That doesn't mean the option shouldn't be there.
A good idea for a future handbook might be one geared around playing and DMing campaigns for evil-aligned characters, with tips on how to make these games work and how to avoid the pitfalls. This book could include such things as:
* Write-ups for monstrous races (orcs, goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, and the like), and cooresponding racial feats.
* Evil-aligned feats and player options (channel divinity feats for evil gods, for example).
* Evil-flavored powers and rituals. Perhaps a 'sacrifical' mechanic that lets evil characters use souls in place of GP to cast rituals.
* Evil-flavored epic destinies (lich, vampire king, dark lord, and so forth)
Of course, we could do without some of the dodgier bits of the 3E Book of Vile Darkness (Magic nipple clamps? Seriously?). The idea of an evil handbook is sound, but often gets a bad rap because of the dodgy implementation of some of the things in earlier editions.
So, what do you think?
The non-good players have goals, just as the non-evil players do, they just have different methods of achieving these goals. A book that dedicates itself to achieving such a thing with evil aligned parties could work, if its written well enough.
*shudder*
No.
Do I sense fear of DMing evil aligned parties, drawn from the poor handling of past evil aligned PC attempts?
Do I sense fear of DMing evil aligned parties, drawn from the poor handling of past evil aligned PC attempts?
I'd say more, a wish not to see 3e BoVD which was horrid and stupidly cartoony.
If there was the be a 4e BoVD I would like it to be more subtle and layered, make it one that has intellectually mature not just, "look, look see we are soooooo EVIL!!!!!" Let's see workings for cults, the criminal underground, etc. Things that seem reasonable and could build intelligent campaigns from.
I'd say more, a wish not to see 3e BoVD which was horrid and stupidly cartoony.
If there was the be a 4e BoVD I would like it to be more subtle and layered, make it one that has intellectually mature not just, "look, look see we are soooooo EVIL!!!!!" Let's see workings for cults, the criminal underground, etc. Things that seem reasonable and could build intelligent campaigns from.
A creative DM can often make these himself, though a book that gives a guideline and tips for doing so would be nice.
I would rather it be in a DMG than in a BoVD though, because I agree, the BoVD-3e was corny and showed many things that should have appeared in a DMG anyway.
Even had a really nifty necropolitan ninja who was a personal friend of Kaius and an assassin answerable ONLY to him. It was pretty cool. I miss Eberron.
I'd personally like to see what others have mentioned. DM tips on how to keep an evil campaign from getting out of hand, and even Player tips on how to be an evil PC without disrupting the game. A few races which are either iconically evil or monstrous would be nice, but I wouldn't bet on it. A few classes or class options to distinguish the evil wizard from standard ones (necrotic cyst, I'm looking at you baby!) would be nice too...things like powers and feats that're uniquely evil. I really like the idea of sacrifices as component substitutes for rituals...great flavor, wholly evil, mechanically workable, and not over-the-top Snidely Whiplash crap (I swear, the first PC who monologues...dies. I've done it to NPC BBEGs before.). I also really think it should contain the most information about things like organized crime, cults, and related aspects. It would be nice to see some real cursed items in the book too, and not just useful evil ones. Perhaps all evil items are cursed in some way?
I really want a BoVD for 4e...if they can do it right. But frankly, I really think WotC has wussed out and is completely pandering to the Right side of the aisle just to make an excessively overbred group of otherwise useless meatbags happy.
On a related note...if we get the BoVD and it's good...does that mean we get to skip the BoED? I sure hope so. No good can ever come of good.
Which is a really cool thought.
As cool as the "martial, divine, arcane, and primal" power sources are I highly doubt that the next few will be "evil, undeath, and demon-fueled."
That being said, there is NOTHING keeping you from houseruling something to let characters choose a "darker?" path.
Bel
* Write-ups for monstrous races (orcs, goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, and the like), and cooresponding racial feats.
* Evil-aligned feats and player options (channel divinity feats for evil gods, for example).
* Evil-flavored powers and rituals. Perhaps a 'sacrifical' mechanic that lets evil characters use souls in place of GP to cast rituals.
* Evil-flavored epic destinies (lich, vampire king, dark lord, and so forth)
Monstrous races? Check.
There are really good minotaur and gnoll mechanics in Dragon magazines. Including racial feats.
Evil aligned feats and player options? Check.
I don't know that we have any feats that are necessarily evil but there are buckets of feats that certainly could be evil.
Chaotic Evil is listed right in the PHB. It's a completely unrestricted choice for any and every class, including Clerics and Paladins. Sure, the PHB says this, but listen carefully:
If you choose an alignment for your character, you should pick either good or lawful good. Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you.
