I however, have always enjoyed running a darker campaign. One of my favorite campaigns ever was a party of undead. They started as living characters, generally good aligned, but were slain in a tomb by various undead. The "goal" for these recently undead characters was to make there way to Necropolis, and find their way through undead society. It was so awesome. So many campaigns end with character death, and I never understood why, when you can roleplay the souls journey in the afterlife, or the life of the undead if things went really bad for you.
I realize also, that yes, I can just create some stuff, modify that, and sprinkle with good role playing, and poof, my campaign has gone evil! Not really what I'm looking for. I don't like the common acceptance of "power ranger evil" IMHO, a good evil character has more flavor than most good characters I've seen. (but then again, that is upto the characters creator)
To make a long point short, I would like to see the anti thesis to the standard "points of light" campaign work up done for 4e. A "points of darkness" counterpart. This book could offer more player & dm oriented material that is geared towards an evil party, and good "monsters". There could be new playable races, like the Necropolitan, or Yuan-ti. Classes like the Necromancer, the Blackguard, and a Cult Priest. Whole new rituals, equipment, and feats geared towards "evil" characters.
I realize that 4e is supposed to be all goody two shoes, but one source book of optional material for a... ehrm... darker campaign wouldn't destroy, or change what 4e is. It would be another enhancement that every campaign could use. Imagine the possibilities for DM's looking to add flavor to their "points of light" campaign.
----"I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way."-----
-- some old rock song
(proceed in crucifying me for forgetting the artists name)
Reading on the surface, I see lots of UNDEAD and BLACKGUARD and other things associated with evil, but little mention of evil intentions. However, I am guessing that you equate undead with evil automatically. and the assumption that being undead means doing and being evil.
So are you looking for a supplement with evil crunch (races and classes) or evil fluff (how to be evil and an interesting character)?
I won't deny that as an optional book to detail running an evil campaign and giving clear guidelines is a good idea, for those that want it Book of Vile Darkness, and several other non-WotC published books, brought plenty of light to the idea and for people that wanted that it was most likely a boon back in X edition.
As for me, I probably wouldn't buy it. This would be the only case I'd turn to the compendium if it gave stats for say Yuan-Ti. That's a preference though, and that's assuming it would have something that useful to me like Yuan-Ti stats.
My only argument against it (from a DM that wouldn't use it) is running into players that would want to use items/feats/races etc. out of the book in a game where the DM has chosen not to include that book as an option.
Recap: Fills a niche for all the "Evil Campagin" groups, go for it, I will be exorsicing DM's perogative on it.
I see little need for the book. I do enjoy an evil campaign once in a blue moon, but not enough to buy a book for it. And while I've seen decent demand for darker option, I see only a little actual demand for evil material. I'm not sure the book would sell well enough to be worth it, especially if it cuts into the production of other materials. Maybe as a dragon article, though.
To make a long point short, I would like to see the anti thesis to the standard "points of light" campaign work up done for 4e. A "points of darkness" counterpart. This book could offer more player & dm oriented material that is geared towards an evil party, and good "monsters". There could be new playable races, like the Necropolitan, or Yuan-ti. Classes like the Necromancer, the Blackguard, and a Cult Priest. Whole new rituals, equipment, and feats geared towards "evil" characters.
I actually find myself in complete disagreement.
See, most of the interesting elements of an evil character lie purely in the domain of roleplaying. A proper evil character is about motivation, personality, interactions with others....none of which are really mechanical. The greatest villains aren't made by their powers, they are made by their natures.
Meanwhile, "Evil" books have, historically speaking, kind of failed. The Book of Vile Darkness was a rather pathetic joke, full of evil feats (making yourself fat to gain power), evil spells (which did the evil damage exactly equal to a fireball, but evil), and evil items (nipple clamp of excruciating pain, anyone?), all of which came across as really, really silly.
It would be better, meanwhile, if the Necromancer were a shadow class without alignment restrictions, if the Blackguard was just a paragon path of the paladin with the necrotic variant in use, and the cult priest....was just an invoker, who do a fine job of priesting to cults.
If we're going to have necromantic demifunctions for players, or certain insidious races, let's have them presented on their own, not lumped together under the banner of "Now with 50% more evil!"
Could you clarify what you're looking for?
Reading on the surface, I see lots of UNDEAD and BLACKGUARD and other things associated with evil, but little mention of evil intentions. However, I am guessing that you equate undead with evil automatically. and the assumption that being undead means doing and being evil.
So are you looking for a supplement with evil crunch (races and classes) or evil fluff (how to be evil and an interesting character)?
--Alter Boy
I am looking for a book that presents races, classes, feats, and equipment that are generally viewed as belonging to the "bad guys". Basically anyone you might face as an opponent in a "points of light" campaign. Not just "fluff". My problem is that anytime "EVIL" has been portrayed in a source book, it feels like the creators were smiling with a pinky held up to their mouth when they stepped back to look at it. (Dr. Evil anyone?) I want to see a book that shows you things from their perspective. The cult of some long imprisoned deity isn't just a group of crazed lunatics, maybe they feel they are just in wanting the freedom of their god, who in their eyes was wrongly mprisoned to begin with, and maybe really was. Maybe the lich isn't some twisted form seeking to destroy life, maybe he has some good reasons for commiting the terrible deeds he does. Maybe the local serial killer is only abusing people because he was molested as an orphan at the local church of Melora? I want a book dedicated to all that is generally percieved as evil, or wrong, but done from a perspective more deep than "we're evil, and we're coming to get you because we are evil, and we can".
My only argument against it (from a DM that wouldn't use it) is running into players that would want to use items/feats/races etc. out of the book in a game where the DM has chosen not to include that book as an option.
--LizardMage
I don't deny that some players may want to access the material when a DM does not want to use it. However, that can happen with any book (usually FR material in my games). More importantly is the golden rule, "the DM is always right, even when he's wrong".
If we're going to have necromantic demifunctions for players, or certain insidious races, let's have them presented on their own, not lumped together under the banner of "Now with 50% more evil!"
--Dragoncat
I would have no problem with them being presented on their own. The problem is that they aren't. There is no necromancer, no blackguard, no cult priest, even as builds for other classes. Everybody just says "Well if that's what you want, it isn't that hard to just make it yourself.", and that may be true. However, 4e is the only edition to date to altogether ignore the possibility of people playing evil campaigns. And I use evil loosely in this thread. It is a simple term I use to designate anyone that may generally be opposed by you average "points of light" adventurer. Maybe your not evil, just an average guy that is willing to do horrible things sometimes, for the "right" reasons. I do agree with your "Now with 50% more evil!" statement, as that is how WotC has generally presented evil. So if that is what they would do, I don't want it.
I say start with 3.5's Libris Mortis, except expand it beyond just undead, lets include cults, demons, devils, lets include humans! LOL Lay out the social structures. You know the White Lotus Academy? How about a Black Lotus Academy. Evil is largly roleplaying, but I want more than a fireball with the necrotic (or even shadow) damage type. I want spells like the old necrotic cyst series. Spells that can effect the souls of opponents. I want rituals that can enslave people. You know how undead quiver (not the mindless ones) when they see a cleric? They hope they aren't destroyed, but would love to kill it just as much?? I want a playable character that has that same on site effect to good clerics. Remeber the Quell?
I am only asking for one well thought out book, just one. It's not like I want a series, or a regular flow of "EVIL" (rubbing his hands together). I just want some "official" material for playing in a campaign that is based on darker motivations, and lighter opponents.
BTW: CCR! Damned it, can't believe I forgot them again!! I always forget CCR???? WTF is wrong with me???LOL
I am going to respond to some points as concisely as I can here:Could you clarify what you're looking for?
Reading on the surface, I see lots of UNDEAD and BLACKGUARD and other things associated with evil, but little mention of evil intentions. However, I am guessing that you equate undead with evil automatically. and the assumption that being undead means doing and being evil.
So are you looking for a supplement with evil crunch (races and classes) or evil fluff (how to be evil and an interesting character)?
--Alter Boy
I am looking for a book that presents races, classes, feats, and equipment that are generally viewed as belonging to the "bad guys". Basically anyone you might face as an opponent in a "points of light" campaign. Not just "fluff". My problem is that anytime "EVIL" has been portrayed in a source book, it feels like the creators were smiling with a pinky held up to their mouth when they stepped back to look at it. (Dr. Evil anyone?) I want to see a book that shows you things from their perspective. The cult of some long imprisoned deity isn't just a group of crazed lunatics, maybe they feel they are just in wanting the freedom of their god, who in their eyes was wrongly mprisoned to begin with, and maybe really was. Maybe the lich isn't some twisted form seeking to destroy life, maybe he has some good reasons for commiting the terrible deeds he does. Maybe the local serial killer is only abusing people because he was molested as an orphan at the local church of Melora? I want a book dedicated to all that is generally percieved as evil, or wrong, but done from a perspective more deep than "we're evil, and we're coming to get you because we are evil, and we can".My only argument against it (from a DM that wouldn't use it) is running into players that would want to use items/feats/races etc. out of the book in a game where the DM has chosen not to include that book as an option.
--LizardMage
I don't deny that some players may want to access the material when a DM does not want to use it. However, that can happen with any book (usually FR material in my games). More importantly is the golden rule, "the DM is always right, even when he's wrong".If we're going to have necromantic demifunctions for players, or certain insidious races, let's have them presented on their own, not lumped together under the banner of "Now with 50% more evil!"
--Dragoncat
I would have no problem with them being presented on their own. The problem is that they aren't. There is no necromancer, no blackguard, no cult priest, even as builds for other classes. Everybody just says "Well if that's what you want, it isn't that hard to just make it yourself.", and that may be true. However, 4e is the only edition to date to altogether ignore the possibility of people playing evil campaigns. And I use evil loosely in this thread. It is a simple term I use to designate anyone that may generally be opposed by you average "points of light" adventurer. Maybe your not evil, just an average guy that is willing to do horrible things sometimes, for the "right" reasons. I do agree with your "Now with 50% more evil!" statement, as that is how WotC has generally presented evil. So if that is what they would do, I don't want it.
I say start with 3.5's Libris Mortis, except expand it beyond just undead, lets include cults, demons, devils, lets include humans! LOL Lay out the social structures. You know the White Lotus Academy? How about a Black Lotus Academy. Evil is largly roleplaying, but I want more than a fireball with the necrotic (or even shadow) damage type. I want spells like the old necrotic cyst series. Spells that can effect the souls of opponents. I want rituals that can enslave people. You know how undead quiver (not the mindless ones) when they see a cleric? They hope they aren't destroyed, but would love to kill it just as much?? I want a playable character that has that same on site effect to good clerics. Remeber the Quell?
I am only asking for one well thought out book, just one. It's not like I want a series, or a regular flow of "EVIL" (rubbing his hands together). I just want some "official" material for playing in a campaign that is based on darker motivations, and lighter opponents.
BTW: CCR! Damned it, can't believe I forgot them again!! I always forget CCR???? WTF is wrong with me???LOL
Woah woah woah... step back a second here. You're telling me you want "affect good" effects to return to the game? "Turn Good Clerics" ? That's a dangerous slippery slope back into the mess that was previous editions, and into the old "alignment matters mechanically" garbage that was scrapped for the sake of being ABLE to refluff and play in a evil campaign if you really wanted to and not have the rules be around to screw you over because everybody can detect your evil intentions with a simple ritual and smite you because you're evil.
4e as it is is FAR better for making characters of ANY alignment, because there isn't fluff that is particularly good OR particularly evil. Radiant ≠ Good, remember. Star Pact Warlocks use radiant damage, and those Stars are quite crazy and dangerous, if you ask me.
Also, no options particularly poignent for evil characters? What about the Assassin? What about the Revenant – hey, that means YOU CAN ALREADY PLAY AS AN UNDEAD. What about Gnoll? Minotaur? Drow? Shadar-kai? Heck, even Eladrin? These are races that have good factions, but are just as likely, if not more likely, to be evil or at least extremely dangerous to good characters. They could well be heroic characters, but they are rooted in that shady boundary of of Unaligned-ness, with many, many being evil.
