Before you say, "just play as evil characters," I'm talking evil abilities, Channel Divinities for evil Gods, and "Good" enemies.
Evil PCs: because sometimes, the princess isn't worth saving, that village needed to be burnt to the ground, Pelor needs to die, and you really need the Hand of Vecna.
Here's what Evil players need:
- Channel Divinity
- Good enemies
- Items designed for Evil characters
- Powers designed for Evil characters
- Player advice on playing Evil characters
- DM advice on running campaigns for Evil characters
The books would be:
1. Playing Evil Characters (Channel Divinity, Items, Powers, Player Advice)
2. Running Evil Campaigns (Monsters, DM advice)
For enemies, there are loads of good ones from older editions, Unaligned creatures, Devas, Metallic Dragons, and Couatls.
*Of course, I've heard bad things about running Evil parties, but I won't comment.
- Good enemies
- Items designed for Evil characters
- Powers designed for Evil characters
- Angels, Metalic Dragons, and player races already have MM stats, and have nothing inherently evil or even really unaligned about them.
-There are just about as many evil armours as there are good armours in the AV.
- There's powers designed for good characters? Not counting that 1 paladin PP or the specific deity channel divinity's.
For enemies, there are loads of good ones from older editions, Unaligned creatures, Devas, Metallic Dragons, and Couatls.
hmmm, MM2, MM2, aaaaaand MM2.
I agree with virtually everything else, can work as a dungeon or dragon article though. Evil CD's can pretty much be replaced with the CD's for the eviler domains though.
Let's hope not.
+ Infinity
I really hope they come out with something for evil PC's. I'm tired of the good hero PC being shoved down my throat.
we have rules in the DMG on evil PCs, heck we even have an evil god CD feat...and other then divine power source what do you need to play evil???
play an evil fighter..easy
evil sorcerer not a problem...
evil invoker to bane...yup...
evil psion...ok
so what do we need a book for?? especialy now that I will admit I want the rest of the evil gods need CD feats, but really what else??
Here's what Evil players need:
- Channel Divinity
yes...
- Good enemies
we have plenty of creatures that were good in last edtion, along with creatures that can be any (like angles and PC races, and others)
- Items designed for Evil characters
why??? we have necrotic stuff...
- Powers designed for Evil characters
all the powers are rather neutral as is...
- Player advice on playing Evil characters
- DM advice on running campaigns for Evil characters
read the DMG there is a section on just that...
Seriously however, they would have to be careful of the But Not Too Evil mentality, or we will end of with a 4E Book of Vile Darkness.
But... but... but... It will corrupt the children!
Seriously however, they would have to be careful of the But Not Too Evil mentality, or we will end of with a 4E Book of Vile Darkness.
What exactly was the BoVD?
EDIT: OH MY GAWD
This book is terrible, and I'm on page 4.
And that just from what I have heard. I have never read it, nor ever felt the slightest inclination to.
Is there any chance for a PHB/DMG/MM combo based on evil campaigns?
Before you say, "just play as evil characters," I'm talking evil abilities, Channel Divinities for evil Gods, and "Good" enemies.
I certainly hope not. Everything needed to play evil characters is available but "evil" Channel Divinity powers, and they'll be available tomorrow in Divine Power.
It gets worse. SO MUCH WORSE.
And that just from what I have heard. I have never read it, nor ever felt the slightest inclination to.
Seriously if you haven't read it than you're hardly in a position to offer reasonable criticism.
Furthermore, The Book of Vile Darkness is not a bad book, most people just go into with the wrong expectations. It is not just a book about evil, it's a book about EVIL. It's not a guide for creating morally ambiguous characters that justify there actions as being necessary to achieve some greater goal. It's a book about over the top unambiguous atrocity and the kinds of characters that not only make no excuses, but actually revel in their own wickedness.
The BoVD isn't pretty and it isn't pleasant, and that is the entire point as specifically stated the author in the introduction.
Beard-stroking, perhaps?
This deserves an entire chapter in and of itself. It is an unparalleled art form.
+1 internet for making me chuckle.
It is not just a book about evil, it's a book about EVIL. It's not a guide for creating morally ambiguous characters that justify there actions as being necessary to achieve some greater goal. It's a book about over the top unambiguous atrocity and the kinds of characters that not only make no excuses, but actually revel in their own wickedness.