Implied nod for running an evil campaign right there.
Warlocks don't have to be bad guys, but there certainly is a bias towards evil when you read a lot of the fluff. Darkwalker from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide anyone?
Few are willing to grapple with dark forces as closely as you are, to look the deranged visages of unholy entities squarely in the eye. You are strong enough to control the darkness inside you. You wager your very soul daily, risking utter damnation in exchange for a dark reward. Your body is but a fetter now, anchoring you to a world that no longer seems to be yours. You walk toward a darker place now, a few steps farther every day, leaving the light at your back.
It takes real effort to reconcile fluff like that to a good character, the dark they are talking about isn't referring to a lack of luminosity, ya know?
If you want Channel Divinity for an Evil god, look no further than Dragon 372.
Bane: The Black Lord. Evil Greater God
Bane is the iron-fisted lord of tyranny, seeking dominion over everyone and everything.
Bane’s Tactics [Channel Divinity]
Prerequisites: Channel Divinity class feature, must worship Bane
Benefit: You can invoke the power of your deity to use Bane’s tactics.
There you have it.
Evil-flavored powers and rituals? Check.
Not explicit again, but have you seen the necromancy spells and powers in Dragon? Yeah, you can flavor it as being a good guy thing, but it takes effort again.
There is this line from the PHB:
(Certain rituals might allow unwilling participants to pay those costs as well, but such rituals involve sacrifices to malevolent gods or demon lords and are not found in the ritual books of most player characters.)
This explicitly "forbids" sentient sacrifices for PCs, but you know if it's ever written up that it'll be just as easy to apply the options to a PC as it is for an NPC.
Evil-flavored Epic Destinies? Check.
Bloodknight Paragon Path is a vampire option. Archlich Epic Destiny is a lich option. What about Prince of Hell? It's there man, just what you are asking for.
***
Overall, the game has gotten away from alignment typing, very few things are necessarily good or evil yet (Pack Master PP from Dragon 364, pg 54 is explicitly good for instance).
This means however that there is plenty of room for an evil campaign, though the books usually tsk-tsk it as an option, it's kind of hypocritical given the amount of bad guy support the game has. I mean, the Hand and Eye of Vecna are still stated out, right?
Monstrous races? Check.
There are really good minotaur and gnoll mechanics in Dragon magazines. Including racial feats.
Fair enough. Personally, I try to avoid anyting in either Dungeon OR Dragon. I can't actually anyway, I have no subscription to DDI and no way to get one. Somehow it always seems to lead to arguments between players, or between player and DM. But, that's just my thing. Still a perfectly valid point you made.
Evil aligned feats and player options? Check.
I don't know that we have any feats that are necessarily evil but there are buckets of feats that certainly could be evil.
Chaotic Evil is listed right in the PHB. It's a completely unrestricted choice for any and every class, including Clerics and Paladins. Sure, the PHB says this, but listen carefully:
Implied nod for running an evil campaign right there.
The only reason that nod...or any other nod to evil, really...got anywhere in any of the books is so 1) they wouldn't have to draw a hard line on what players can and cannot do, and 2) because I'm sure they're aware of just how many people would've gone up in flames about having the option taken away, even some of those people who'd never have even considered using it. People are touchy about keeping their options open, even ones they KNOW they'll never use. WotC would have eliminated evil as any sort of player option if they could've gotten away with it, but they just can't. "Evil is good, an
is good...an if ya get ya self a piece a evil- ...WHHOOOO!!!!!!!!"Warlocks don't have to be bad guys, but there certainly is a bias towards evil when you read a lot of the fluff. Darkwalker from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide anyone?
It takes real effort to reconcile fluff like that to a good character, the dark they are talking about isn't referring to a lack of luminosity, ya know?
If you want Channel Divinity for an Evil god, look no further than Dragon 372.
There you have it.
I can agree that reconciling some of the warlock fluff to be "good" is no minor chore, and that doesn't quite jive with 4e's overal skew towards goody-two-shoes-ness
. But overall, I still think it's more of just a bone to those who'd have demanded it anyway. But, I'll take it anyway. As for evil divinity feats, is Bane te only one? It would count, sure, but honestly it'd be hardly helpful. But, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt there.Evil-flavored powers and rituals? Check.
Not explicit again, but have you seen the necromancy spells and powers in Dragon? Yeah, you can flavor it as being a good guy thing, but it takes effort again.
There is this line from the PHB:
This explicitly "forbids" sentient sacrifices for PCs, but you know if it's ever written up that it'll be just as easy to apply the options to a PC as it is for an NPC.
True enough, but I'm almost positive it'll never be written up. Really, I'm fully convinced they'll never cross the line...or really get any closer than they already have to doing so.