4e doesn't need 'EVIL' rules. What it needs is for Shadow Power to come out so you can have your Necromancer, Beguiller, etc and more rules related to darker elements of the game, and that'll come with time (most likely Spring 2011). I could see a Dungeon article or two on running Evil Campaigns as well so that you can deal with players who's alignments mean they could backstab at eachother at any moment, and maybe a companion Dragon article for players in an Evil Campaign, because player would definitely need to have some basic rules about not killing each other off if they're going to survive long enough to actually do anything.
Woah woah woah... step back a second here. You're telling me you want "affect good" effects to return to the game? "Turn Good Clerics" ? That's a dangerous slippery slope back into the mess that was previous editions, and into the old "alignment matters mechanically" garbage that was scrapped for the sake of being ABLE to refluff and play in a evil campaign if you really wanted to and not have the rules be around to screw you over because everybody can detect your evil intentions with a simple ritual and smite you because you're evil.
4e as it is is FAR better for making characters of ANY alignment, because there isn't fluff that is particularly good OR particularly evil. Radiant ≠ Good, remember. Star Pact Warlocks use radiant damage, and those Stars are quite crazy and dangerous, if you ask me.
Also, no options particularly poignent for evil characters? What about the Assassin? What about the Revenant – hey, that means YOU CAN ALREADY PLAY AS AN UNDEAD. What about Gnoll? Minotaur? Drow? Shadar-kai? Heck, even Eladrin? These are races that have good factions, but are just as likely, if not more likely, to be evil or at least extremely dangerous to good characters. They could well be heroic characters, but they are rooted in that shady boundary of of Unaligned-ness, with many, many being evil.
4e doesn't need 'EVIL' rules. What it needs is for Shadow Power to come out so you can have your Necromancer, Beguiller, etc and more rules related to darker elements of the game, and that'll come with time (most likely Spring 2011). I could see a Dungeon article or two on running Evil Campaigns as well so that you can deal with players who's alignments mean they could backstab at eachother at any moment, and maybe a companion Dragon article for players in an Evil Campaign, because player would definitely need to have some basic rules about not killing each other off if they're going to survive long enough to actually do anything.
--Marandahir
Ok, you are both correct, and misunderstanding me. I am not looking for alignment based stuff. I just want there to be as many available options for "evil" characters, as "good" ones. I know that I won't get that many options, but I would like some more. In relation to revenant, ... retarded. (IMHO) I want playable undead, liches, vampires, ghouls, wights. But anyways... I never experienced the problems you mention about players offing each other. We didn't play the whole "I am evil, I am alone, and I will rule it all!!", we played as a group that was goal oriented. Why do so many people think evil means solo?? Anyways, how the campaign is run will always depend on the group playing it. I would just like the material to be available, that's all.
Oh, one more thing. I am not completely sold on this whole shadow power source thing. It may work ok for some concepts, but I really don't think it works for everything. Necromancers are dark wizards that focus on life energies, and reanimation of the dead. That doesn't really scream shadow to me. I think necrotic 90%, maybe shadow 10%. Just my opinion there.
Then if the DMG assoiated with the PHB had advice from running an evil campaign, I think you probably will get your wish, but probably not for another year or so.
That's the last thing I need as a player, "Hi, I'm Mort the Angsty Emo Necromancer, no one understandes me."
Note: You know, for a DM, I suck at coming up with names...o.O
Woah woah woah... step back a second here. You're telling me you want "affect good" effects to return to the game? "Turn Good Clerics" ? That's a dangerous slippery slope back into the mess that was previous editions, and into the old "alignment matters mechanically" garbage that was scrapped for the sake of being ABLE to refluff and play in a evil campaign if you really wanted to and not have the rules be around to screw you over because everybody can detect your evil intentions with a simple ritual and smite you because you're evil.
4e as it is is FAR better for making characters of ANY alignment, because there isn't fluff that is particularly good OR particularly evil. Radiant ≠ Good, remember. Star Pact Warlocks use radiant damage, and those Stars are quite crazy and dangerous, if you ask me.
Also, no options particularly poignent for evil characters? What about the Assassin? What about the Revenant – hey, that means YOU CAN ALREADY PLAY AS AN UNDEAD. What about Gnoll? Minotaur? Drow? Shadar-kai? Heck, even Eladrin? These are races that have good factions, but are just as likely, if not more likely, to be evil or at least extremely dangerous to good characters. They could well be heroic characters, but they are rooted in that shady boundary of of Unaligned-ness, with many, many being evil.
4e doesn't need 'EVIL' rules. What it needs is for Shadow Power to come out so you can have your Necromancer, Beguiller, etc and more rules related to darker elements of the game, and that'll come with time (most likely Spring 2011). I could see a Dungeon article or two on running Evil Campaigns as well so that you can deal with players who's alignments mean they could backstab at eachother at any moment, and maybe a companion Dragon article for players in an Evil Campaign, because player would definitely need to have some basic rules about not killing each other off if they're going to survive long enough to actually do anything.
--Marandahir
Ok, you are both correct, and misunderstanding me. I am not looking for alignment based stuff. I just want there to be as many available options for "evil" characters, as "good" ones. I know that I won't get that many options, but I would like some more. In relation to revenant, ... retarded. (IMHO) I want playable undead, liches, vampires, ghouls, wights. But anyways... I never experienced the problems you mention about players offing each other. We didn't play the whole "I am evil, I am alone, and I will rule it all!!", we played as a group that was goal oriented. Why do so many people think evil means solo?? Anyways, how the campaign is run will always depend on the group playing it. I would just like the material to be available, that's all.
Oh, one more thing. I am not completely sold on this whole shadow power source thing. It may work ok for some concepts, but I really don't think it works for everything. Necromancers are dark wizards that focus on life energies, and reanimation of the dead. That doesn't really scream shadow to me. I think necrotic 90%, maybe shadow 10%. Just my opinion there.
Refluffing is your ally. You don't like the fluff of Revenant, but you do like Ghouls and Wights? Refluff it. Liches and Vampires are creatures a player really couldn't play at first level, but I suggest checking out the Dhampyr and refluffing it to your needs if you REALLY want to play a Vampire. As for a Lich, the Archlich Epic Destiny is your man.
Necromancers are dark mages that focus on life energies, and the reanimation of the undead. Drop the word "wizard" from it, and you realise it's just as easily a new class, and fits right into the domain of shadow. Just because Assassins slip into shadows doesn't mean that Necromancers have to do it to, and they already said that Necrotic would be the key damage type of the Shadow Power source.
There are as many options for "evil" characters as "good" characters. I don't see the problem here – D&D's options are not alignment based, save Divinity/Domain feats... and there are options there for evil deities as well.
Really, a very simple and hopefully someday listened-to request.
To me it seems you are looking mostly for pure fluff, which is something you can do for yourself. Necromancers might have been evil wizards is older editions but this is 4th and a few things have changed. I for one wanted alignments completely scrapped but they are still here as a roleplaying aid. You say you are looking for options for evil characters but why should it matter what the damage type is just re fluff it to necrotic flavor. As for undead races you stated above I don't think you will see them that is not the direction the game is taing, we already have a book on the undead and I don't think the game is any better with lich's vampires, ghouls or other undead races in it. You have to let go of your past class stigmas of what some classes should be. The game has evolved and in my opinion for the better.
--AH_Stormbringer
Ok, (takes a deep breath) I am not talking about fluff. I do not want to refluff anything, and I do not mean an evil alignments when I say evil. I am simply referring to characters that are the opposite of your arch typical "points of light" hero.
What I am asking for is actual "official" material made for character races, or classes.
I am going to simplify this entire thread down to one simple class. The necromancer.
If you believe that simply refluffing a wizard or cleric is good enough for a necromancer; then I feel sorry for your necromancers. If you think that all the things a necromancer can do are simply variations of the summoner, but summon undead, or control undead instead of turn for clerics; then I feel sorry for your necromancers.
I think it should be overwhelmingly obvious that the necromancer may use some powers similar to the wizard or cleric, but their defining powers are drastically different in nature, and function. So, now I hope you can understand that I am asking for this source book because refluffing current stuff isn't good enough. I hope you understand that I don't care about the actual alignment of these classes, or races. In my world the only thing that has an alignment set in stone are mindless things. If you have free will, I don't care what you should be, you have the freedom to choose anything.
What currently exists in all the available material is NOT sufficient, and I should not have to refluff something into an entirely new class. Wait! Don't get upset about that just yet. I know refluffing happens, but it is one thing to refluff a cleric into an elemental priest, or a wizard into an ice mage, and something entirely new to create new rules to support abilities that there is no precedence for.
Ok, let me answer that question in advance, again using the necromancer. Necromancers have hordes of minions that stay with them until destroyed, perhaps for weeks, years, or decades. So the summoner powers would not work. There is no power, no feat, no ritual that currently exists that is sufficient to use as a basis for this power ability.
One more thing. Thanks to LordArchaon for the support. It's good to know I'm not flying solo here.
A Revanant Dhampyr with the Archlich ED. Undead to the max.
Hordes of undead in the hands of players just does not work. Now if you want to be able to raise a servant, use the undead servitor ritual from open grave, and fluff out unseen servant as spirits bound to do your bidding. if you want a warrior, use the animate dead spell from the dragon article. necromancers use more than just necrotic spells though. Summoning, cold, poison, fear, even FIRE is part of the repertoire. so what classes come to mind? That would be warlock, wizard, artificer (YES artificer). Unfortunately, until shadow comes out, the necromantic themes may be very limited. Artificer summoning may be a great fix because the fluff already supports taking materials on hand to create constructs. Tack on the shadow keyword or necrotic if you feel the crunch doesn't fit. 4th edition is the most freeing when it comes to refluffing because nothing is truly set in stone as long as the crunch remains balanced. And there's even the side note for divine characters to sub out necrotic for radiant if you're of the darker persuasion. Fluff is good...fluff is mutable. Play a revenant if you want the various undead, or a dhampyr if you want vampire.
How about this character?
A Revanant Dhampyr with the Archlich ED. Undead to the max.
What I say about this and other options, and I think @Dreadmage is saying the same thing, is "yeah, one build, big deal".
It's not like this that you can set up an evil campaign. A tiefling infernarlock, a revenant, a dhampyr and an abyssal genasi would be the party? Come on, apart from being the only options, they seem, and IMO are, forced and bad examples of evil, since it would bring up the racially evil thing way too much (after refluffing, because as of now, those 4 races are goody). We need evil powers, evil feats, pages and pages about evil adventures and motivations, suitable enemies, and maybe as a last resort, some races. That much more than evil (which is not something racial in 4e, and we all thank for that) , should be ravenous, repugnant, utterly nightmarish. Because evil is made of evil actions, not races or anything, but we need mechanics to represent those actions, and as of now we don't have not even nearly enough.
Team-playing? Not an evil thing. In this hypothetical book, the powers, mechanics etc for evil characters would encourage using allies, maybe even sacrificing and betraying allies, to win the day, not healing. In an evil campaign, the challenge is posed by your fellow party members just as much as by the enemies.
I want to underline the fact that I'm not referring to the evil alignment when I write "evil", I'm still with the system in that alignment-based mechanics are and should remain out of the game.
Those "evil powers", "evil feats" etc should not have the requirement of an evil alignment. Pardoxically, even good-aligned characters could take them, the problem would be theirs to deal with, morally speaking.
How about this character?
A Revanant Dhampyr with the Archlich ED. Undead to the max.
A Shadar-Kai Revanant Dhampyr Vestige-Pact Warlock with the Hexer paragon path and the Archlich ED, with undead grafts and the Sword of Kas instead of normal magic items. And wasn't there a dragon magazine article about necromantic summoning stuff? And does anyone else hear dethklok playing?
The Points of Light setting is basically just the assumption that most of the world is dark and bad, but there are small, mostly isolated groups out there trying to do good.
A Points of Darkness setting would therefore be a setting where, for the most part, everybody is happy and friendly and peaceful. Except for a few isolated groups out there trying to do bad.
I think what you want is still within the realm of Points of Light, just that the player characters are not assumed to be one of the actual points themselves.
You don't need evil aligned options to play an evil campaign. You just need to do bad things with the plethora of unaligned options.
I think what you want is still within the realm of Points of Light, just that the player characters are not assumed to be one of the actual points themselves.
--Ravenmancer
You are correct. I simply used the term to denote a focus on the anti-heroes as the party.