The BoVD isn't pretty and it isn't pleasant, and that is the entire point as specifically stated the author in the introduction.
There are people who complain that the BoVD is too Evil? It's the Evil book, what did they expect? Why are they even reading it in the first place? If they want Evil Lite/Evilgood, they're really looking for something like a BoND - Book of Neutral Dalliances.
I played a game that took the evil humans (Vasharin) once as a campiang enemy...it was pretty cool them being an organized group hunting gods, and god followers..... We PCs could be any alignment, so me and my friend randy made characters that were going to kill each other by level 5...mostly as a joke then bring in more team oranted characters... I was a mystic thurge of vecna, and he was a ranger to the goddes of life and the sun (homebrew)...by game two we were both being hunted, and realized no one wants the gods wiped out...we as a group of 9 that as of the last game (level 16) we had a PC of each alignment except CE...and we were the best of friends. It's funny how a LE mystic theurge of vecna and a NE Drow rogue can quickly fall in line with the idea that there are somethings too hoorible to even consider.
I took the evil soul stuff as a DM, and had a campiagn 'hero' king in the past kill off 3,000 'criminals' to use the sacrafice for XP thing, but first torture them for the agony liquid xp thing...to make the artafact that was the mcguffin...of cource no one knew that, so it made quite the impression when the BBEG told them they were useing and as such condoning evil far worse then his...that was fun...
I used the IO rack goblins in a game once...
Vile damage was a staple in my games with some minor tweeking for years...
Ur priest got used atleast somewhat too...
as a whole not the best book, but you can mine some cool stuff from it...
I've lost faith in evil-centric books ever being of good quality.
Well of course such books would never be of "good" quality, that would just be silly.
Such books should always of "evil" quality.
It's not a guide for creating morally ambiguous characters that justify there actions as being necessary to achieve some greater goal. It's a book about over the top unambiguous atrocity and the kinds of characters that not only make no excuses, but actually revel in their own wickedness.
The BoVD isn't pretty and it isn't pleasant, and that is the entire point as specifically stated the author in the introduction.
I thought the main complaints were:
1.) It's *not evil enough*. It's idea of evil is mostly "weird" or "gross", but not evil.
2.) It's just a bad book.
Even if BoVD was supposed to be "blood-orgy EVIL", why is that a good thing and why should we encourage players who commit monstrous atrocities?
Why, should we encourage players who are kind, nice and good? There are always two sides to the spectrum. You can't ignore evil because it sure as hell won't ignore you.
Even if BoVD was supposed to be "blood-orgy EVIL", why is that a good thing and why should we encourage players who commit monstrous atrocities?
Is there any particular reason we should discourage it?
"Evil" spells and powers- rather than doing d6 fire damage, it did d6 hurts-you-in-a-mean-way damage....of evil!
"Evil" feats, which turned things like overeating, self-mutiliation, and romantic relations with undead(I kid not) into mechanical advantages.
And "Evil" items. Five words. Nipple Clamp of Excruciating Pain.
So, yeah. I can skip an "Evil" book.
1.) It's *not evil enough*. It's idea of evil is mostly "weird" or "gross", but not evil.
I've heard people try and talk that line, I think they all missed the point. The entire point was to go so over the top, to go so far past the boundaries of anything that could possibly be consider moral decency that no one could accuse it of being ambiguous. The stuff in the BoVD is the kind of stuff that no sensible sane person would ever do regardless of the kind of power it granted them. It's not just about being selfish and power hunger, it's about being so thoroughly wicked that there could never be any place in normal society where such behaviors could ever possibly be condoned.
In that respect it failed to deliver the kind of subtle insidious evil that many people might have been looking for. It's not a book about villains that have reasonable motive for the terrible things the do or people trying to make their own perfect world. It a book about horrible wretch that make most villains look like rank armatures or even pious saints.
People try and call it cartoonish, gross, pointless even. What they fail to realize is that all of that was exactly the point. The stuff in the BoVD is the kind of evil that exists for no purpose other then to make a more terrible world full of even more terrible evils. Personally I would expect no less from a book titled after an artifact that alters a character's alignment just for reading it.
True it brought us some bizarre and stupid things. But it also brought us Apocalypse from the Sky, a 9th level spell with a good artifact as a material component, that levels a 10 mile radius per level with mass destruction :D
We also got some gems like the spell Circle of Nausea. Of course the nipple clamp granted immunity to circle of nausea (no, I'm not making this up).