Evil-flavored Epic Destinies? Check.
Bloodknight Paragon Path is a vampire option. Archlich Epic Destiny is a lich option. What about Prince of Hell? It's there man, just what you are asking for.
Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies don't count for me. I guess that's just personal preference, but I want a character who is undead...then can take a class, PP, and ED that have nothing to do with his undead nature...especially not ones that MAKE him undead. I don't want the PP or ED to make him undead, I want him to BE undead, and take whatever unrelated PP or ED he wants otherwise.
Which...they really don't, they just provide a few lip-service pseudo-undead features and such. I guess, I want the undead subtype. I'm willing to play along with 4e's idea that the mechanics don't always have to reflect the fluff, and vice-versa, but that particular point I'm gonna have to set my foot down on. Even so, that's still just personal preference and opinion.
Overall, the game has gotten away from alignment typing, very few things are necessarily good or evil yet (Pack Master PP from Dragon 364, pg 54 is explicitly good for instance).
This means however that there is plenty of room for an evil campaign, though the books usually tsk-tsk it as an option, it's kind of hypocritical given the amount of bad guy support the game has. I mean, the Hand and Eye of Vecna are still stated out, right?
Well, things like the Hand and Eye of Vecna are things that good characters get and should try to destroy. They exist pretty much solely as a plot device. They're not meant to be something you WANT to have. The same is true of most such things. Those things that aren't plot devices are usable, but usually flavored for good and/or always recommended against using.
That's generally how it all is. "This is what we want you to play...and this is what we want you to fight. You can play something like what you'll be fighting instead...if you REALLY want to, but you shouldn't, because you should be fighting it, not playing it. But, we can't tell you that you can't do it, because we don't want to say no to any character concept." It's a prohibition without enforcement, basically. And I take it as a sign of weakness on their part...both in pandering to "a certain ideological group" and ALSO in not having the brass to simply deny evil options flat-out. But...again...opinion only. After all, with the way things are, it's not like they REALLY had much of a choice.
Ya know...if they're going to cower before the world's fools like that for the sake of being able to be more public in their advertising and pitch, they should at least sell their stuff in Wal-Marts too. That alone would jack the heck out of their sales. Plenty of kids will buy minis, or even the books, just because it's something they've never seen. Americans are all about novelty, after all. And, since it's a "toy" available at Wal-Mart, it can't be THAT uncool, can it?
Oh well...c'est la vie. (I hope I messed that up. I'm going through being-a-jerk withdrawls.)
More to the point, I would love to see more options for evil characters. The articles mentioned above leave much to be desired. Hopefully, divine power will have options for evil clerics, paladins, and what not. These are the classes most hurting from the good bias right now. Almost all of their powers scream "I'm a champion of goodness and light." sure, you can change the damage types, but it's not official, and frankly, I pay good money for people to come up with these things for me.
And no necrotic damage build will be of any use until we get a feat that overcomes necrotic resistance, which virtually all undead have. right now all we have is a shadar-kai only feat, which is rather underpowered anyway.
Again, all these things can be house ruled, but I think there's enough interest to warrant a book. A dmg would be just fine, but in that case we may have to wait a few years, as this year's theme is paragon tier, and presumably next year's will be epic tier.
On a final note, such a set of options, under the new regime of flexible alignments, it makes sense to include rules for evil deities at the very least, and potentially evil feats and powers as well. unaligned folks could make a great deal of use out of them, mixing and matching with the more "good" aligned alternatives. I, for one, am eager to play any number of divine characters devoted to vecna, who has always been my favorite D&D deity, and my favorite D&D specific fluff, for that matter.
Frankly, I'm tired of being a goody-goody.
I come from playing a MUD inspired by Dark Sun. This MUD had no alignment and we were often encouraged to play characters that would be evil-alignment if they were in D&D.
But the characters weren't necessarily evil. To begin with our classes were much different to D&D with us having the choice of:
* Assassin
* Burglar
* Pick Pocket
* Ranger
* Fighter
* Elementalists
Now the only two classes that might be "good" characters are Fighters and Rangers. Here's the write-up on Rangers
A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey (to feed herself). Because of the emphasis on these two things, rangers are sometimes greatly sought after as companions in the desert--halfling rangers are even a vital part of halfling culture, serving as guides and advisors.
Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons. Exceptional rangers are able to move silently and remain unseen in the wilderness, detect sounds from far away, work with poisons, and parry enemy blows. Rangers are also able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds, and have a well-known rapport with animals and can ride beasts of burden from the beginning. While apparently an astonishing array of abilities, rangers are far poorer at combat than warriors, and their skills with poisons and healing powers are actually quite modest.