You don't need evil aligned options to play an evil campaign. You just need to do bad things with the plethora of unaligned options.
--Ravenmancer (again)
Yes, but no. I am not wanting evil aligned things. Most of the playable material currently available, is usually good oriented, but can be evil with out issue. I am just interested in those materials that are usually evil oriented, but could be good with out issue. Necromancer, Blackguard, Hexblade, and others. Assassin, and Warlock are currently the 2 decent available options, I appreciate that, but would like more.
It's not like this that you can set up an evil campaign. A tiefling infernarlock, a revenant, a dhampyr and an abyssal genasi would be the party? Come on, apart from being the only options...
--LordArchaon
Exactly, just because some options exist, doesn't mean there are enough.
Until the shadow source comes out you will not see anything even close to what you are looking for and you still may not get it depending on how the design the remaining aspects of the power source. Its not a priority for Wizards as most people as seen from the responses you have gotten want to see and it may not be a direction they want D&D to go in. In the long run you may have to do homebrew to get what you want.
Yes, but no. I am not wanting evil aligned things. Most of the playable material currently available, is usually good oriented, but can be evil with out issue. I am just interested in those materials that are usually evil oriented, but could be good with out issue. Necromancer, Blackguard, Hexblade, and others. Assassin, and Warlock are currently the 2 decent available options, I appreciate that, but would like more.
Dark Sun is going to incorporate a new mechanic called defiling for arcane characters, an at-will power that boosts daily spells but harms allies (and other living things around you like plants). You can also refluff certain existing things. For example, instead of a short rest consisting of five minutes of just sitting around, perhaps bandaging a really bad wound, your character spends it sacrificing one of the almost dead NPCs from the last encounter to some dark being, and the regain of powers and HP is explained that way. An extended rest could include not just a nap and a little study, but a complex (but free) rite involving the sacrifice of one of the almost dead opponent, or a chicken (and mechanically treat it as if your character ate some food and took a nap).
Blackguard - Paladin of Bane. Or Tiamat, Asmodeus, or Tharizdun if you only want to take Divine Domain feats instead of channel divinity feats. Paladin no longer means super-virtuous boyscout, it just means a warrior powered by some sort of divine being (which doesn't mean good, Asmodeus is divine). Mechanically the only difference between a Blackguard and a Paladin prestige class was "EEEBIL." One got a divine horse, the other got a fiendish horse (or pony... Or toad...). One hurt people, the other... Well both of them hurt people, it was just an alignment deal. Ultimately the only real difference was that Paladin got lay on hands, Blackguard got sneak attack. Just talk with the DM about switching those two powers.
Hexblade - Fighter that multiclasses as a Warlock. Perhaps talk with the DM about exchanging the fighter's heavy armor proficiency and shield proficiency for the Warlock Eldritch Blast (as an at-will instead of an encounter like with the multiclass feat).
Necromancer - I swear there was an issue of Dragon that dealt with summoning powers for undead. There's also a ritual in Open Grave that allows for the creation of an Undead Companion (that's the name of the ritual, in fact). We're not going to get the Diablo 2 "hey, I've got a small army of skeletons following me around almost forever" bit because it would hard to balance. There are however, rules in the DMG 2 for companion characters (which use monsters as the base), so you could talk to your DM about maybe trading in a level 2 magic item for a level 2 skeleton or zombie (the trade isn't an official rule, since the companion character is supposed to be even more temporary than equipment).
It's all very well saying "Rar! Undead races!" but a creature Origin isn't a solid hook for becoming a player race, especially as we already have the revenant. It's like saying "I want more Immortal races because I don't like the Deva!".
And then we have to ask why we need special evil races at all! Why can't my psychotic murderer be an Elf? Or a Halfling? Or a Human?
And where is this whole bit about divine classes not being evil coming from? Is it the radiant damage?
Why shouldn't a Cleric of Asmodius throw about bolts of HellFire, or a Paladin of Vecna wield the Light-That-Blinds?
Remember in Raiders of the Lost Arc where all those guys got thier faces melted? Radiant Damage! Or in Big Trouble in Little China, when Lo Pan opens his gob? Radiant Damage!
"We Need More Options" only works if you don't ignore the options you already have.
Oh, And @LordArchaon, If you want to play a game without healing? Play in a group without a leader!
/end NerdRage
Yes, but no. I am not wanting evil aligned things. Most of the playable material currently available, is usually good oriented, but can be evil with out issue. I am just interested in those materials that are usually evil oriented, but could be good with out issue. Necromancer, Blackguard, Hexblade, and others. Assassin, and Warlock are currently the 2 decent available options, I appreciate that, but would like more.
Dark Sun is going to incorporate a new mechanic called defiling for arcane characters, an at-will power that boosts daily spells but harms allies (and other living things around you like plants). You can also refluff certain existing things. For example, instead of a short rest consisting of five minutes of just sitting around, perhaps bandaging a really bad wound, your character spends it sacrificing one of the almost dead NPCs from the last encounter to some dark being, and the regain of powers and HP is explained that way. An extended rest could include not just a nap and a little study, but a complex (but free) rite involving the sacrifice of one of the almost dead opponent, or a chicken (and mechanically treat it as if your character ate some food and took a nap).Blackguard - Paladin of Bane. Or Tiamat, Asmodeus, or Tharizdun if you only want to take Divine Domain feats instead of channel divinity feats. Paladin no longer means super-virtuous boyscout, it just means a warrior powered by some sort of divine being (which doesn't mean good, Asmodeus is divine). Mechanically the only difference between a Blackguard and a Paladin prestige class was "EEEBIL." One got a divine horse, the other got a fiendish horse (or pony... Or toad...). One hurt people, the other... Well both of them hurt people, it was just an alignment deal. Ultimately the only real difference was that Paladin got lay on hands, Blackguard got sneak attack. Just talk with the DM about switching those two powers.
Hexblade - Fighter that multiclasses as a Warlock. Perhaps talk with the DM about exchanging the fighter's heavy armor proficiency and shield proficiency for the Warlock Eldritch Blast (as an at-will instead of an encounter like with the multiclass feat).
Necromancer - I swear there was an issue of Dragon that dealt with summoning powers for undead. There's also a ritual in Open Grave that allows for the creation of an Undead Companion (that's the name of the ritual, in fact). We're not going to get the Diablo 2 "hey, I've got a small army of skeletons following me around almost forever" bit because it would hard to balance. There are however, rules in the DMG 2 for companion characters (which use monsters as the base), so you could talk to your DM about maybe trading in a level 2 magic item for a level 2 skeleton or zombie (the trade isn't an official rule, since the companion character is supposed to be even more temporary than equipment).
You are correct. There was a large article, Secrets of the City Entombed, on Necromancy powers for classes already in existence, released pretty much concurrently (I think shortly after) Open Grave. It was supposed to tide us over for a while until Necromancers are released within the Shadow Power Source, and proves that Necromancy doesn't have to be an Evil thing only, just as Assassins don't have to be evil. There was a similar article, The Art of the Kill, for martial assassins who aren't true Assassins. Blackguard probably won't get translation, since it's an irredeemably evil concept, though Hexblade may very likely be translated as the Shadow Defender, and there is speculation about Beguiller as another Shadow Controller. Hexblade may also be presented as options for a melee-oriented warlock, or there might be both, as there are Battlerager Fighters and Rageblood Barbarians, Tempest Fighters, Two-Blade Rangers, and Whirling Barbarians, Archer Rangers, Prescient Bards, Vengeful Seekers, and even an upcoming bow-wielding Warlord build. We're likely to get much of what you want mechanically next year, and will probably see more and more of it as we move through 2010, what with Defiling, PH4 Debut articles, and Dragon articles tiding players over for Shadow concepts with similar concepts for other classes, much like Art of the Kill and Secrets of the City Entombed.
Necromancers, are simply...unsavory, not necessarilly evil. Unless, your DM/World declares that they are in the realm of evil.
Personal request, can people please stop labeling the Necromancer as an 'evil' class. While Necromancers have been portrayed in fiction and society as evil they aren't always evil. Originally, Greeks and and the Norse used Necromancers to talk with spirits not summon undead. In fact, even in some modern fiction Necromancers are quite pure hearted, they just do very...unsavory actions. Case in point, Diablo 2. If you read into the lore of D2 you find that to be a Necromancer one must be more pure hearted then a freaking paladin and any that would use their powers for evil generally get hunted down very quickly.
Necromancers, are simply...unsavory, not necessarilly evil. Unless, your DM/World declares that they are in the realm of evil.
Exactly my point – Secrets of the City Entombed emphasises this fact, and I'm sure that when the Necromancer is released as a Shadow class, they'll emphasise it as well. I meant when I said "not just evil" that MANY players consider it an evil option, while WotC want to subvert that concept.
Apologies Marandahir, I kinda glossed over your post, but I'm glad that I'm not the only one that's getting tired of seeing some classes get lumped into the catagory of evil when they don't need to be.
No problem. I'm glad the "ghettos" are being broken down as well. It's no good when something MUST be some way, unless you go through refluffing to change it. The core stuff should be open so that all alignments and cultures and races and classes fit with it.
@Dreadmage: incredible that you received such a poor feedback over such a simple wish/idea. Refluffing is not sufficient for divine classes and if you ask me it is even difficult for arcane. Because an evil power is not just a necrotic (instead of raduant, and it's however beyond refluff) damage dealing flare that HEALS allies, evil is different. So they'd at least have to give us replacement powers for the levels in which we don't get any valid powers not even when considering refluff.
Really, a very simple and hopefully someday listened-to request.
The Blightspeaker paragon path, while somewhat limited, does work quite well for an invoker, particularly a malediction invoker. Just the idea of somebody having such power (or such sadistic power) that it harms him to use it could make for an impressive dark high priest.
Admittedly, it is a tad more difficult to reflavor other classes, but it's by no means impossible. Until a new entry comes out, here are some ideas for a cleric:
Healing Word: You call up the souls of the deceased or the damned, and channel them into a target, revitalizing him by "feeding" souls to him.
Turn Undead: You unleash a wave of power, causing undead to tremble before your majesty. It's only natural that you deal radiant damage. After all, you want to make sure those insolent beasts burn.
Radiant damage: Pale, searing light formed from the life essence of the dead lances into your foes. It burns the living, and its origin causes undead to wither beneath its sickly light.
Channel Divinity: You summon up whatever power that you worship, be it a god, demon, Far Realm entity, or simply a path to power that you espouse, and use that might to enhance yourself and your allies.
Yes, but no. I am not wanting evil aligned things. Most of the playable material currently available, is usually good oriented, but can be evil with out issue. I am just interested in those materials that are usually evil oriented, but could be good with out issue. Necromancer, Blackguard, Hexblade, and others. Assassin, and Warlock are currently the 2 decent available options, I appreciate that, but would like more.
Could you please explain how the Avenger, Invoker, and Cleric cannot fulfill evil divine roles, the entire arcane source cannot take on an evil persona, the martial classes don't work equally as well as horrendous evils as shining heroes, and the primal characters cannot be incredibly amoral?
And someone here posted on how evil doesn't work as a team? God sir, I challenge this statement. Dragonlance alone proves this statement wrong with the Wizards of the Black Robes (when not part of the conclave and acting separte), Knights of Takhisis, The Minotaurs. FR has the Drow, the Mindflayers, the Wizards of Thay. The legions of Saurmon and Sauron, countless others. Evil often works together, just sometimes it needs a kick in the backside to get it too.
I think the problem is alot of people do want another Book of Vile Darkness. As I never bought the book I can't say whether or not it was good or not, from the sounds of it, it was not a good sourcebook.
I thought it was good, there were all kinds of things that made me giggle, and sometimes even laugh... Wait, it wasn't supposed to be funny, was it?
I know that exalted deeds was terrible.
It made me theologically nerd-rage.
Necromancer - I swear there was an issue of Dragon that dealt with summoning powers for undead. There's also a ritual in Open Grave that allows for the creation of an Undead Companion (that's the name of the ritual, in fact). We're not going to get the Diablo 2 "hey, I've got a small army of skeletons following me around almost forever" bit because it would hard to balance. There are however, rules in the DMG 2 for companion characters (which use monsters as the base), so you could talk to your DM about maybe trading in a level 2 magic item for a level 2 skeleton or zombie (the trade isn't an official rule, since the companion character is supposed to be even more temporary than equipment).