On second thought, nevermind, we dont need another evil book. ;)
The last time we had an "evil" book, it was one of the stupidest embarrassments to gaming, and to evil.
The last "evil" book was Exemplars of Evil, I personally never read it.
Heroes of Horror was another "evil" book and it did a good job.
Champions of Ruin was another.
As for the Book of Vile Darkness, it did provide good tools for creating evil characters, but it also mixed it with stuff that was... well... If you read it you should know.
So it can be done, but it must be done carefully.
Hope I will never see such book in 4E. I prefer to run games about heroes, not bastards, thank you.
So don't buy it then.
Bel
Hope I will never see such book in 4E. I prefer to run games about heroes, not bastards, thank you.
I don't mind running games about bastards, but you don't need extra rules for that. When you ask for more BoVD, you're asking us to embrace Gorno - gratuitous gore for the sole purpose of gore.
The last "evil" book was Exemplars of Evil
Elder Evils came out after Exemplars of Evil.
I don't mind running games about bastards, but you don't need extra rules for that. When you ask for more BoVD, you're asking us to embrace Gorno - gratuitous gore for the sole purpose of gore.
Asking for an Evil book is most certainly not the same thing as asking for another BoVD.
However, I see no reason that there shouldn't be a book with rules for Channel Divinity for evil gods, PP updates of classic Evil classes (Blackguard, etc.).
We don't need a book on being evil by being a raving psychotic rapist murderer serial canabal. But we could use a book on being evil by being an ego-centric thief, adjunct of a dark god, or power hungry warlord.
More to the point, how can we ever have a necromancer class any other way? Since the begining of D&D, the act of animating the dead into unnatural life has always been the purview of evil. It's always been an evil act. Creating a zombie, skeleton, or self-willed undead like a vampire is an inherantly evil act. Necromancer has been stated since the 4e previews as being a class slated for the Shadow powersource.
So, we're going to have an inherrently evil class.
More to the point, how can we ever have a necromancer class any other way? Since the begining of D&D, the act of animating the dead into unnatural life has always been the purview of evil. It's always been an evil act. Creating a zombie, skeleton, or self-willed undead like a vampire is an inherantly evil act. Necromancer has been stated since the 4e previews as being a class slated for the Shadow powersource.
So, we're going to have an inherrently evil class.
We have a Dragon article which discusses non-evil necromancy. It is entirely possible to create a necromancer class that is non evil. Zombies and skeletons can in fact be "naturally" occuring creatures by the default fluff for 4th edition. We already have an Epic Destiny which makes the taker into a Archlich(a form of sentient undead). The act of necromancy in 4th edition is no more evil then the act of using a sword.
What is good or evil anyways? Just another way for the man to keep the green skin down if you ask me.
As for my DM'ing . I never had players that wanted to be good. Guess thats what I get for running with the 40k crowd.
However, I see no reason that there shouldn't be a book with rules for Channel Divinity for evil gods, PP updates of classic Evil classes (Blackguard, etc.).
So that's, what, a sidebar? Maybe an article in Dragon? There's simply not enough possible extra rules for an entire book without resorting to Blood-Orgy Evil.
I really hope they come out with something for evil PC's. I'm tired of (playing Dungeons & Dragons )
There, fixed that for ya.
This brand has always been heroic centric, and the fringe for the "Evil Campaign" has only come up when another RPG came out that was loosely based within the society of vampires introduced by the author that wrote the books that "Interview with a Vampire" was based on. That game was "Vampire: The Masquerade."
It was this that made the setting Ravenloft into a plausible possibility (and was released) It has already been mentioned elsewhere that this, along with Planescape and Spelljammer, has been absorbed into the fabric of this edition and won't have setting releases of their own.
Heroes of Horror was another "evil" book and it did a good job.
Heroes of Horror wasn't really a book about evil, though it had it's moments. It was much more focused on scary/suspenseful.
I don't mind running games about bastards, but you don't need extra rules for that. When you ask for more BoVD, you're asking us to embrace Gorno - gratuitous gore for the sole purpose of gore.
That isn't always such a bad thing. It certainly isn't for everyone, but that doesn't make it a bad book, at worst it makes it a niche book.
So that's, what, a sidebar? Maybe an article in Dragon? There's simply not enough possible extra rules for an entire book without resorting to Blood-Orgy Evil.