Rangers are usually the second easiest persons to employ, next to fighters. Any traveller would be a fool to neglect to take a ranger along as a guide, and good rangers can make large sums of money in this profession. In addition, rangers are excellent scouts and spies, able to eavesdrop without being noticed--good rangers can even act as assassins. If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.
There is nothing about being the Guardians of Nature or having an affinity with nature. Instead they're simply characters who can survive without the trappings of civilisation much easier then your average city person.
I think the first step in running a "non-good aligned" campaign is to make a small write-up on the various classes you want to use. A paragraph per class should get people's thoughts going in directions they'd never imagined.
Also if you're going to run a non-traditional D&D campaign. You have to ensure the enemies are also non-traditional. Having moustache-twirling villains is going to get the players falling back to being goody-goody heroes.
For antagonists, you have eladrin, angels, and soon, metallic dragons.
There really aren't any Prerequisite: Good things in 4E, so there shouldn't be any Prerequisite: Evil things.
So... darklord, prince of hell, archlich, dark warlock, infernal warlock, necromantic wizards, and soon to come shadow power source aren't enough?
For antagonists, you have eladrin, angels, and soon, metallic dragons.
There really aren't any Prerequisite: Good things in 4E, so there shouldn't be any Prerequisite: Evil things.
Note: Angels serve some of the evil gods as well as some of the good ones.
Secondly, just because there's no "blood orgy evil" included in the 4e books doesn't mean you can't run evil campaigns. You'll just have to make do without the rules for blood orgies, or make up your own, I guess. Or you could be a subtler evil, and still have 99.9% of the already-published rules to work with.
Personally, I'm not interested in a 4E BoVD... I didn't buy the 3E version, and I won't buy a 4E version.
Currently, three RPG writers have what it takes to freak me out: Robert J. Schwalb, Nicholas Logue, and Richard Pett. Get them to co-write that book, and you'd have a winner.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with over the top SUPER EVIL. This is fantasy, villains that cackle manically while bathing in the blood virgins and listening to a quire of screaming babies being slowly crushed to death is a perfectly valid trope, even if it's rather disgusting and horrific. Subtle evil is all well and interesting, but evil that's as blatant as a sledge hammer upside your grandmothers head has its own place as well. That kind of evil might not be everybody's cup of tea, but for those of you that don't want it there is a simple solution, don't buy it.
While i wouldn't mind seeing some more "dark" races/classes/PP/ED (there are some), I think what is MOST needed, is advice on how to play/run an evil campaign.
I'd absolutely love to see a BoVD for 4e that isn't the same crap as the 3e version. Frankly, I'm tired of being a goody-goody. Not to say I don't want to be heroic...I just don't want to be a "good-guy"...or even a nice guy, really. "Screw the villagers, they're fodder anyway, but I live in the world and I'm not gonna let some crazy jerk wipe it out just because he won't even notice the difference anyway. I'd rather conquer the world, not blow it up. As long as people do what I want, I don't feel a particular need to kick them in the face for no otherwise good reason, either." That's my sort of anti-hero.
I'm confused. What prevents you from doing that today, with the current books?
DM tips on how to keep an evil campaign from getting out of hand, and even Player tips on how to be an evil PC without disrupting the game.
Material for a sidebar in a later DMG. I'm not sure we need an entire book for this.
A few races which are either iconically evil or monstrous would be nice, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I don't see any reason for them to not print goblins or other "monstrous" races in a future player's handbook. Once again, why an evil only book for these options?
A few classes or class options to distinguish the evil wizard from standard ones (necrotic cyst, I'm looking at you baby!) would be nice too...things like powers and feats that're uniquely evil. I really like the idea of sacrifices as component substitutes for rituals
There are powers in many of the books out now that do necrotic damage, if that's what you're looking for. Have you read the descriptions of the infernal, dark and star pact warlock powers? There's a wizard spell in Arcane Power that drops a boatload of acidic maggots on your enemies head. Why should these powers be relegated to the ghetto of an evil only book?
I also really think it should contain the most information about things like organized crime, cults, and related aspects.
I think those things are just as useful to a DM for organizing antagonists for his PCs as anything else, and should probably be in a DMG.
It would be nice to see some real cursed items in the book too, and not just useful evil ones. Perhaps all evil items are cursed in some way?
I think cursed items need to be useful too. Discovering that I can't hit until I find someone to cast Remove Curse so I can finally drop this -3 longsword really REALLY sucks. If it's good enough that as a player I'm torn between keeping it and getting rid of it, then it actually becomes interesting.