No, we're not going to get Diablo 2. But we are going to get a Necromancer class in the PHB with the Shadow source.
I personally find it very frustrating to find myself in such a drastic minority, but such is my lot.
All I can say, is I hope that in the long run, at least some of the things I am looking for come to fruition in a respectable manner. However, I am honestly doubtful that 4e is heading in that direction; and I am certain that there are not enough people wanting to change that.
Even to those that disagreed strongly, thank you for your opinions and thoughts.
^
Could you please explain how the Avenger, Invoker, and Cleric cannot fulfill evil divine roles, the entire arcane source cannot take on an evil persona, the martial classes don't work equally as well as horrendous evils as shining heroes, and the primal characters cannot be incredibly amoral?
Not like it really matters anyways...
It is not that those classes couldn't be portrayed in a less goodly demeanor, it just that I feel certain aspects of traditional D&D archtypes are still unavailable. Even if you explore all the current possibilities. I am simply more interested in those archtypes, than the ones currently available. As I stated before, the Necromancer is the simplest example of this. If you think that a respectable Necromancer can be fashioned by some mild refluffing of what is currently available, then that is where our opinions differ, because I don't. Perhaps some shadow power source PHB 4 variation will be available by years end, but none of that is any more than wishful thinking at this point. Speaking of wishful thinking, that was the point of my OP anyways. I never expected such fervored opposition to such a simple idea. I knew my supporters would be few, but I didn't think people would be so adamantly against the idea.
Not like it really matters anyways...
The problem with the OP's idea is that it is needless grouping.
A Necromancer is a fine idea. An "Evil Sourcebook" is not.
Lumping "evil" concepts together tends to result in foolishness like the Book of Vile Darkness, and often results in looking for Evil Stuff rather than simply making interesting classes. The cult leader, as requested, can be done very easily through an Invoker, the Malediction build especially. The Blackguard is merely an evil paladin, or evil fighter, or evil Inster Melee Character Here, there is no need for a reprint of existing material with the Evil tag slapped on. And that's usually what an Evil Book does; slap together random things under the banner of evil, despite logic. The BoVD was full of Evil Feats and Evil Spells and Evil Items, 99% of which were incredibly silly; 1d6 damage per level and 1d6 evil damage per level are not sufficiently different to warrant the second.
Moreover, it reeks of Alignment Thinking. One of the joys of the new edition is that evil and good are not so entrenched; we don't have Good Classes and Bad Classes and Lawful Classes and Chaotic Classes. We have Classes, and they can be whatever morality the player wants. Therefore, we evaluate classes individually, not lumping things together because we need enough classes to fill the Evil subsection.
Ergo, the idea simply isn't sound. Individual concepts might be fine; the Necromancer would make a great class, but a collection of things tied together only becaue they are Black Hats is not.
Really all that is needed for this is about two pages explaining that evil is a thought process that the PC needs to make. I say two pages cause honestly most PC's that decide to be evil are Disney level evil and just go around kicking puppies and killing random people "because I'm evil." I have yet to actually see someone play evil well.
The whole Evil/Good Feat thing also just doesn't work, keeping track about how many "Act of good /evil" you do really does become tiresome just to make sure you keep that X damage.
Anyway, I'll agree some class are evil, Blackguard comes to mind, Wizards of Thay tend to be evil really can't remember when I heard of a good one, but by and far I'd say all classes are neutral and defined by their character.
This is a nightmare. There is NO need for a Evil sourcebook. Necromancy and Creepy powers are likely to come out in the PHB 4.
It's all very well saying "Rar! Undead races!" but a creature Origin isn't a solid hook for becoming a player race, especially as we already have the revenant. It's like saying "I want more Immortal races because I don't like the Deva!".
And then we have to ask why we need special evil races at all! Why can't my psychotic murderer be an Elf? Or a Halfling? Or a Human?
And where is this whole bit about divine classes not being evil coming from? Is it the radiant damage?
Why shouldn't a Cleric of Asmodius throw about bolts of HellFire, or a Paladin of Vecna wield the Light-That-Blinds?
Remember in Raiders of the Lost Arc where all those guys got thier faces melted? Radiant Damage! Or in Big Trouble in Little China, when Lo Pan opens his gob? Radiant Damage!
"We Need More Options" only works if you don't ignore the options you already have.
Oh, And @LordArchaon, If you want to play a game without healing? Play in a group without a leader!
/end NerdRage
The only NerdRage I see is yours.
/end NerdRage
Let's state something true: there are very few poeple on the forums righ now compared to the old gleemax and pre-gleemax ones, so it's clear that the general picture coming out of this thread can be considered... nothing.
And I'm glad, because all this "an Evil sourcebook is not a good idea" is subjective thought "nerdraged" into a common-base truth. No sirs.
Book of Vile Darkness was a great book, and if you didn't read it, don't talk about it. If you had read it, you'd understand why me and Dreadmage are seeing that entire archetypes, that we still have no mechanics to represent, are needed for certain things.
I can see very well how radiant damage can be used for evil divine. The problem is HOW. You can refluff everything in D&D, but I talk about plain power mechanics: we have no suitable mechanics (powers) for Clerics and Paladins (and sometimes even Invokers and Avenger) that really DO EVIL. It's not about being of Evil alignment. Me and Dreadmage are talking about form, not substance. We don't want evil, we want darkness. Creepy, malicious, scary things. That every Good or Lawful Good character would be free of dipping into, not my problem, got the point? It's all about mechanics. Revenant, but even Deva, even... Every race for that matter can be a perfect villain and anti-hero, or even the truly depraved type of character that we (me and OP only, speaking of here) would like to *be able* (in the sense of having the mechanics) to play. But we also need new, truly dreadful races. That, again, you could also play as shining knights of Bahamut, it's your game you know, but let's let everyone play the game he/she likes, get it?
Again, our point is: more mechanics are needed to play a darker game. You think it's not a good direction? Still when the mechanics would eventually come out, I can picture all your characters borrowing here and there: new mechanics are *always* good when they're well designed. And to stress the point even further, the key is presenting these darker options as totally viable for unaligned or even good characters. Because alignment is only truly about allegiances, and even then has no mechanic in-game effect, so having "evil" mechanics on a Good character is viable, it's just up to the player to role-play these choices in an interesting and fun way.
But beware, I'm talking about such truly hardcore-scary powers that not even an indication of "mostly for Evil characters" will be necessary: it will be an obvious thing.
This is a nightmare. There is NO need for a Evil sourcebook. Necromancy and Creepy powers are likely to come out in the PHB 4.
It's all very well saying "Rar! Undead races!" but a creature Origin isn't a solid hook for becoming a player race, especially as we already have the revenant. It's like saying "I want more Immortal races because I don't like the Deva!".
And then we have to ask why we need special evil races at all! Why can't my psychotic murderer be an Elf? Or a Halfling? Or a Human?
And where is this whole bit about divine classes not being evil coming from? Is it the radiant damage?
Why shouldn't a Cleric of Asmodius throw about bolts of HellFire, or a Paladin of Vecna wield the Light-That-Blinds?
Remember in Raiders of the Lost Arc where all those guys got thier faces melted? Radiant Damage! Or in Big Trouble in Little China, when Lo Pan opens his gob? Radiant Damage!
"We Need More Options" only works if you don't ignore the options you already have.
Oh, And @LordArchaon, If you want to play a game without healing? Play in a group without a leader!
/end NerdRage
The only NerdRage I see is yours.
/end NerdRage
Let's state something true: there are very few poeple on the forums righ now compared to the old gleemax and pre-gleemax ones, so it's clear that the general picture coming out of this thread can be considered... nothing.
And I'm glad, because all this "an Evil sourcebook is not a good idea" is subjective thought "nerdraged" into a common-base truth. No sirs.
Book of Vile Darkness was a great book, and if you didn't read it, don't talk about it. If you had read it, you'd understand why me and Dreadmage are seeing that entire archetypes, that we still have no mechanics to represent, are needed for certain things.
I can see very well how radiant damage can be used for evil divine. The problem is HOW. You can refluff everything in D&D, but I talk about plain power mechanics: we have no suitable mechanics (powers) for Clerics and Paladins (and sometimes even Invokers and Avenger) that really DO EVIL. It's not about being of Evil alignment. Me and Dreadmage are talking about form, not substance. We don't want evil, we want darkness. Creepy, malicious, scary things. That every Good or Lawful Good character would be free of dipping into, not my problem, got the point? It's all about mechanics. Revenant, but even Deva, even... Every race for that matter can be a perfect villain and anti-hero, or even the truly depraved type of character that we (me and OP only, speaking of here) would like to *be able* (in the sense of having the mechanics) to play. But we also need new, truly dreadful races. That, again, you could also play as shining knights of Bahamut, it's your game you know, but let's let everyone play the game he/she likes, get it?
Again, our point is: more mechanics are needed to play a darker game. You think it's not a good direction? Still when the mechanics would eventually come out, I can picture all your characters borrowing here and there: new mechanics are *always* good when they're well designed. And to stress the point even further, the key is presenting these darker options as totally viable for unaligned or even good characters. Because alignment is only truly about allegiances, and even then has no mechanic in-game effect, so having "evil" mechanics on a Good character is viable, it's just up to the player to role-play these choices in an interesting and fun way.
But beware, I'm talking about such truly hardcore-scary powers that not even an indication of "mostly for Evil characters" will be necessary: it will be an obvious thing.
Which is why you need to wait for more of the Shadow Power Source. I don't know why you say you want dark and creepy stuff, and then reject Shadow…
It would include chapters about refluffing existing powers and... fluff, obviosuly, and then a series of new mechanics to represent the stuff I'm talking about.
The reason they will probably never make it as I want it is the fact that I want something that could be rated as mature, and they are afraid it would create scandal and attract too many critics. After all behind Wizards there's Hasbro, which probably doesn't want to have ANY of its games mature-rated.
Since it seems I could be misunderstood, I'd like to state as an example that Defiling Magic as we'll probably get it in Dark Sun, would be a good start in the direction I'm talking about. But just a start.
Even the concept of roles could change in the type of game that this "ideal villanous sourcebook" would treat. Leaders would lead through fear and intimidation, healing would be limited in exchange for much more violent tactics of surviving. The defender could use allies and enemies alike as meat-shield when he/she wants to defend effectively (of course they wouldn't use the ally they want to defend as a meat shield, just another one), controllers could manipulate allies and enemies alike, and Strikers, again, would do damage to allies if it means (and it would mean it thanks to the new mechanics) doing more damage to enemies. The whole game would change a fair bit, because the tactics would have to be created taking into account that the very party is a threat to itself, but at the same time this very threat represents a greater danger for enemies. A very different kind of team-playing where "the end justifies the means" is the general rule, and where the party stays united just because they need more power, not because of friendship or allegiance.
Book of Vile Darkness was a great book, and if you didn't read it, don't talk about it. If you had read it, you'd understand why me and Dreadmage are seeing that entire archetypes, that we still have no mechanics to represent, are needed for certain things.
Read it. It was pathetic.
But rather than rant about the book that brought us the Devilweed (pot), Vermin Lord (bugs are evil!), the Nipple Clamp of Excruciating Pain, and spells like Devil's Tongue (your tongue stretches to 15 feet to grapple....with evil!) and Evil Weather (like control weather....but evil!), let's jump straight to the point.
I can see very well how radiant damage can be used for evil divine. The problem is HOW. You can refluff everything in D&D, but I talk about plain power mechanics: we have no suitable mechanics (powers) for Clerics and Paladins (and sometimes even Invokers and Avenger) that really DO EVIL.
Have you ever read the Invoker? The one with Astral Terror, Chains of Carceri, Invoke Obedience, Mark of Anathema, Racking Invocation of Pain, and Invoke the Absolute Dark? Because it makes an amazing divine doombringer, as does a dire avenger seeking the blood of heretics.
What is an "evil mechanic"? Is it one that drains allies to hurt a foe? That's the dark pact warlock. Is it self-mutilation to unleash fury? Malediction invoker. Beyond that, though, what on earth makes a mechanic evil? Push 3? Pull 1? Spend a healing surge?
Mechanics are neutral.