And you know what? That's absolutely FINE with me, as long as we get them.
It annoys the heck out of me that we don't have any of these feats for any evil deity in any setting.
Also, on the Moral ambiguity topic above? When I want Moral ambiguity, I'll pull out of the fantasy world and back into the totally morally ambiguous real world. I play fantasy games to ESCAPE the world of moral relativism and ambiguity.
It's nice to spend a few hours every week in a world where the "Good" guys don't torture people, the "Bad" guys don't claim they were ordered to kill people by a deity whose purview is supposed to be goodness and light, and where doing what's right is rewarded instead of punished through a series of arcane and incomprehensible laws designed to give work to people who make arcane and incomprehensible laws.
There, fixed that for ya.
This brand has always been heroic centric, and the fringe for the "Evil Campaign" has only come up when another RPG came out that was loosely based within the society of vampires introduced by the author that wrote the books that "Interview with a Vampire" was based on. That game was "Vampire: The Masquerade."
No, just no.
This brand has always been heroic centric, and the fringe for the "Evil Campaign" has only come up when another RPG came out that was loosely based within the society of vampires introduced by the author that wrote the books that "Interview with a Vampire" was based on. That game was "Vampire: The Masquerade."
...
This whole paragraph is ridiculous. Calling people who play in Evil campaigns "the fringe"? Then implying that nobody ever thought of playing Evil characters before V:tM came out? Evil existed before V:tM, you know.
The Shild campaign
Evil campaigns have worked in my experience. The trick is to set the type of game up ahead of time, know what the group is getting into. We once ran a campaign inspired by the TV show The Shield.
We played corrupt city guardsmen, bringing our own style of justice to the streets. Do what you have to, even if it means murder, just don't get caught (especially if it means murder). We played out 12 'episodes' (a full 'season'). We're considering a second season. Gonna be a mostly new 'cast' though; that's what held us up for so long ;).
We played corrupt city guardsmen, bringing our own style of justice to the streets. Do what you have to, even if it means murder, just don't get caught (especially if it means murder). We played out 12 'episodes' (a full 'season'). We're considering a second season. Gonna be a mostly new 'cast' though; that's what held us up for so long ;).
In other words, the CD support is already there.
There, fixed that for ya.
This brand has always been heroic centric, and the fringe for the "Evil Campaign" has only come up when another RPG came out that was loosely based within the society of vampires introduced by the author that wrote the books that "Interview with a Vampire" was based on. That game was "Vampire: The Masquerade."
It was this that made the setting Ravenloft into a plausible possibility (and was released) It has already been mentioned elsewhere that this, along with Planescape and Spelljammer, has been absorbed into the fabric of this edition and won't have setting releases of their own.
*blam!* (head exploding)
Wow, I will go so far and say that you never played Vampire: The Masquerade. It is true that Interview inspired V:TM, but that game was never simply you play evil characters. A big part of the game was controlling your inner beast which ate away at your soul. That's why there was a humanity rating in the stats block. Anyways, the concept of 'evil' was very different in that game. V:TM is very dark true, but in no way do the players have to be 'evil' (they can of course be evil- but that's another story).
What made Ravenloft into a plausible possibility was it being the one of, if not the most successful module ever made. It was one of the most popular settings in DnD and had its own play structure (like most campaigns). It's true that Domains of Dread have been absorbed into the fabric of this edition. This does not mean that there won't be a setting release of their own.
I must have missed it because I have not seen an official statement made saying that there won't be a setting release for any of the products you mentioned.
oh and the anti-paladin came out BEFORE V:TM in Dragon Magazine for 1ed
My favorite Mature Readers book is actually Quintessential Drow, a supplement by Mongoose Publishing for v.3.5. There was some really vile stuff in there. Like: 'Unborn savior' a fleshcrafting feat where the drow uses a spontaneously generated unborn child as a meat shield, protecting herself against a single fatal spell attack.
Oh, well, we already have something like that in 4E. One of the Witchalok's 2nd-level Utilities allows you to (At-Will, even) spontaneously generate a few clones of yourself with their own hopes and dreams. Then they die on your next turn.