I really want a BoVD for 4e...if they can do it right. But frankly, I really think WotC has wussed out and is completely pandering to the Right side of the aisle just to make an excessively overbred group of otherwise useless meatbags happy.
Wow, you went from being completely reasonable (even though I disagree with you) to being hysterical and insulting. I don't even know what this paragraph means. By "Right side of the aisle" do you mean Republicans? I'm pretty sure the ones who demonize D&D would still demonize D&D even if Lawful Good Paladin were the only character option. And anyone who prefers a good aligned/heroic angle to their games is an "overbred useless meatbag"? Am I getting that right? I'm honestly asking because I have no idea what the intention of that statement is.
On a related note...if we get the BoVD and it's good...does that mean we get to skip the BoED? I sure hope so. No good can ever come of good.
Wouldn't you be happier playing Kult or Hol instead?
I'm confused. What prevents you from doing that today, with the current books?
Nothing, but the morally skewed perspective of the game can make it difficult, especially when the only group you have access to are against any kind of evil for PCs. I'm mostly hoping solid rules would lend weight to the side of those who want to save the world even though they're "evil".
I don't see any reason for them to not print goblins or other "monstrous" races in a future player's handbook. Once again, why an evil only book for these options?
Goblins and/or kobolds, as well as a few others, I'm really expecting to be PC races anyway eventually (quite possibly in Eberron, honestly), and I really don't consider them particularly monstrous myself. I'm not saying people should get to play aboleths...but that would be closer to the vein regarding what I had in mind. Getting to play things that are truly, monstrously evil.
Material for a sidebar in a later DMG. I'm not sure we need an entire book for this.
There are powers in many of the books out now that do necrotic damage, if that's what you're looking for. Have you read the descriptions of the infernal, dark and star pact warlock powers? There's a wizard spell in Arcane Power that drops a boatload of acidic maggots on your enemies head. Why should these powers be relegated to the ghetto of an evil only book?
I think those things are just as useful to a DM for organizing antagonists for his PCs as anything else, and should probably be in a DMG.
I see your perspective here, but if everything people want in a BoVD goes into a DMG, then nearly that entire DMG would be about evil anyway...so why not just make it the BoVD? If everything were in bits and pieces all over...then I'd just be angry. I don't want to have to hunt through a dozen books for evil stuff. I want it all in one place. If less than half a DMG were about evil, and yet still had everything people have expressed a desire for, then I wouldn't mind it remaining the purview of the DMG instead of making a BoVD.
I think cursed items need to be useful too. Discovering that I can't hit until I find someone to cast Remove Curse so I can finally drop this -3 longsword really REALLY sucks. If it's good enough that as a player I'm torn between keeping it and getting rid of it, then it actually becomes interesting.
Definitely in agreement here. Choosing is always more fun than being forced. The harder the choice, the more entertaining the results.
Wow, you went from being completely reasonable (even though I disagree with you) to being hysterical and insulting. I don't even know what this paragraph means. By "Right side of the aisle" do you mean Republicans? I'm pretty sure the ones who demonize D&D would still demonize D&D even if Lawful Good Paladin were the only character option. And anyone who prefers a good aligned/heroic angle to their games is an "overbred useless meatbag"? Am I getting that right? I'm honestly asking because I have no idea what the intention of that statement is.
Yeah, it's a pretty severe personal flaw, I'll certainly admit that. I'm a extreme centrist. I do the same thing to leftists as I do to the righties, honestly. I have extremely, powerfully negative opinions about the very concepts of freedoms or morals (truthfully, I don't believe in the devil at all and I think Nietzsche was a fool, but I like how my name sometimes offends silly people...just so no one assumes I got my ideas from either such source). I find them to be meaningless affectations of an insignificant species mistakenly convinced of its own importance. But that IS merely opinion on my part. I really just can't see a reasonable explanation for the kind of morally skewed nonsense that seems prevalent throughout 4e.
I try to keep it in check, but sometimes it slips the leash.
That said, the truth is that as far as mechanics and some fluff is concerned, I've seriously considered character concepts in 4e that I'd never have even given a glance at in 3.x. I used to hate almost everything but half-elves, half-orcs, and humans in 3.x, especially small races. Now I'm willing to give them all a fair shake. I may not like how warped the moral compass of the game is, but it is still a fun game.
Wouldn't you be happier playing Kult or Hol instead?
I don't even have any idea at all what those are. If they use the 4e mechanics, I might consider them...but frankly, right now the only system I like at all is 4e.
I'm not saying people should get to play aboleths...but that would be closer to the vein regarding what I had in mind. Getting to play things that are truly, monstrously evil.
So, races like Rakshasas, Mind Flayers, Cambions, Medusae, Grimlocks, Troglodytes, Orcs, Sahauagin, and Yaun-ti?