Unless you can demonstrate a mechanical lack, your point is invalid. The necromancer, for example, is a decent example. We will be getting one with the Shadow Source. But an "evil priest" isn't mechanically different from an invoker, nor is an "evil blackguard" different mechanically from an avenger, paladin, or fighter.
I read the Invoker very well, that's why I just said "sometimes even Invokers": it's one of the cases where least work is needed in this sense. The problems are with Clerics and Paladins.
Necromancers of course are the best example. One idea, to get to mechanics: a leader that instead of healing, controls his "allies" when they die. Only after the battle and the consumption of the souls of the enemies he would have enough necrotic energy to actually give their lives back to them. And they'd probably not remember anything of what they did in their undead state. It's a stupid example, but it's a way to show that even healing can be ditched in favor of something equally useful in a really twisted party.
P.S.: Just because you find a book pathetic it doesn't mean other people can't buy it, use it and find it fun. Plus, you obviously quoted the worst, and I count very few things in your list. The book was big though, even very big.
We're talking about inverting the constituted order of the game, so how can you convince me that a book is not needed for such a big task? You can tell me you don't want to invert things *yourself*, but that's very fine: it's a book less in your wishlist, you'd save money.
I echo, assuming you aren't deliberately hurting your allies, what's an evil mechanic? Blindness? Dominate? Weakened? Because Cleric and Paladin have those already. I really don't think every class needs it's own "Dark Pact" when other classes can multiclass into what we have already for antiheroism.
I told examples. There is such a lack that it's difficult to make actual mechanical examples. But if you re-read my last post (I edited it), you'll find that yes, hurting allies is the main theme if we speak of evil-doers, but there may be MANY ways to do that, not just HPs or conditions or whatever, it's a matter of really digging into the matter and design new things.
I read the Invoker very well, that's why I just said "sometimes even Invokers": it's one of the cases where least work is needed in this sense. The problems are with Clerics and Paladins.
Necromancers of course are the best example. One idea, to get to mechanics: a leader that instead of healing, controls his "allies" when they die. Only after the battle and the consumption of the souls of the enemies he would have enough necrotic energy to actually give their lives back to them. And they'd probably not remember anything of what they did in their undead state. It's a stupid example, but it's a way to show that even healing can be ditched in favor of something equally useful in a really twisted party.
P.S.: Just because you find a book pathetic it doesn't mean other people can't buy it, use it and find it fun. Plus, you obviously quoted the worst, and I count very few things in your list. The book was big though, even very big.
We're talking about inverting the constituted order of the game, so how can you convince me that a book is not needed for such a big task? You can tell me you don't want to invert things *yourself*, but that's very fine: it's a book less in your wishlist, you'd save money.
Not every class should have options to hurt allies or the self… it's just not thematic for them. For now, I would direct you to the Dark Pact Warlock if that's really the angle you want. Malediction Invokers are good for hurting yourself though…
Really, there's a lack because it's a bad concept. Generally, hurting your allies means problems for the party, not benefits… same thing for hurting yourself. Its hard enough to make your attacks worth it in the first place with a good role; if you have to sacrifice the party or yourself in order to make stronger attacks, it just seems a bit hazardous.
That's not to say there isn't room for it. But it has a certain currency, and I doubt WotC wants to use all that currency up quickly. They've already released Warlocks, Invokers, and Assassins which all fit easily into your desired concepts.
We don't need Clerics and Paladins that hurt allies – that's not thematic to those classes. It makes sense with Invokers or Warlocks, however. It makes sense with certain Shadow concepts that may or may not happen, like the Necromancer. But you have to be VERY careful with them.
Fun is only fun if everybody in the group is having fun, which means balance is necessary, and hurting the party is one of the quickest ways to upset that balance. I'm not saying it can't be done (and it has been done), you just have to be very cautious about it, and I doubt we'll get any of it all at once, until PH4, at least, when we get a load of Shadow classes.
Wizards is not going to make mechanics [...]
Leaving that example for what it is (the first thing i thought when asking my brain "what's an alternative to healing", so don't pay attention), I'd like to bring the attention to this matter of "Wizards is not going to make mechanics for x y z". The problem is here.
This thread, I think, is meant to let Wizards know that not all players are happy with just their default ways, we'd like to see taboo ways too. Playing villains pretty much inverts things, so yes, you possibly need deep rehaulings of mechanics and fluff, thus, a book is needed.
Now, speaking instead of the much simpler matter of allowing more darker options, you're right saying that we have Dark Pact and all, we're just asking for more. Why should I make a warlock pact to have a power that, for example, swaps places with an adjacent ally as an interrupt when I get attacked? It is an example of what a darker, possibly evil, rogue could do.
And just as we get articles that expand the options for Paladins of the Raven Queen, we ask for the same type of articles but about Torog, Bane, Gruumsh, Lolth and so on.
We want leaders with "unfriendly methods of leading", an DDI article could suffice. Same thing with darker races. We got Gnolls, very good step. We're just asking for more.
Wizards is not going to make mechanics [...]
Leaving that example for what it is (the first thing i thought when asking my brain "what's an alternative to healing", so don't pay attention), I'd like to bring the attention to this matter of "Wizards is not going to make mechanics for x y z". The problem is here.
This thread, I think, is meant to let Wizards know that not all players are happy with just their default ways, we'd like to see taboo ways too. Playing villains pretty much inverts things, so yes, you possibly need deep rehaulings of mechanics and fluff, thus, a book is needed.
Now, speaking instead of the much simpler matter of allowing more darker options, you're right saying that we have Dark Pact and all, we're just asking for more. Why should I make a warlock pact to have a power that, for example, swaps places with an adjacent ally as an interrupt when I get attacked? It is an example of what a darker, possibly evil, rogue could do.
And just as we get articles that expand the options for Paladins of the Raven Queen, we ask for the same type of articles but about Torog, Bane, Gruumsh, Lolth and so on.
We want leaders with "unfriendly methods of leading", an DDI article could suffice. Same thing with darker races. We got Gnolls, very good step. We're just asking for more.
I highly doubt you'll get leaders with "unfriendly methods of leading." That sort of undermines the leader role, and ruins the fun and cohesion of the group.
The problem essentially here is the problem of being evil in a party, and there are many reason why Evil and Chaotic Evil should NEVER be grouped together into your D&D party. Most importantly, whether the characters are played accurately to their alignments or whether they're just used for the player to be a selfish bastard, those alignments heavily undermine the entire game and the fun of the group.
EDIT: Of course, if you're all chaotic evil, and laying waste to all of civilisation, that might be a fun, short game for a group, but ultimately, such a game wouldn't last long; the players would get tired of the mindless evil their characters are inflicting, or else, the characters would start to evolve as characters and then the same problems of group cohesion would set in. And such a game doesn't need new rules, really. Maybe some Channel Divinity feats for evil deities that haven't gotten them yet, but already several have, and you have Domain feats to fill in the gaps.
Example of dark mechanic that I'd like for dhampyrs (or another blood-feeding race) that wouldn't even be evil: when an ally is suffering untyped ongooing damage, you can drink the blood while adjacent and regain a certain number of hit points. You're not even damaging the ally.
The problem essentially here is the problem of being evil in a party, and there are many reason why Evil and Chaotic Evil should NEVER be grouped together into your D&D party. Most importantly, whether the characters are played accurately to their alignments or whether they're just used for the player to be a selfish bastard, those alignments heavily undermine the entire game and the fun of the group.
You're completely right, that's why I say we'd need a good, solid book in order to let the players who actively want to (at various degrees of seriousness) play an evil game, have the ways to do that. Entire chapters of the book would b3e dedicated to explaining what does it mean ina game like D&D to play evil. Imagine how the DM would also need to completely change the way adventures are made. It's rather off-topic, maybe, but what I'm trying to say iss that I'd like to see this open-mindedness from Wizards, as to make a supplement made only to do that. People that don't like the idea of changing the game that much, would simply not buy it. I know this is close tu lucid dreaming, I just want to "mark territory" so that at least a small flag of "we'd like to play evil" may be visibile to developers and players alike.
Example of dark mechanic that I'd like for dhampyrs (or another blood-feeding race) that wouldn't even be evil: when an ally is suffering untyped ongooing damage, you can drink the blood while adjacent and regain a certain number of hit points. You're not even damaging the ally.
Dhampyr's been done, it's in dragon.
But again, the problem comes down to the fact that you CAN play an evil game. Any class in the handbooks can be played as evil. Any race can be played as evil. A fireball can be fluffed to be evil, just as it can be a divine gift. You might raise an individual idea that is generally evil (Yuan-ti cultist as a player race? Sure, we could do that...) but the Evil Frame Of Mind can currently be done just fine.
If you want a DM's Guide To Running An Evil Game, it's going to have to get in line behind Horror Game, Intrigue Game, Mystery Game, Large Scale War Game, Survival Game, Construction/Settlement Game, and, I don't know, Zombie Uprising Game. All of which, by the by, can be played good OR evil.
You can "play evil" all you wish. An evil fighter, an evil druid, an evil swordmage, an evil avenger....all work just fine. You can play an evil game right out of the box.
Example of dark mechanic that I'd like for dhampyrs (or another blood-feeding race) that wouldn't even be evil: when an ally is suffering untyped ongooing damage, you can drink the blood while adjacent and regain a certain number of hit points. You're not even damaging the ally.
Yeah, you could add that to the Dhampyr feat chain (though it's awfully situational, you could apply it to both enemies and allies) and I doubt it'd be a problem. Then again, this shows how we've gone away from "Evil" powers.
When talking about using powers to make an ally take a hit instead of you, I'm reminded of the "controversy" of the Bard- with his powers to Slide instead of of "Grant Shift" it suggested the control was out of the target's hands. Player's would declare themselves not willing targets so the effect would fizzle if they didn't agree with the Bard's plan- any kind of anti-teamwork mechanics is going to need the whole party's buy in or it's not going to work.
There's an armor in PHB2 that redirects an attack to anyone adjacent, so it could be an ally, but it's intended for enemies. The "evil version" being allies only would just be weaker. Both this and the Dhampyr examples seem to show "neutral powers" that you could play evilly are better than pure evil powers.
Example of dark mechanic that I'd like for dhampyrs (or another blood-feeding race) that wouldn't even be evil: when an ally is suffering untyped ongooing damage, you can drink the blood while adjacent and regain a certain number of hit points. You're not even damaging the ally.
Yeah, you could add that to the Dhampyr feat chain (though it's awfully situational, you could apply it to both enemies and allies) and I doubt it'd be a problem. Then again, this shows how we've gone away from "Evil" powers.
When talking about using powers to make an ally take a hit instead of you, I'm reminded of the "controversy" of the Bard- with his powers to Slide instead of of "Grant Shift" it suggested the control was out of the target's hands. Player's would declare themselves not willing targets so the effect would fizzle if they didn't agree with the Bard's plan- any kind of anti-teamwork mechanics is going to need the whole party's buy in or it's not going to work.
There's an armor in PHB2 that redirects an attack to anyone adjacent, so it could be an ally, but it's intended for enemies. The "evil version" being allies only would just be weaker. Both this and the Dhampyr examples seem to show "neutral powers" that you could play evilly are better than pure evil powers.
Talking is a free action, remember? When I play Bard, I ASK the target where they want to be slided. The Bard is a leader in terms of roles, but generally even if you're the party tactician in terms of interests, you should consult with the other players.
It does have a potential for party strife, but I wouldn't go too far beyond something like this before you start tearing the party apart.
That sort of undermines the leader role, and ruins the fun and cohesion of the group.
The problem essentially here is the problem of being evil in a party, and there are many reason why Evil and Chaotic Evil should NEVER be grouped together into your D&D party.
--Marandahir
I believe this statement shows my point fairly well. "NEVER be grouped together"? Why? I played a vampiric campaign in 3.5, the entire party started as "good" adventurers, and we played your average campaign. Until 4th level, when our party was killed by a vampire. TPK. We had an option, start a new campaign, or continue on as vampires. We opted to playon, and for those two years, we loved being evil, we were competitive, but cooperative. We found a necropolis, and began building a unlife in the politics of the undead. Libris Mortis was a god send for this campaign. Our fights were as likely to be adventuring clerics & paladins, as it was to be a power hungry necromancer.