*blam!* (head exploding)
Wow, I will go so far and say that you never played Vampire: The Masquerade. It is true that Interview inspired V:TM, but that game was never simply you play evil characters. A big part of the game was controlling your inner beast which ate away at your soul. That's why there was a humanity rating in the stats block. Anyways, the concept of 'evil' was very different in that game. V:TM is very dark true, but in no way do the players have to be 'evil' (they can of course be evil- but that's another story).
What made Ravenloft into a plausible possibility was it being the one of, if not the most successful module ever made. It was one of the most popular settings in DnD and had its own play structure (like most campaigns). It's true that Domains of Dread have been absorbed into the fabric of this edition. This does not mean that there won't be a setting release of their own.
I must have missed it because I have not seen an official statement made saying that there won't be a setting release for any of the products you mentioned.
My point is that the game is a dark one, not that the characters are necessarily "evil" but that they are within a darker theme where evil acts and questionable decisions because of their situations.
Ravenloft worked well as it thrust characters into the same type of situation. It also introduced a type of gaming that some had already been doing, that of playing evil characters, though the suggested Heroic theme was still there.
The Evil campaign is not something that needs any product devoted to it. Those that want to play such campaigns have all they need in the core books (PHBs, DMGs and MMs) rather than have a book like the Book of Vile Darkness.
My point is that the game is a dark one, not that the characters are necessarily "evil" but that they are within a darker theme where evil acts and questionable decisions because of their situations.
Ravenloft worked well as it thrust characters into the same type of situation. It also introduced a type of gaming that some had already been doing, that of playing evil characters, though the suggested Heroic theme was still there.
The Evil campaign is not something that needs any product devoted to it. Those that want to play such campaigns have all they need in the core books (PHBs, DMGs and MMs) rather than have a book like the Book of Vile Darkness.
Oh, okay I see your point more. As for Ravenloft, the PCs I ran in various games were all good/neutral alignment. Well, one was leaning hard evil- but it was through roleplay.
I for one, have no desire to play evil characters or run an evil campaign. I was just commenting on the V:TM and Ravenloft points you made. Both V:TM and Ravenloft have many dark and evil elements, but the characters can be a sharp contrast to the world in which they reside.
Ravenloft isn't an evil campaign. It's a hellish prison, that the PCs want to escape from. The type of gaming for the campaign I was refering to was the focus on DMing being more obtuse in the descriptions. The overall atmosphere is pensive and dark.
Its ok to have horribly evil villains who do horribly evil things as long as those things are not detailed? Plus the book of vile darkness and book of exalted deeds were never meant for children. Its an adult book for adult DM's for adult games. Cause after awhile, necromancers who raise the dead by snapping their fingers gets old.
"My villain hates you, I mean HATES you. Death is too good, no sir, you're gonna get tortured and hes gonna eat your toes right in front of you. Hmmm, crispy!":P
You can go to hell and fight the devil in dnd, you can even worship the devil in dnd (asmodeus) but the BoVD was extreme? LOL! I wander how many people were to horrified to play ravenloft or how shocked they were when the evil dead babies of the taladas trilogy came after the hero in her/his dream. (dragonlance)
PS: Its just a piece of fiction for a fictional game, just don't go wearing anyone elses flesh and everything will be just fine.
There, fixed that for ya.
This brand has always been heroic centric, and the fringe for the "Evil Campaign" has only come up when another RPG came out that was loosely based within the society of vampires introduced by the author that wrote the books that "Interview with a Vampire" was based on. That game was "Vampire: The Masquerade."
It was this that made the setting Ravenloft into a plausible possibility (and was released) It has already been mentioned elsewhere that this, along with Planescape and Spelljammer, has been absorbed into the fabric of this edition and won't have setting releases of their own.
Just nitpicking here but ravenloft came out before vampire The Masquerade and people have been playing evil characters since 1st edition.
Why, should we encourage players who are kind, nice and good?
Because those are traits of a decent human being? Someone that others can rely on, and will be loyal to and are trusted in turn? I mean, really, this was not a well-conceived argument.
But... but... but... It will corrupt the children!
Seriously however, they would have to be careful of the But Not Too Evil mentality, or we will end of with a 4E Book of Vile Darkness.
I like the BoVD perhaps not such a good player book but for dming its awesome ;)
Even if BoVD was supposed to be "blood-orgy EVIL", why is that a good thing and why should we encourage players who commit monstrous atrocities?
You want evil players do it those things out-of-game instead?