1) Monstrous races- easy. We just need racial articles or appearances in books. A few undead here, a horde monster there, perhaps a bit of outsider or immortal fiend for a light garnish.
2) More rituals related to slightly more nefarious activities. Undead, in particular. PHB3 will probably have this in the bag.
.........And that's honestly about all you need.
Before protesting, hear me out. The mistake that the BoVD made was that it said "Alright, everything in this book is going to be Evil, capital E!" The result was......idiocy. Rather than have interesting and flavorful elements, it was cookie cutter evil-for-evil's sake foolishness. A bunch of its feats were garbage, only evil because they had some fluff attachment, or slapped on a definition of evil which was petty or grotesque(the "you make yourself really fat/thin because you're wicked, get this bonus" comes to mind, as well as the "drugs are evil" schtick).
See, you don't need your feats to have the [Evil] descriptor, nor your spells to have the "must be evil to cast" tab. Nor do you need Spells With Extra Goodness added to them. That stuff is largely flavor, and should be kept that way. You can play any class in the handbook as evil, and baring perhaps a necrotic damage conversion of divine classes, we don't need "powered by evil" mechanics for rangers and wizards.
The big problem with an Evil book and a Good book, captial E and G, once again, is that they make alignment a direct control over mechanics. We don't need a repeat of the foolishness of the BoVD, which included such gems as Circle of Nausea(It's evil because it makes them throw up!), Glimpse of Truth(It's evil because you ask a bad person/spirit), Lahm's Finger Darts(you shoot your fingers! Wicked!), or Masochism(Yay, pain and deviants are evil!). No "Icky is evil, therefore spells which do icky things are evil," no "this power is evil because the fluff text says so, despite being an ordinary buff spell," and no "Yeah, it inflicts pain, hardcore, yeah!" foolishness. Conversely, no more "The bolt of searing light burning the flesh of all but the pure is powered by love and kittens," "you must be this good to use this feat," or "This is like evil things, but good, because it only effects evil beings."
A book of monstrous races would be nice. Some articles with campaign advice geared toward different tropes, ie the Monstrous Outcasts game, the Scoundrels game, the Explorer game, the War and Conquest game, and other ideas would be awesome. But we don't need a Book of Stupidly Evil to Fit Cliche Flavor.
So, races like Rakshasas, Mind Flayers, Cambions, Medusae, Grimlocks, Troglodytes, Orcs, Sahauagin, and Yaun-ti?
Pretty much, yes. Obviously though, I know most (if not all) of those are probably beyond balancing as PC races. That's one of the reasons I don't think we'll ever get that sort of thing. Oh...and I don't really count Orcs, either, but that's mostly because of Eberron too.
I think it's much easier to have the smaller elements individually than to group them into a Now Powered By Evil book.
1) Monstrous races- easy. We just need racial articles or appearances in books. A few undead here, a horde monster there, perhaps a bit of outsider or immortal fiend for a light garnish.
2) More rituals related to slightly more nefarious activities. Undead, in particular. PHB3 will probably have this in the bag.
.........And that's honestly about all you need.
Before protesting, hear me out. The mistake that the BoVD made was that it said "Alright, everything in this book is going to be Evil, capital E!" The result was......idiocy. Rather than have interesting and flavorful elements, it was cookie cutter evil-for-evil's sake foolishness. A bunch of its feats were garbage, only evil because they had some fluff attachment, or slapped on a definition of evil which was petty or grotesque(the "you make yourself really fat/thin because you're wicked, get this bonus" comes to mind, as well as the "drugs are evil" schtick).
See, you don't need your feats to have the [Evil] descriptor, nor your spells to have the "must be evil to cast" tab. Nor do you need Spells With Extra Goodness added to them. That stuff is largely flavor, and should be kept that way. You can play any class in the handbook as evil, and baring perhaps a necrotic damage conversion of divine classes, we don't need "powered by evil" mechanics for rangers and wizards.
The big problem with an Evil book and a Good book, captial E and G, once again, is that they make alignment a direct control over mechanics. We don't need a repeat of the foolishness of the BoVD, which included such gems as Circle of Nausea(It's evil because it makes them throw up!), Glimpse of Truth(It's evil because you ask a bad person/spirit), Lahm's Finger Darts(you shoot your fingers! Wicked!), or Masochism(Yay, pain and deviants are evil!). No "Icky is evil, therefore spells which do icky things are evil," no "this power is evil because the fluff text says so, despite being an ordinary buff spell," and no "Yeah, it inflicts pain, hardcore, yeah!" foolishness. Conversely, no more "The bolt of searing light burning the flesh of all but the pure is powered by love and kittens," "you must be this good to use this feat," or "This is like evil things, but good, because it only effects evil beings."