To say something should never be done, shows both ignorance, and close mindedness. Marandahir, I don't question your game knowledge, you seem intelligent, and well informed. But to make that statement is shocking to me. I understand that some people don't want to play that style of game. I understand that some groups are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of this style of game. I am not one of those people, and my group is not one of those groups.
Someone said in this thread that this material would probably not be released because Hasbro has it's "family" rep to protect, and I don't doubt that. But it is a shame. In my group, I have been the advocate for 4e in my group. Most were content to keep playing 3.5. I wanted to play a new system, that wasn't so unbalanced, and 4e is doing well in that department. However, if in the long run, 4e is going to remain totally segregated from the (for lack of a better word) anti-hero material, I know my group will fall back to 3.5 again.
--LIST OF WHAT I MISS FROM 3.5--
-a variety of playable undead (ghoul, wight, vampire, mummy, lich, etc.) not just a vampiric bloodline that takes multiple feats to get a partial effect.
-anti-hero archtype classes like necromancer, blackguard, and hexblade
-school specialization wizards
-prestige classes (so much more versatile than paragon paths, or epic destinies)
-an economic system that makes it worth while to loot your enemies equipment
-magic item creation having an actual point. (create at cost to buy?? why would anyone get into that business)
--LIST OF WHAT I PREFER ABOUT 4E--
-minions!! especially legion devils!!
-smoother game balance
-the powers/exploits/prayers system I love that a wizard never runs out of spells!!
-the "points of light" concept, which promotes home made campaign settings
-the simplicity of the rules system compared to 3.5
Now, you are all saying to yourselves, but if you like the balance, and the points of light, why are you wanting that other stuff, like the prestige classes?? Don't you see that is what made 3.5 so unbalanced.
Sure, it makes things difficult, I don't argue that. But that is why D&D is a multi-million dollar game that has been around as long as it has. I t has the money, and the history (ie: experience) to handle difficult issues, and resolve them.
When WotC tells me that they are going with a new edition, I expect the new edition to have ALL of the material that the old edition offered, in addition to some new content. All wrapped up in a package that makes the game better in a variety of ways, game balance, ease of use, simplification of guidelines, etc.
I am simply requesting that we get a book that offers us more material of what was available in the previous edition, updated to the new edition. If that material is of no interest to you, or your group, that is one thing, and your choice. But to say that the material should not exist, because you don't like it, that is just immature. If you really dislike the prospect of using "anti-hero" archtypes, and darker material, fine, tell me how such a resource in in such small demand that it would be financially risky for WotC to make. I'll even agree with that. Just don't try to tell me that what we have is good enough, just fluff it a little, or you should never have a party like that. I don't tell anyone else how to enjoy their game, and I am not interested in hearing how you think I should enjoy mine.
--LIST OF WHAT I MISS FROM 3.5--
-a variety of playable undead (ghoul, wight, vampire, mummy, lich, etc.) not just a vampiric bloodline that takes multiple feats to get a partial effect.
-anti-hero archtype classes like necromancer, blackguard, and hexblade
-school specialization wizards
-prestige classes (so much more versatile than paragon paths, or epic destinies)
-an economic system that makes it worth while to loot your enemies equipment
-magic item creation having an actual point. (create at cost to buy?? why would anyone get into that business)
I can't help but notice that the majority of your list has almost nothing to do with the evil character genre, and the others have been mentioned as either possible or forthcoming in future products.
Building an undead playability mechanic would actually be easy; check out the spellscarred in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. Although certainly not the same thing, a similar method could be crafted to make a series of Generic Undeadness powers, and by picking and choosing from those set forth, different types of undead could be created. (for example, pick turning-insubstantial and life drain for vampiric vibe, or use that same turning-insubstantial and levitating to be a ghost, or the drain life plus paralyzing for a ghast).
Meanwhile, the necro is coming, the blackguard is superfluous, and the warlock hexes like no other.
Aside from that, however, the list still lacks one thing; why do you think you can't play evil as it is? Apart from that one facet, playing as undead, you haven't shown why the current options aren't sufficient for an evil campaign, or that anything is missing. Why do evil campaigns need special attention to be made to work, no more than Lawbringer campaigns or Freedom Fighter campaigns or Balance campaigns or any other moral trope?
It seems there are some people who don't blow up in your face when you tell them why the game shouldn't do something or the other, but are actually able to talk.
When I said never, I was telling the truth, from a certain point of view. Hasbro (and by extension) WotC, would NEVER want to do something that would reduce sales; it's not good business. Most parties would fall apart from such a thing, even if there is a rare rogue* party that it does work out for. One of the things WotC are striving for with 4e is teamwork, so anything that undermines that teamwork is bad business. Thus, evil campaigns are the absolute biggest no-no, and thus should NEVER happen, from a economic point of view.
There, you've got my Jedi Truth explanation.
*not the class
@Dragoncat: Well, those multiclass-like mechanics for undead are one of the things we would -are, actually- cheering up for, me and the OP.
@Dreadmage: D&D 4 is still a bit young, I bet that in 1 year from now you'll be very happy with the material at hand.
P.S.: I'll write something for undead playing in my blog and post it here.
Dreadmage, I'm pleasantly surprised at how calmly you took my statements about evil campaigns.
It seems there are some people who don't blow up in your face...
--Marandahir
I don't believe in getting all pissed off about someone having a different opinion than mine, I just seems pointless to be so upset, so often, about things I do not have the power to change.
When I said never, I was telling the truth, from a certain point of view. Hasbro (and by extension) WotC, would NEVER want to do something that would reduce sales; it's not good business.
--Marandahir
This is a statement that I can accept, and agree with. I don't like it, but it does seem to be one of the inevitable truths.
why do you think you can't play evil as it is?
--Dragoncat
I thought I had explained this before, but I will try again. There are plenty of immoral character possibilities from the currently available material. That, to me, doesn't mean there are enough options. My main reason is that specific "evil (not the alignment) archtypes" are; as of this moment; not available. I have mentioned several races, and classes that I refer to. Various people have responded with "just fluff this, and you have what you want". I do not trust my ability to "just fluff" a whole new race, or class without disrupting the much valued game balance of 4e.
@Dreadmage: D&D 4 is still a bit young, I bet that in 1 year from now you'll be very happy with the material at hand.
--LordArchaon
True, 4e is still fairly young, and I hope by year's end I am content, but I have learned not to expect too much. After all, we were all promised a VTT, with virtual minis, yada yada yada, but I think I must have missed the launch of that one...lol.
I thought I had explained this before, but I will try again. There are plenty of immoral character possibilities from the currently available material. That, to me, doesn't mean there are enough options. My main reason is that specific "evil (not the alignment) archtypes" are; as of this moment; not available. I have mentioned several races, and classes that I refer to. Various people have responded with "just fluff this, and you have what you want". I do not trust my ability to "just fluff" a whole new race, or class without disrupting the much valued game balance of 4e.
Yep I get it. What I dont get is why should anyone do anything cause of your personal limitations and fixations. why it is not your problem to overcome them. I can try to help here but you need to want to be helped.
Currently there is very little support for GOOD characters in 4ed. Most of it is in divine power source. Even then divine characters can be made without using any one of those options. And to boot domain system actualy supports evil gods.
Since the label of Paladin=good, is not realy present in the game anymore then such labeling is purely subjective. Yet there is simple truth: There is no need for blackguard whatsover. Its just evil paladin and one can be made now. Sure default feature for one will not be lay on hands itll be ardent vow. And power selection will be different i will be able to make blackguard and play with it now with little need to actualy refluff anything. Man ill probably use significant amount of original power names: heedless fury, fearsome smite, mark of terror. There are much more such powers that could be used without need of refluf to make evil char.
What do you realy want then? You have all the tools (Well ok necro is missing, and making shammy into necro lacks "EVIL" punch for ya :P). There is almost no specific support for good characters that means that anyone can pick those options. So there is realy nothing stopping evil games from getting played, except from partys and dm's don't realy getting how to be evil without bieng stupid evil.
Want evil game? Play evil game. Its as simple as that.
Few more comments: Points of light is already perfect setting for dark and grity games. Evil lurks in every corner, rapists, thiefs and murderers roam the streets en masse. You can't realy spit in the dark without hiting three. Now those who are not evil are rare they are mere points of light in sea of darkness. What you want to change in this setting to reflect your mood better?
About evil party working together. I personaly see this as breaking borders of alignment, and pushing evil to the grey part, otherwise party should be strongarmed into cooperations by force they cant fight against (even as a group). Why would evil work with someone? To gain benefits (the same motivation good ones do :P), now why would such character continue working with them when oportunity to gain more by not working together arise? And dont realy get started on playing chaotic evil. Why would party tolerate someone that is actively hindering them? And if he is not actively hindering them why is he chaotic evil?
On topic, it's practically sure that PHB 4 will be giving us the Shadow power source, from 3 to 4 classes of it, and that will mean that at least from the point of view of classes, we'll be pretty much complete, in the sense that we'll have more or less everything we had in the 3.x era.
I also think that the Elemental power source that should be in the works will be pretty evil-oriented, since much more than the elements themselves (which are dominion of Arcane classes), will be about the Elemental Chaos and Primordials, possibly Demons. At least it ought to be, because if it isn't, it's going to step on Sorcerer's and Wizard's toes, very hard. But for that we got to wait till 2012...
@AivaRuin:
for "Evil lurks in every corner, rapists, thiefs and murderers roam the streets en masse. You can't realy spit in the dark without hiting three." 
Basically, I would like to remind everyone of two key factors in this thread.
1: It was a request, meaning something I would like. Never did I say that this was something that the entire D&D community deserved.
and 2: This was all, IMHO. In my humble opinion. Meaning no matter how little sense it makes to anyone else, it can't (sensibly) be argued.
Ultimately, you either understand my opinions, or you don't. You either agree with me, or you don't. If you don't, I am ok with that. I was actually expecting that. However it is a waste of both time, and webspace to continually argue against my opinions, like I am wrong. Facts can be wrong, opinions can't.
why it is not your problem to overcome them.
--Aiva Ruin
I never said it wasn't my problem. I never said it was yours. I simply made a request (see point 1 above) to WotC, in hopes that I might get lucky in how many people would agree with my opinion (see point 2 above) about the material requested. I didn't actually expect enough support to sway WotC into making a book like this, but you never know until you try.
Apparently there is a subconcious "social norm" that permeates these forums. Because I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people would spend so much time being so upset about my opinions (again, see point 2 above), and my requests (again, see point 1 above) about them.
The reason we don't have a lot of "evil options" is the same as why we don't have a lot of "lawful options" of "chaotic options" or "good options". It's because we have Options. And alignment can go stuff itself.
Ergo, the opposition isn't to the ideas themselves, but the idea that the Evil Game is being ignored. It's not; it is an option like any other, and isn't getting special treatment, because alignment isn't factored into mechanical options anymore.
I think one of the biggest hurdles is that alignment is, for the most part, out of the game. Much to our jubilation. Therefore, there's a lot of waryness towards alignment-based mechanics and requests, which this basically is.
The reason we don't have a lot of "evil options" is the same as why we don't have a lot of "lawful options" of "chaotic options" or "good options". It's because we have Options. And alignment can go stuff itself.
Ergo, the opposition isn't to the ideas themselves, but the idea that the Evil Game is being ignored. It's not; it is an option like any other, and isn't getting special treatment, because alignment isn't factored into mechanical options anymore.
Thank you Dragoncat. That's what I've been trying to say all this time.
----"I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way."-----
-- some old rock song
(proceed in crucifying me for forgetting the artists name)
Can do.
Bad Moon Rising - CCR
1: It was a request, meaning something I would like. Never did I say that this was something that the entire D&D community deserved.
and 2: This was all, IMHO. In my humble opinion. Meaning no matter how little sense it makes to anyone else, it can't (sensibly) be argued..
Well thts kinda the point. The system works differently now. There are no significant mechanical bonuses for bieng of specific alignment in game now (read on exelent post from Dragoncat about it). Making up specific stuff with EVIL label would be against philosophy of what we got so far.
That sayed significant amount of posts here actualy try to grant your request right now and here. Think of it as convoluted Wish you get from Djinn: you get what you want but not the, way you wanted. There are very few reasons for WotC to print out Book of Vile Darkness v4.0. Main reason for this is that there are no actual deterents from making evil party as per rules, there is advice not to do this which you obviuosly not agree with. No class is barred from it (and you wouldn't even need to tinker with rules here). And since everyone can be evil why one would want "more evil" things?
