organization and join it, if you're so inclined... There's lots of things to do. Evil characters don't have a monopoly on creativity. Be careful, however: If your new DM is new to DMing in general, he might not know how to DM by the seat of his pants. Lots of DMs go through a railroading phase, and maybe this one hasn't quite gotten out of his yet. So be gentle with him. As it is, if you have to talk to him about flexibility, go right ahead; most DMs would prefer (polite) constructive criticism to a bunch of players who just sit there and never complain; because if you don't know what you're doing wrong, you can't improve.
danielinthewolvesden 01-27-06, 12:11 PM	The short answer: no. Either game can be fun, though to be honest I generally prefer good games. Evil games need a very good DM to work, otherwise they degenerate into "run into the tavern and kill everything" which to me sounds very boring I prefer good games; it can get a little disturbing to play evil constantly. Roleplaying torture, murder, hatred, racism, arrogance and so on is something I prefer to have as an occasional break rather than the norm. I prefer playing heroic, honest, decent, cunning, noble types. I agree. Evil campaigns are too often boring. However, they are nice as an occasional break. You need mature players and a good DM.
dannalbob 01-27-06, 02:36 PM	It wasn't the "being evil" that they wanted, it was the "being hunted and raging against The Man" that we REALLY wanted from our game, but since we typically played in relatively standard good-aligned societies, this impulse manifested itself as the desire to be the bad guys. Maybe it's the same for your group. HAH! I had a very similar experience with a group I played with. We basically started the game as evil characters because we wanted to use PrCs that required evil alignments. We started out simply being low level level mercenaries in a generally neutral to good city and did work for the various guilds. As we grew in power we gained a small following of loyalists and friends and grew a power base. When the temple district of the city began to think of us as a problem, thats when the real fun started happening. We started fending off raids of good paladins and clerics and sending them home as zombies. I think our party worked for several reasons. In character we all were pretty equally balanced in power so we realized that no-one could get the upper hand on the party. We all had a pretty consistent goal and we realized that we couldn't realize that goal without the other's help. None of us were too greedy or depraved as to not see the Big Picture. Out of Character we all had very good communication and expressed our goals with the DM so he had something to plan for. So I agree with a lot of people on here... Evil campaigns can be crap or they can really work it just depends on your approach. I guess I'm just saying that I've had good experience with them.
Tanrael06 01-27-06, 03:07 PM	I would highly recommend the following book. Eve Forward, Villains by Necessity (Tor 1995) The heroes of the tale are all evil or classic DnD neutral and one is would probably qualify for Lawful Good. Basically, good wins the final battle over evil and the characters are the last truly evil beings left in the world. The problem is that good winning upset the balance of the world and apocalypse awaits them all. The story reads like a very well done campaign. The characters have different goals and motivations. The evil ones crave power, revenge, or simply freedom to choose their own path in a repressive society. The neutral aligned and good aligned members act based on their belief in a cause or simply for a belief in what is right. Their relationships are stormy at times based on very well done and believable motivations. That doesn't mean that they are arbitrarily stabbing each other in the back either. At least until the end of the book, they all work together in order survive and finish their quest. I don't mind evil campaigns. I do mind player infighting (regardless of alignment). Playing evil as an excuse to enact sadistic fantasies doesn't sit well with me either. A solid campaign with well developed characters acting appropriately based on their goals and desires on the other hand is very enjoyable. Anyway, I would highly recommend "Villians by Necessity" for anyone looking to run an evil campaign. Tanrael
MoogleEmpMog 01-27-06, 04:35 PM	The original campaign sounds less like an 'evil' campaign than it does like a 'sword and sorcery campaign.' You ran around adventuring, working as mercenaries, killing your foes without casting detect evil, picking bar fights that escalated into lethal violence from time to time, stealing, raiding, pillaging and generally having a right old time. Conan did all those things, too. He had a code of honor all his own, but it didn't preclude any of those activities. He didn't have to be a baby-killing sadist to wander around adventuring, slaying and reaving. The first thing you should do is cross out the 'Alignment' entry on your character sheets. Don't play an 'evil' or 'good' campaign unless The Battle of Good vs. Evil is what you're after. If you want to kill things and take their stuff, you don't need this outdated relic of a D&Dism to do it. IMX, campaigns that call themselves 'Evil Campaigns' usually end badly.
DarknessEternal 01-27-06, 04:37 PM	Evil campaigns are universally less fun, actually. They always devolve into non-directionless chaos and intra-party killing. Boy, that's what I want to do with my free time, wander around aimlessly and annoy my friends. Sounds like a riot.