A book of monstrous races would be nice. Some articles with campaign advice geared toward different tropes, ie the Monstrous Outcasts game, the Scoundrels game, the Explorer game, the War and Conquest game, and other ideas would be awesome. But we don't need a Book of Stupidly Evil to Fit Cliche Flavor.
I can actually agree with pretty much all of that. Though, I'd still prefer it all to be in one book. Again...I don't want to hunt through multiple books to find everything I need for only one idea. I'd also prefer next to nothing in articles...but that's only because I don't have access to those, so it would irk me, greatly.
I'm also sincerely and utterly convinced that being truly undead (not all that stupid PP or ED "I'm a wannabe undead" crap...I hate that) will never be an option for a PC. I'm really keeping my hopes pretty low for the PHB3 anyway. I'm expecting to be sorely disappointed by Soulknife inappropriately becoming a Ki class...and I'm betting Psionics won't make it in til the PHB4. I WANT Psionics in the PHB3...but I'm not gonna bet on it.
As long as it's not like the 3E BoVD.
*shudder*
Yep. Less Snidely Whiplash style mustache twirling, I like to hurt myself because I'm tainted and emo...and maybe a Villain's guide to being badass.
Villain's guide to being badass.
Swweeeett!!!!
I really hope they call it that!
Have a cookie!
Swweeeett!!!!
I really hope they call it that!
Have a cookie!
Man...there goes my diet.
Man...there goes my diet.
Psh...what'd you expect, I'm evil.
Yep. Less Snidely Whiplash style mustache twirling, I like to hurt myself because I'm tainted and emo...and maybe a Villain's guide to being badass.
Written by Richard B. Riddick himself? ;)
Nothing, but the morally skewed perspective of the game can make it difficult, especially when the only group you have access to are against any kind of evil for PCs.
If you can't find players who want to play evil, I don't think a book is going to help much.
I'm mostly hoping solid rules would lend weight to the side of those who want to save the world even though they're "evil".
What kind of rules though? There are no rules that say you have to be good, only a suggestion that you not be evil/chaotic evil because it makes party cohesion difficult. I would let a player I trusted play "evil" if they wanted to, and there aren't any rules against that.
Besides, what you're advocating sounds an awful lot like Unaligned to me. Which, hey, has just as much support as good and lawful good and only a smidge more support than evil. Chaotic Evil, in 4e terms, is either totally nihilistic or psychopathic. Neither lends itself to a team game.
Goblins and/or kobolds, as well as a few others, I'm really expecting to be PC races anyway eventually (quite possibly in Eberron, honestly), and I really don't consider them particularly monstrous myself. I'm not saying people should get to play aboleths...but that would be closer to the vein regarding what I had in mind. Getting to play things that are truly, monstrously evil.
Such is the beauty of the Ebberon setting, that all of the intelligent races are fleshed out and good examples are just as possible as evil examples. Playing truly monstrously evil? Sounds like a psychopath or a sociopath to me, if it's in the realm of human understanding at all. There are games for that, but they certainly aren't D&D (any edition).
I see your perspective here, but if everything people want in a BoVD goes into a DMG, then nearly that entire DMG would be about evil anyway...so why not just make it the BoVD? If everything were in bits and pieces all over...then I'd just be angry. I don't want to have to hunt through a dozen books for evil stuff. I want it all in one place. If less than half a DMG were about evil, and yet still had everything people have expressed a desire for, then I wouldn't mind it remaining the purview of the DMG instead of making a BoVD.
I don't think there's nearly enough pagecount for "pure evil" stuff to justify an entire book. Being generous, I could see two dozen pages devoted to it (in the fluff-lite approach that 4e takes), and those would be divided between player information and DM information. An entire book would need to be fluffed up, and I mean that in the worst way possible. Then, I doubt it'd sell to the standards WotC is currently looking for.
The level of abstraction present in the game already provides for a lot of the mechanical effects you want. Want a ritual that uses sacrifice instead of components? People are just components, spend 100gp on slaves you'll murder rather than scrolls and candles you'll burn. There, you have an evil ritual that operates by sacrifice, AND it doesn't break the game economy.
That said, the truth is that as far as mechanics and some fluff is concerned, I've seriously considered character concepts in 4e that I'd never have even given a glance at in 3.x. I used to hate almost everything but half-elves, half-orcs, and humans in 3.x, especially small races. Now I'm willing to give them all a fair shake. I may not like how warped the moral compass of the game is, but it is still a fun game.