So in the end if you request tools to make evil games, that kinda brings question what tools you want since most if not all tools for that are already present. We/me just want to show you that, and at that point your request will be granted, without WotC touching print at any point.
Oh and about opinions... there is not widely known fact about em.... They can be flat out wrong.
Apparently there is a subconcious "social norm" that permeates these forums. Because I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people would spend so much time being so upset about my opinions (again, see point 2 above), and my requests (again, see point 1 above) about them.
And I wanted to add in here. It obviuos there is "Social Norm". Good and Evil doesnot exist outside of limitations of "social norm" (or "personal norm" if one wishes). And by the way you yourself is subject to that same norm. For example claiming that Necromancer is what you want to make evil campaign is very telling of that. Necromancer by themself are neither evil nor good. If they are valued through prism of your social/personal norm, they are labeled as evil. Now one doesnot realy have controll over his social norm prism. It is affected by sociaty, education and personality. Therefore it is not easy nor simple to divorce oneself from typecasts and predispositions.
However some amount of controll is possible, and it is especialy true in imaginary plane, that creator have significant controll over.
About Necros. I do wander why they are so readily labeled as Evil? Entire modern medicine rest on shoulders of persons that would be closest to necromancers in historical view. The give away of Raise Dead to divine source is such glaring exapmle of christianity typecasting things for most people that it realy saddens me when people doesnt even stop to consider why they believe in things. Central point of christianity is death and subseqent resurection of Jesus Christ. This forever ingrained resurection as act of god and any attempt to imitate such act by lesser biengs (read humans) is demonised as pridfull trying to play god. While in practice I see raise dead as pure form necromancy. Its not realy even pinacle of that art, you take dead body and tinker with it to get it back to the living state, no enchancments made to it in proces. How come its not necromancy? And why is it suddenly evil if it is? Isnt it final form of medical treatment?
Simple request, really. There are various bits of shadowy, dark, material, that existed in previous editions, that doesn't yet in 4e. I would like to see those materials, brought to 4e, in an unaligned manner, with no predilictions of alignment.
Basic examples, there are templates in the MM for various things, including liches, and vampires. I would like an applicable version of those for playable characters. I do not like the Dhampyr feat progression, and I do not like the archlich ED option. I want a more "realistic" option for those things. Vampire bites you, and you then die, you rise a vampire. You don't need to spend 4 feats on it, it just happens. Why couldn't something akin to level adjustment work? We have beasties beyond level 30, so what is wrong with a +2 template making a character effectively 2 levels higher than their class states, in the end, they are 32nd lvl, big whoop? Or a lich at lvl 14 like the ritual says is possible, but the ED makes you wait till 21 to start getting the lich powers over multiple levels. How about a necromancer? You say it's coming, but I haven't seen it yet, so I'm still requesting it. How about some inflict spells for clerics, and pallys?
I can go on for pages, but I am trying to keep this concise. When it comes to the options for material that relate to the characters that would generally be thought of as good, the rules are there. They are balanced, and they make sense. When it comes to the options for a darker themed character, many of the classics have been left out, or written in conflicting manners.
Yes, I know that refluffing is every ones solution to this problem. But I don't think it is right to have so much material available for one type of player, that refluffing is basically just a matter of flavor, and so little of another player type that refluffing means creating whole new rules to support new classes, or races, or templates, or whatever. I could do it, I am sure most of you can. But when it come to a game with the depth, and intricacies that D&D has, every little change makes a ripple. What was a minor thing at lvl 1 could be catastrophic by lvl 25. I do not yet know enough about 4e to say I can make that material in a way that won't unbalance the game. And honestly, I doubt very many of you could either. That is why I made my request to WotC. Because they can. I knew from before I started this thread that the odds were stacked against me. For various financial, and business reasons. But I wanted to put it out there.
Honestly, aside from logical financial reasons, I do not see why a single sourcebook that presented in a more clarified manner additional material that plays more to the darker player would be such a horrible idea.
Oh, and one more thing. Someone said something about not needing a "points of darkness campaign" because the point's of light setup was mostly dark already.
Your right. 100% I didn't intend my title to imply I wanted a new setting. I just meant it as a general reference to those dark areas of the world that already exist.
Simple request, really. There are various bits of shadowy, dark, material, that existed in previous editions, that doesn't yet in 4e. I would like to see those materials, brought to 4e, in an unaligned manner, with no predilictions of alignment.
There are significantly more bits of shadowy, dark material in 4ed core books than there was in other editions core books. On the other hand there is seven less bits of bright light stuff than before. If 3ed had strong mechanical push to play good (alignment restrictions on clases, fall mechanic, antievil magic and items), 4ed only have marginal push in form of channel divity feats. And advise aginast it. I do wish people would be so willing to folow advise in other parts of theyr life...
If you have specific needs and wants thats ok. You might get some in variuos supplements that comming along. What im realy against here is making evil focused supplement. I want options without predispositions, that might be made into evil or made into good. Making supplement for evil creates situation that I hope wotc is trying to avoid: it creates mechanical reasons to play evil characters.
Basic examples, there are templates in the MM for various things, including liches, and vampires. I would like an applicable version of those for playable characters. I do not like the Dhampyr feat progression, and I do not like the archlich ED option. I want a more "realistic" option for those things. Vampire bites you, and you then die, you rise a vampire. You don't need to spend 4 feats on it, it just happens. Why couldn't something akin to level adjustment work? We have beasties beyond level 30, so what is wrong with a +2 template making a character effectively 2 levels higher than their class states, in the end, they are 32nd lvl, big whoop? Or a lich at lvl 14 like the ritual says is possible, but the ED makes you wait till 21 to start getting the lich powers over multiple levels. How about a necromancer? You say it's coming, but I haven't seen it yet, so I'm still requesting it. How about some inflict spells for clerics, and pallys?
There are few things here. First I see no reason to make player templates that makes pc's stronger just because. Want features, get features. Same as everybody else. "It just happens" power upgrades (why would you want LA if there is no power upgrade?) are big no no. Some plots can be resolved this way (coughdbzcough) but it is unfair for people at the table and even when i use such in plot moments its one time only stuff (or foreshadowing of features that player is planing to acuire. Wizard got whacked on the head with uber divination artefact and had vision of Baldurs Gate's destrukctions which lead party to go to the rescue, and also lead into Wizard picking Divine Oracle PP...).
This all reaks somewhat of evil is stronger trope. You dont like dhampyr because it doesnt make one strong, dont like lich since it is not owerpowering. But strong Evil is merely stroy building trope to bring confilct to story. Stuff dont become strong because its evil, evil stuff is presented as strong in stories cause there is need to create chalenge in story. you are in a trap where you think that trope is how stuff should work.
Same goes for vampires. Il tell you a secret: vampires don't exist. whatever rules and conventions one uses for them is pure fiction. Therefore infectious vampires are no more or less "realistic" that vampires who sparcle in sunlight and never grow out of teenhood. Oh and did you knew that vampires burning in sun only started with some colorless cinema movie? Vampires before that (myths) could not use theyr powers in sunlight and that was that...
And LA is terrible tool. It might look good in theory but in practice it doesnt work that way. It would be especialy true in 4ed where is universal power progresion. Significant PC power comes from powers. LA meses that up. In the end empowering PC with LA granting template makes PC weaker. Counterintuition ahoi.
I can go on for pages, but I am trying to keep this concise. When it comes to the options for material that relate to the characters that would generally be thought of as good, the rules are there. They are balanced, and they make sense. When it comes to the options for a darker themed character, many of the classics have been left out, or written in conflicting manners.
I do try to see where this is coming from. Can you please elaborate on this in separate post?
Yes, I know that refluffing is every ones solution to this problem. But I don't think it is right to have so much material available for one type of player, that refluffing is basically just a matter of flavor, and so little of another player type that refluffing means creating whole new rules to support new classes, or races, or templates, or whatever. I could do it, I am sure most of you can. But when it come to a game with the depth, and intricacies that D&D has, every little change makes a ripple. What was a minor thing at lvl 1 could be catastrophic by lvl 25. I do not yet know enough about 4e to say I can make that material in a way that won't unbalance the game. And honestly, I doubt very many of you could either. That is why I made my request to WotC. Because they can. I knew from before I started this thread that the odds were stacked against me. For various financial, and business reasons. But I wanted to put it out there.
This kinda problem i have with your request. I dont even need to reffluf. I can make perfectly legal character using phb 1 that would use combination of universal mechanics, roleplaying elements and tactical preferences, that will make Blackguards and Hexblades of old weep in terror by just meeting me in dar alley...
Honestly, aside from logical financial reasons, I do not see why a single sourcebook that presented in a more clarified manner additional material that plays more to the darker player would be such a horrible idea.
Focus on morality aspects in a game is IMO horrible idea. To be fair I am as much against Good Books, or Lawfull books as I am agains evil books. If you want dar and edgy, there is dark and edgy and there will be more of it. It will not be moraly precolored for you though...
I give up, you just seem to be bots now.
@Everyone but Dreadmage: now you made me laugh: you're STILL repeating that we're talking about an "alignment-based mechanics", when me and Dreadmage have clarified multiple times that we're not talking about anything like it.
I give up, you just seem to be bots now.
Then pray tell what are you takling about? You don't have mechanics for killing stuff and taking thier stuff? What other evil things one wants to do that are not already covered by rules?
Now if you bring morality focus to discusion (or evil focus which is subset of morality focus) we ARE talking alignments. There is no other morality definition system in DnD currently. If you say evil you say alignment. Those are inseperable concepts given constrains of system.
So what are you talking about actualy? In phb there is: class using shadows as class feature that uses most stuff deemed evil (pain, torture, madness, intimidations) in its power repertuare, class that relies on dirty fighting and stealth. In phb 2 we get two divine clases that strech concept of "benevolence" of divine source to its limits, we get class that spraingly dominates and controls actions of friends and foes alike, and class that goes starkravinmad multiple times per day and hits stuff with other stuff.
We got definitive proof that Shadow is power source. Its not speculation or gues. We have one already out and oooh boy is he "goody, goody" flawored...
We get race that tryes not to be bad first and only in second phb we get race that is mostly good.
Every class has plethora of powers that no person on this forum ever would like to experience on recieving end. No class is barred from not doing stuff right and dandy way. Everyone can kill (even pacifist clierics), steal (bah you might not even need to use a feat for that just background) and lie (same as stealing). Everyone has acces to paragon paths and epic destinyes that don't quite make those characters into unicorn pony princeses level of cuteness (yay Death Dealer rogue with Gruesome Kill at will utility is sooooooooo cute).
These are the tools. There are mountains of them present. What more do you want?
Or is this all just tveiled attempt to whine that there is still no playable full one Necromancer (shaman with very minor refluff and zero change in mechanics works wonders as Necro)? Tell me it isn't so....
What more do you want?
Or is this all just tveiled attempt to whine that there is still no playable full one Necromancer (shaman with very minor refluff and zero change in mechanics works wonders as Necro)? Tell me it isn't so....
--AivaRuin
You ask a question, I answer. You don't undestand, so I re-answer. You don't like that explanation, so I answer it yet again.
"What more do I want?" refer to my last post in this thread. I stated multiple things that have nothing to do with alignment.
Refluff the shaman? As I said before, if your opinion is that ANY currently available class is a minor fluff job away from a necromancer, then I feel sorry for your necromancers. So I adamantly disagree with you on this point. The shaman is as close to the necromancer, as a dog is to a cat. Sure they both have 4 legs, and fur; but there is more than a couple mixbreeds between them.
I am really getting tired or re-answering the same questions, so if you wish to continue this, would you please bring something new to the table?
Thanks.
What more do you want?
Or is this all just tveiled attempt to whine that there is still no playable full one Necromancer (shaman with very minor refluff and zero change in mechanics works wonders as Necro)? Tell me it isn't so....
--AivaRuin
You ask a question, I answer. You don't undestand, so I re-answer. You don't like that explanation, so I answer it yet again.
"What more do I want?" refer to my last post in this thread. I stated multiple things that have nothing to do with alignment.