But if a book is to be made; it should be done in a proper way and not like the BoVD. Being evil is less about the actual deeds and more about the motivation behind those deeds.
Imagine an evil character giving a bagger (s)he a gold coin.
Why do you think that char would do that?
I think that he hopes that the other beggars will fight/kill him for it, or maybe that he'll drink himself into a torpor, or possibly liver damage.
*That* is evil, even though others could see it as a "good" deed.
Evil is a subtle art, not simply a bloodfest.
We don't need a giant book of depravity. We don't need mechanical rules for how to sell our souls to demons, use drugs, run a slave trade, rules for torture, etc.
I'd buy that one. But then, my group has never shied away from evil PCs or antagonists. We're mature enough that we enjoy the philosophical and moral explorations of good and evil without that "I stab this other character and take his magic items because I'm EVIL!" nonsense.
Its always been that a good pc might do an evil act to serve the greater good and an evil pc might commit a good act to further his/her own selfish goals.
The only real problem was when a paladin and a rogue were in the same party and the two natures clashed due to alignment. But even in the new edition that is still a problem.
Also remember that the LE,NE and CE alignments were released in the PHB for a reason. They could have been a DMG only feature but were included so players could play evil characters if they wanted. Same goes for 4e, evil is presented in the PHB which does indeed encourage and support evil characters. We also have evil gods in the PHB. Anything not meant for the players belongs in the DMG, anything in the PHB is accessable to the players.
I personally liked the older alignment system but too many DM's forced strict alignment rules (which was wrong) and too many player's feared their own alignments as a prison.
Its always been that a good pc might do an evil act to serve the greater good and an evil pc might commit a good act to further his/her own selfish goals.
The only real problem was when a paladin and a rogue were in the same party and the two natures clashed due to alignment. But even in the new edition that is still a problem.
Also remember that the LE,NE and CE alignments were released in the PHB for a reason. They could have been a DMG only feature but were included so players could play evil characters if they wanted. Same goes for 4e, evil is presented in the PHB which does indeed encourage and support evil characters. We also have evil gods in the PHB. Anything not meant for the players belongs in the DMG, anything in the PHB is accessable to the players.
It must be said that the evil alignments are there to show the other side of the coin more than having players run ruffshod through the campaign. A capable player can play an Evil character, but it doesn't need to be an "Evil Campaign" that seems all the rage a couple of years ago. Evil doesn't mean stupid.
Notice also, the PHB is slanted toward a "Heroic" campaign, the first tier of play even being called the Heroic Tier. The Evil Gods are mentioned, but the details are in the DMG.
No, there is no need for an Evil PC book. There never was.
It must be said that the evil alignments are there to show the other side of the coin more than having players run ruffshod through the campaign. A capable player can play an Evil character, but it doesn't need to be an "Evil Campaign" that seems all the rage a couple of years ago. Evil doesn't mean stupid.
Notice also, the PHB is slanted toward a "Heroic" campaign, the first tier of play even being called the Heroic Tier. The Evil Gods are mentioned, but the details are in the DMG.
No, there is no need for an Evil PC book. There never was.
Since first edition there have been motivation to run evil characters, hence why we have good npc's with stats. Also players dont need to understand an alignment they themselves won't play and heroic is not soley a concept of good. Plenty of evil cultures have heroes.
Its about personal tastes and thats it. Some people don't like evil campaigns, some do. Neither is wrong. I'v never followed whats popular at the local game store or online. I run what my players like to play. Having a total of about 36 different D&D players in all of my groups is what forms my opinion. Some groups like to play heroes, some like to play villains. Its all about personal taste.
PS: Actually I have more than 40 people who play in my games, in different groups at different times. Thats just to give you an idea of the volume of opinions I get from people outside the online community.
I don't understand what would reasonably go into such a book. To the "4E NEEDS AN EVIL BOOK" crowd what are you looking for?
I'll bite: How about rakshasas as a PC race? PH 2 gave us the goody-goody devas (which I also like). Devas who turn to evil are reborn as rakshasas.
I'm thinking of using the stats for changelings (from the Eberron Player's Guide) and calling them rakshasas. Both races are shapechangers, subject to specific effects. We running some Eberron games right now, so I'm just tossing some ideas around in my head ;).