Callista 01-27-06, 04:45 PM	It wasn't the "being evil" that they wanted, it was the "being hunted and raging against The Man" that we REALLY wanted from our game, but since we typically played in relatively standard good-aligned societies, this impulse manifested itself as the desire to be the bad guys. Maybe it's the same for your group. Thought of playing Chaotics? Seems to me like that would work better than Evil for your basic "rage against The Man" campaign. Talk to your DM. Have him make up a city that's insanely Lawful--maybe LN, maybe LE--and have your characters be involved in the black market, the freeing of slaves, a revolution... whatever. They'll all be Chaotic, they'll have the government against them, but you can feel free to make them people you yourself wouldn't mind hanging out with (unlike, say, the baby-killing, undead-raising cleric of Insert-Evil-Deity-here). You could also try having one or two of you play non-traditionally-aligned members of a race. For example, Kobolds are traditionally LE; however, let's say your characters are non-Lawful, non-Evil kobolds (and their allies, if somebody wants to play a non-kobold). There's all sorts of things you can do then: Maybe the kobolds are going to wipe out a nearby tribe of gnomes, and your characters don't want them to do it. Or maybe they're non-Evil Drow, non-insane Duergar, et cetera. If you want to go to extreme, make them non-Good Celestials or non-Evil fiends. (I'd have either of these go to Neutral rather than the opposite; or else have them the exact opposite of the usual alignment, and give them a background involving magic.) So you want to be in the hunted minority trying to survive, escape, or overthrow a givernment that's way too overbearing? Don't have to be Evil to do it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-27-06, 06:59 PM	Evil campaigns are universally less fun, actually. They always devolve into non-directionless chaos and intra-party killing. Except when they don't. Remember kids; most vast generalizations are wrong. This is one of those.
Draktaven 01-27-06, 07:38 PM	Except when they don't. Remember kids; most vast generalizations are wrong. This is one of those. Except that hes not wrong, I have seen dozens of evil campaigns turn out like that. People should be able to recognize generalizations for what they are, and should know that red harrings always exist. Remember kiddies: "Its better to be roughly right, than precisly wrong."
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-27-06, 08:01 PM	Except that hes not wrong, I have seen dozens of evil campaigns turn out like that. People should be able to recognize generalizations for what they are, and should know that red harrings always exist. Remember kiddies: "Its better to be roughly right, than precisly wrong." Its not the fault of evil campaigns that you guys play with people who don't know the difference between 'evil' and 'retarded'.
bhu 01-27-06, 10:11 PM	You might also wanna read "Sir Apropos of Nothing" and its sequels by peter David. Its more about one character than a party, but the main character is pretty much Neutral Evil with some good tendencies (or at teh very least a VERY highly developed sense of survival and no willpower). Not that there's really many good characters in the story at all. But it does present possibilities for an evil campaign that dont involve rndom killing, and it very much shows the consequences of the protagonists actions.
DarknessEternal 01-28-06, 02:43 PM	Its more about one character than a party, but the main character is pretty much Neutral Evil with some good tendencies (or at teh very least a VERY highly developed sense of survival and no willpower). Not that there's really many good characters in the story at all. Ask 100 D&D players how they would define "evil campaign". The above is not the answer you would get.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-28-06, 03:18 PM	That's because 100D&D players are caught up in the alignment system, which destroys their ability for rational thinking, or so I've seen on these boards.
bhu 01-28-06, 04:49 PM	Ask 100 D&D players how they would define "evil campaign". The above is not the answer you would get. True. Likely the 100 would answer "Im the baddest man on the planet, which means I get to do what I want with no rhyme, reason, or logic, and I kill anyone who doesnt bow to my will." Most evil campaigns are either there for stress relief (which you could do hacking and slashing your way thru a video game), or for personal ego gratification at everyone elses expense. I suggested the book because its funny, a good read, and it presents an idea for an evil campaign that wouldnt be pointless for a DM to try and run. Not to mention it would actually be interesting. At least more interesting than the average evil campaign ive seen which usually boils down to the following: "I kill any npc we meet, because I can." "I kill Bob's character because Bob ate all the pizza before I got here." "I kill Bob's new character, cause I killed his last one and it'll be funny." "I kill Bob's next character, cause I wanna make it a running joke in the campaign." "I kill Joe's character because Joe laughed when Bob insulted me." "I now kill all of Joe's characters as he makes them too." "I kill the guy who offered us a job cause its just the DM trying to railroad us into a plot instead of letting me do what I want." "I kill the bar owner cause he objected to me killing the other guy." And so on, ad infinitum. Or maybe its just the people I used to play with..... Accent on the words "used to".