Refluff the shaman? As I said before, if your opinion is that ANY currently available class is a minor fluff job away from a necromancer, then I feel sorry for your necromancers. So I adamantly disagree with you on this point. The shaman is as close to the necromancer, as a dog is to a cat. Sure they both have 4 legs, and fur; but there is more than a couple mixbreeds between them.
I am really getting tired or re-answering the same questions, so if you wish to continue this, would you please bring something new to the table?
Thanks.
Dreadmage, listen. Your precious Necromancers will almost certainly be a Shadow class in PH4 next year. There will be other classes there that I'm sure you'll enjoy using.
It's very unlikely that WotC would ever make Vampire, Lich, Ghoul, etc player options. Dhampyr was made so that you couldn't have the all-powerfulness of the Vampire, but you could use some of the fluff. Revenant same thing for other undead creatures. The problem here is that you're trying to isolate things that are alignment related from their alignments, so that you can play them.
The reason why everybody is so confused by you saying, you want evil things, but you're not talking about alignment is that very statement – these things are evil or chaotic evil aligned, and that's not something that's coming off them. It ruins the fluff, if Vampires are suddenly another race walking around with Tieflings and Goliaths and Elves, all buddy-buddy. It cheapens how scary they are. 4e brought Vampires and other Undead creatures back to their horrific roots. They're tool to be used to excite horror in the players. The scariest you could get when you make Vampires a regular part of society is the fear that "oh my god! that secretary was actually a murderer!" The surprise there is that the normal-looking NPC as actually the villain. This is something you can already do with any "normal" people, so why should we ruin the fluff of a truly horrific creature (Vampires) to make it so that they're "normal" as well? Just so my PCs can be 2 levels stronger than they actually are, and screw up the entire level progression?
LA was dropped for good reason: It did a lot of screwy things to the game. Once players aren't progressing at the same rate, you have a real problem dividing up the XP, treasure, and dealing with the CR of the encounters. It's a real hassle, for the PCs and especially for the DM.
Now, if EVERYONE had the same LA (say, +2), then MAYBE you'd be fine, since you could just shift up the encounters two levels in difficulty, and call it normal. You might as well play a character 2 levels higher. That defeats the purpose of being a Vampire in the first place, then, since you're supposed to be stronger at First Level, but you realistically never play at first level, you start at 3rd.
Not to mention that a Vampire's abilities are well beyond the scope of a single feat (+2 shift would grant one feat) and a power (again, a 2 level shift would get you to your next power, at least). That's why it's a feat chain – there's too many powers that Vampires have to accomodate with a race, and it's not a real race, because there's a base race, so it works very well with a feat chain.
Really, I have no idea what you find wrong with the Dhampyr other than "it's not a Vampire! And I Don't Want to spend my feats being what I want to be!"
Last time I checked, a feat was used to give your character powers and abilities that fit in line with the character that couldn't be covered by your race and class… Hmmm…
And Dhampyrs are great, in that they don't cheapen the fear of Vampires, because they're more likely to be dark heroes (NO Player Character in D&D is an antihero, by the way…), but still on the side of good. There's a full range of alignment options for them. Not so with Vampires.
We can't have a race that has alignment restrictions, is too powerful, or would cheapen it's usage as a villain by making it a PC race. That's what it comes down to.
Refluff the shaman? As I said before, if your opinion is that ANY currently available class is a minor fluff job away from a necromancer, then I feel sorry for your necromancers. So I adamantly disagree with you on this point. The shaman is as close to the necromancer, as a dog is to a cat. Sure they both have 4 legs, and fur; but there is more than a couple mixbreeds between them.
So this is the core of your request? I was realy hoping it is nothing as primitive as this. But I dont realy have an option here...
Anyhow I don't realy like empty posts so here is something to chew on:
Basic mechanics of Shaman class consist of summoning spirit companion to fight alongside you. Lets change spirit companion into skeleton, ghoul or ghost.
There is no penalty for sustaining companion therefore we selfimpose limitation of never dismising it, also in case it dies we always resumon him into same spot he fell. If your ghoul drops (which is not realy easy task to acomplish) it drains some of your own life force.
Looking through the features most fitting features for hungry undead on your side is Stalker build. You need some Int and that plays along our goal of getting training in religion and\or arcana and getting ritual caster, for some ilusionary servant, raise dead, speak with dead goodnes. Also your ghoul will smell blood and will be agitated (most of your build features deal with enemy bieng blooded).
With healing spirit we self impose limitation of always taking aditional healing dices for yourself whover you use power on to. In efect you: make ones life bloom and reap the life from the target for yourself. Target gets hp boost at expence of losing surge (this be especialy flavorfull if used on full or near full hp person) and you get some free hp out of it.
Speak with spirits is asking dead for advise how to do stuff.
We have stalkers strike for at will, and get to choose from: Haunting Spirit's, Wrath of Winter, Watcher's strike. haunting spirits be the most flavorful for NecroShammy.
Lets take Call of the ancient warrior for lvl 1 encounter and make it look like spirits of a people eaten by your ghoul gush out of it and obscure everything around it.
The we get either Spirit of Grief's shadow (visage of death into mind) or stone root spirits (much skeleton hands from ground).
And we tend to act like insencitive a$$hole about all that death thing with everyone we meet.
Vuala. Necromancer :P.
Ok.Ok. I gues its not even close to what you want. Yet The statement stands there is no need for specific book just to introduce Necromancers. They will come anyway since alot of you actualy want one (im on the fence here). What I dont think will happen with 4ed Necromancer is that they wil not get autonomous summons. Itll still be made using zone, summon, conjuration rules and will still cost actions for Necro to use. The horde of stuff will still be there but itll be some spiritual stuff and most likely zone (like wall).
If all this was just to whine about there not bieng more powerful evil only options and not having necromancer around to play with then this is mu last post in this thread. If youd want to play evil game then that can be aranged. But special snowflake (I R Vampire. Therefore im more powerful than you) evil game is not thing I would welcome to come to 4ed.
And AivaRuin, this thread is not simply about the necro. The necro just works as an example. I, personnally have a weakness for undead & necros, so it is what I talk about the most. But this thread isn't intended to be so limiting. It could just as easily include Lycanthropes. Shifter is close enough for me, but I would understand the argument for something different. Honestly, I do find it absurd that lycanthropy is no longer contagious from the bite (like the vampire now). You just get this moon fever or whatever. That is just retarded. But like I said, my thing is for undead, so that is what I was talking about.
lol
Alignment restrictions sucked, please don't say you want to bring those back.
You can't play a vampire without them being evil, then they aren't scary.
*sniff sniff*
I smell some hypocracy here.
I am just going to have to accept that this is a hoplessly lost thread. You tell me for several pages that alignment were horrible, and don't bring them back, then say that having a playable vampire that isn't evil just isn't possible, because they're evil.
No, you can't play a full vampire because slapping on a template to any PC leads to massive power differences.
We already talked about the Dhampyr, and you said you didn't like the feat method. Well, that's the way it works now; it represents the cultivation of vampiric power at the cost of emphasizing other things. Level adjustement was a failure; it didn't balance itself properly (reach was king, for example), didn't apply equally from one class to the next in terms of loss vs. gain (an ability that is barely worth a level in the hands of a melee char might be broken horribly if given to a ranged specialist), and led to massive fluctuations in party equality (so, the fighter just got bitten, gaining six hit dice and +3 LA, wonderful, we'll catch up in twelve sessions!).
Instead, we have the feat tree method, or the spellscarred sudomulticlass. If you want to represent vampirism, you use the Dhampyr. If you want lycanthropy, you could use the Wildblood Warden (it's a swift, agile, regenerating, transforming melee monster, pretty much spot on). The only thing lacking is a good undead sudomulticlass, which could be constructed.
You don't just get bitten, and wake up the next day going "Hooray, vampirism, let's throw trucks around, turn into mist, and summon bats" anymore. For the sake of Ye Olde Party Cohesive Balance, it takes time to adjust to one's abilities, represented by feat progressions.
Simple request, really. There are various bits of shadowy, dark, material, that existed in previous editions, that doesn't yet in 4e. I would like to see those materials, brought to 4e, in an unaligned manner, with no predilictions of alignment.
It's called the Shadow power source. The Assassin is already out, and the rest are coming. As far as I can tell, your request is basically solved, or will be in about a year, except for a few elements that aren't exactly the mechanical implementation you hoped for, ie vampirism and lycanthropy not being instant power boosts. There's no need to claim social norm barriers or hypocritical interference, most of the stuff you are talking about is actually in the game, or coming soon. It just doesn't have a Evil Options Compilation sticker attached to it.
(snip snip)
There's no need to claim social norm barriers or hypocritical interference, most of the stuff you are talking about is actually in the game, or coming soon. It just doesn't have a Evil Options Compilation sticker attached to it.
Thanks once again, Dragoncat. My main point was the LA problem, and the utility of the feat tree.
That said, I'd like to clarify my point about alignment as well.
I'd also like to say that Drow are a different ball game from Vampires, and that Drizz't wasn't the only exception to the rule, there were a handful of others. However, remaining as they were in that alignment ghetto, there was only so many ways you could play the Chaotic Good rebel fighting against his evil kin. There was a huge demand for playable Drow, so Drow needed to escape that alignment ghetto.
The truth is, you don't fight things if they're good. That's why Metallic Dragons, Coatls, and even a Deva or two are unaligned rather than good in the MM. Monster alignment serves to show who the antagonists are. Once you upset that… you might as well be playing PC Pod Demons.
I'm not saying you couldn't homebrew that. It just doesn't belong in WotC published media.
I'm not saying you couldn't homebrew that. It just doesn't belong in WotC published media.
--Marandahir
Honestly, aside from just not liking it, I won't argue with that statement at all. However, you also helped to better explain my point in the following:
There was a huge demand for playable Drow, so Drow needed to escape that alignment ghetto.
--Marandahir
That is exactly what I was doing, hoping for enough support to constitute a "huge demand", and then get playable versions. To me, that is what a request is meant to do.
I'm saying "I like this, and I want some playable stuff for it!" and I am hoping I get enough other interested people in the community to draw some attention to the matter, and maybe get some of this in some official context.
As far as I can tell, your request is basically solved, or will be in about a year,...
--Dragoncat
Yes, a year from now some of my requests may have come to fruition, but it doesn't exist now, so I am requesting it. The shadow power source has been revealed to some degree, but I don't recall anywhere where WotC has said that they would be doing a necro with it. That is all community speculation. Now, I'm sorry, but I am not going to hold back my request because we might get it next year anyways. This is January, so next year is still a whole year away. Maybe in 12 - 18 months this entire thread will have been a mute point, but as of now, the material does not exist, and so I am requesting it.
Also, I am verily aware that much of my request will be overlooked because I am in the minority, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't bring the subject to the table.
The shadow power source has been revealed to some degree, but I don't recall anywhere where WotC has said that they would be doing a necro with it. That is all community speculation.
Well WotC hasn't specifically stated that the shadow power source will have a necromancer class, but they have stated that they withheld necromancy powers from th wizard class so that they could save design space for a future necromancer class, and they have also stated that necromancy is related to the shadow power source. So it is a bit beyond solely speculation(yet a step below being officially announced).
Well WotC hasn't specifically stated that the shadow power source will have a necromancer class, but they have stated that they withheld necromancy powers from th wizard class so that they could save design space for a future necromancer class, and they have also stated that necromancy is related to the shadow power source. So it is a bit beyond solely speculation(yet a step below being officially announced).
--Ranadiel
Ok, fair enough. It is above mere speculation, although not quite confirmed.
That's not a full Necromancer class, no, and I'm near certain we'll get a full one with Shadow, but it's a good thing to tide you over, and it's been around for quite some time now.
It still isn't a real Necromancer, but it is interesting. I have to say though, I hope they give the necromancer better control/animate undead options than the standard summoner style mechanics. Even for the summoner, I don't understand why they have the creatures attack use your standard action, but with a summoner, you could argue that the summoned creature is a magical extension of the wizards form. IE wild shape, arcane style, at a distance. With undead, and raising them, I have a hard time seeing it that way. They need to be able to act, without using your standard action.
I know the balance of doing that is rough, and I don't have a suggestion to fix it, but that's why WotC is making the big $$$. So they can fix those issues. LOL