Changing changelings into rakshasas (as it were)
Both races are able to alter their appearance to that of any medium humanoid (with changelings it's a racial ability, with rakshasas it's illusion magic). Changelings call their ability a 'disguise' while rakshasas refer to it as a 'deceptive veil'. So, there are some small differences, but nothing much of note I think.
Rakshasas are a powerfully magical race, more so than changelings at any rate. For instance, in 3.5, even a typical member cast spells as a 7th level sorcerer. As a PC race though, I wouldn't start them out with such power. I say let the player build to that level, earn his or her status as an elite spellcaster.
Some rambling thoughts. Anyone have any suggestions to share, in passing maybe (so as to not derail the thread too badly)?
Rakshasas are a powerfully magical race, more so than changelings at any rate. For instance, in 3.5, even a typical member cast spells as a 7th level sorcerer. As a PC race though, I wouldn't start them out with such power. I say let the player build to that level, earn his or her status as an elite spellcaster.
Some rambling thoughts. Anyone have any suggestions to share, in passing maybe (so as to not derail the thread too badly)?
I really hope they come out with something for evil PC's. I'm tired of the good hero PC being shoved down my throat.
Too bad. The entire game revolves around being the good guy. If you read the other books and the developers intent the OP'er knew the answer to his question before starting this thread.
Want something evil? Homebrew it yourself.
I think the more interesting question is whether there would be enough of a market for a book geared towards playing evil characters. Maybe, maybe not. My group tried an "evil campaign" a few years back with 3.5, and it was a disaster. Our DM basically set us loose with the simple directive to "be evil." Next thing you knew, we were slaughtering villagers and turning them into armies of undead. Sometimes we would play with our food before we ate it. After two sessions of this, whatever fun it had been was gone. We left the second session with queasy unease, and agreed that being evil was not all it was cracked up to be.
We all have impure thoughts sometimes. We wish harm on others, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something deeply uncomfortable, at least for me, about the act of collaborating with a group of friends to visualize and, in some ways, simulate, atrocity for its own sake. I have no wish to repeat the experience, and I think Wizards is probably well-aware that a game like that has limited appeal.
As far as "moral ambiguity" goes, that is already built into the normal game. Any paladin can be tempted by anger, and anyone who's ever played a dwarf knows that sometimes it's hard to choose between your friends and your treasure.
First off, if we take a look at DP, we now have rules that provide CD and other benefits for divine characters of evil deities. Even before that, though, it was possible to simply appropriate another deity's CD feat and pretend it was for some evil god. 4E is just as flexible as any other edition, and it's easy enough to homebrew/house rule whatever you think is necessary for an evil character. A book would only be necessary if there was some new specifically evil class, but as has already been pointed out in this thread, the existing classes are broad enough to accommodate characters of any alignment.
I think the more interesting question is whether there would be enough of a market for a book geared towards playing evil characters. Maybe, maybe not. My group tried an "evil campaign" a few years back with 3.5, and it was a disaster. Our DM basically set us loose with the simple directive to "be evil." Next thing you knew, we were slaughtering villagers and turning them into armies of undead. Sometimes we would play with our food before we ate it. After two sessions of this, whatever fun it had been was gone. We left the second session with queasy unease, and agreed that being evil was not all it was cracked up to be.
We all have impure thoughts sometimes. We wish harm on others, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something deeply uncomfortable, at least for me, about the act of collaborating with a group of friends to visualize and, in some ways, simulate, atrocity for its own sake. I have no wish to repeat the experience, and I think Wizards is probably well-aware that a game like that has limited appeal.
As far as "moral ambiguity" goes, that is already built into the normal game. Any paladin can be tempted by anger, and anyone who's ever played a dwarf knows that sometimes it's hard to choose between your friends and your treasure.
Or booze, don't forget the dwarven ales.
I think the more interesting question is whether there would be enough of a market for a book geared towards playing evil characters. Maybe, maybe not. My group tried an "evil campaign" a few years back with 3.5, and it was a disaster. Our DM basically set us loose with the simple directive to "be evil." Next thing you knew, we were slaughtering villagers and turning them into armies of undead. Sometimes we would play with our food before we ate it. After two sessions of this, whatever fun it had been was gone. We left the second session with queasy unease, and agreed that being evil was not all it was cracked up to be.
To me it seems that the problem was more so the lack of any constructive reason to be evil. I've never played an evil campaign, but from what I've heard from others this seems to be a typical problem. Too many groups seem to treat an evil game as though it were a normal campaign that has gone completely off the rails. With no story or plot, this then leads to loss of interest because the game becomes little more than a completion to see who can be the most depraved. To put it simply, in my opinion, most evil campaigns fail because of bad DMing rather than because their is an inherent flaw in the premise of playing evil PCs.
To contrast, imagine being dropped into a setting with nothing more than the directive to "be good." How long do you really think it would be fun to go around performing random acts of kindness? Sandbox gaming can be all well and fun, but in my experience most D&D players are more interested in being part of an immersive story.
We all have impure thoughts sometimes. We wish harm on others, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something deeply uncomfortable, at least for me, about the act of collaborating with a group of friends to visualize and, in some ways, simulate, atrocity for its own sake. I have no wish to repeat the experience, and I think Wizards is probably well-aware that a game like that has limited appeal.
This is true, however, there have still been several reasonably successful games that have put the player in the role of a villain (though Dungeon Keeper, which was successful enough to get a sequel, is the only one that comes to mind at the moment).
Is there any chance for a PHB/DMG/MM combo based on evil campaigns?
Before you say, "just play as evil characters," I'm talking evil abilities, Channel Divinities for evil Gods, and "Good" enemies.
The mentality of this post is the reason why 4e advises against allowing people to play evil characters - they just don't get it.
Evil abilities is meaningless; there is nothing "good" or "evil" about an ability, and many current abilities are "evil" in various ways. For example, a lot of powers which deal necrotic damage have negative connotations, many of the warlock pacts are pretty dubious in nature, ect. "Evil" abilities a completely meaningless concept, save for things which are DM only (like creating permanent undead minions and similar).
Channel divinity is insufficient cause, and honestly, I'd be all for including them in some book.
Good enemies is the REAL problem, however, and is the cause of virtually all of the problems with evil PCs. You see, people think there is a "team evil", but there isn't. Evil isn't just good inverted; evil is evil. Evil people will spend a lot of time fighting other evil people, not good ones, and as good people are more trustworthy than evil people, you'll often find that an evil person is more likely to trust a good person than another evil person. While segments of evil may trust themselves (like followers of Bane), a follower of Bane is not likely to trust a follower of the Mad God or of one of the demons, and is indeed far more likely to respect a paladin of Bahamut, even if they do not see eye to eye on everything.
People have this bizzare (and wrong) team evil mentality, and these are PRECISELY the people you don't want playing evil characters because they backstab, disrupt, and generally are problematic and think that because they're evil, they're in opposition to good. Most evil people don't think of themselves as evil at all, and that's true even in D&D - the Aboleth and Illthid are evil, but they don't think of themselves as such.
Here's what Evil players need:
- Channel Divinity
- Good enemies
- Items designed for Evil characters
- Powers designed for Evil characters
- Player advice on playing Evil characters
- DM advice on running campaigns for Evil characters
So, when we look at this list, what do we find?
- Channel divinity - fine, but short.
- Good enemies - dumb. Plus, they're already in the game in the form of angels and metallic dragons and such. So unnecessary as well.
- Items designed for evil characters - already in the game. They are usable by characters of any alignment, obviously, but that's fine. There's no reason to make "evil" items, because the idea is fairly meaningless - there already are items which hurt you for effects, and items which hurt your allies are a bad idea.
- Powers designed for evil characters - dumb. There already are powers which work very well for them, and there's no reason to exclude good characters from taking powers. Powers like permanently creating undead and such shouldn't exist at all in the hands of PCs.
- Player advice on running evil characters - fine, but easily included elsewhere.
- DM advice on dealing with evil characters - fine, but easily included elsewhere.
So in reality, there are only three things you'd want:
Channel divnity stuff
Player advice on evil characters
DM advice on evil characters
That's ALL you'd want. 100% of it. You do NOT want good enemies or "evil" powers and items, because they're meaningless or outright bad ideas. And to some extent, I can understand why WotC would want to not print these, as they're far more likely to cause more harm than good, precisely because of the mentality common to these people.
Playing an evil character is fun, but you have to understand what you are doing. Party infighting is not a good idea, not something you should encourage, and not something you want someone to be doing on the basis of "my character is evil". Indeed, they will often whine and complain when everyone else kills their character or doesn't want to play with them. This is because they are causing problems.
I can play an evil character. If you think you need good enemies to fight, you cannot.