Warped away from what? The rest of pop culture that focuses on basically good heroes? Again, there is only a suggestion that players not play evil characters, and "unaligned" covers plenty of evil-curious ground. Warped implies bent away from the norm, and I don't think WotC is the one advocating a warped world view.
I don't even have any idea at all what those are. If they use the 4e mechanics, I might consider them...but frankly, right now the only system I like at all is 4e.
Hol and Kult aren't based on D&D, much less 4e; they are entire games unto themselves.
Look, generally, I think system matters, and if you want to play a game about exploring evil, you should play a game ABOUT exploring evil, which 4e isn't. 4e, and D&D in general, isn't a generic system. It has certain design goals and presuppositions. You can subvert them and modify them to a certain extent (Dark Sun and Ebberon both are great examples of subtly subverting a lot of the "givens" that go along with D&D), but after a while, if you'll excuse my metaphor, you're better off buying a sports car than putting racing tires on a pickup truck.
We really don't need the utter trash of the BoVD marring the name of the game in the new edition too.
But maybe they'd do it right this time. Like Bards!
If you can't find players who want to play evil, I don't think a book is going to help much.
The general idea was that there should be a handful of things like feats and powers to lend just the slightest mechanical credence to the fluff of being "evil". BUT...it's pretty true that the only thing that could really make a power or feat "evil" would be things lik necrotic damage or the like. There are plenty viscious enough options as-is, unfortunately. So I'll let that go.
What kind of rules though? There are no rules that say you have to be good, only a suggestion that you not be evil/chaotic evil because it makes party cohesion difficult. I would let a player I trusted play "evil" if they wanted to, and there aren't any rules against that.
Besides, what you're advocating sounds an awful lot like Unaligned to me. Which, hey, has just as much support as good and lawful good and only a smidge more support than evil. Chaotic Evil, in 4e terms, is either totally nihilistic or psychopathic. Neither lends itself to a team game.
I guess I'd call what I want "smart evil", which in the end, does seem more unaligned than evil...and the same is true of "smart good". Chaotic Evil could never work in a mixed party, but one CE character with a couple of Evil and a couple of Unaligned characters couldn't be anything BUT an evil party and would still be just cohesive enough to bring about their sinister plans.
That said, I don't consider Hannibal Lecter evil in any way at all...I think he's a very nice gentleman...as long as you're reasonable and polite.
Such is the beauty of the Ebberon setting, that all of the intelligent races are fleshed out and good examples are just as possible as evil examples. Playing truly monstrously evil? Sounds like a psychopath or a sociopath to me, if it's in the realm of human understanding at all. There are games for that, but they certainly aren't D&D (any edition).
Agreed about Eberron, but that currently only applies to 3.5. In Eberron, Orcs were nature-loving but still barbaric good guys, and goblinoids were honorable and generally trustworhy warriors. As it stands, half-orcs would be a poor lip-service nod to the status of orcs in Eberron, and goblinoids haven't gotten more than a nod in the back of the MM which are even recommended against using. If they all each get at least a full stat-block as PC races in Eberron, I'll be happy.
As for monstrously evil...I meant evil monstrous races. Should've worded that better, I guess. But, psychopaths and sociopaths would be fun as long as I didn't get slapped with a bunch of arbitrary penalties that have nothing at all to do with the "condition". Getting to be Dexter in a game would be rather entertaining, I think.
I don't think there's nearly enough pagecount for "pure evil" stuff to justify an entire book. Being generous, I could see two dozen pages devoted to it (in the fluff-lite approach that 4e takes), and those would be divided between player information and DM information. An entire book would need to be fluffed up, and I mean that in the worst way possible. Then, I doubt it'd sell to the standards WotC is currently looking for.
The level of abstraction present in the game already provides for a lot of the mechanical effects you want. Want a ritual that uses sacrifice instead of components? People are just components, spend 100gp on slaves you'll murder rather than scrolls and candles you'll burn. There, you have an evil ritual that operates by sacrifice, AND it doesn't break the game economy.
I mentioned in a later post after the one you quoted that there might not be enough to support a full book, in which case as long as it's all still in the same book, I dont' care what they call it or what else is in it. I just dont want to hunt through half a dozen...or even 3...books to find each and all of the hints and tips and such on evil games.
You're right about the abstraction of the game. I've even advocated the abstractions as the reason that martial controllers could seemingly do magical things without actually doing them. But, since everyone else shoots that down, I guess somehow their lack of vision rubbed off on me. I'll look to fixin that.
Warped away from what? The rest of pop culture that focuses on basically good heroes? Again, there is only a suggestion that players not play evil characters, and "unaligned" covers plenty of evil-curious ground. Warped implies bent away from the norm, and I don't think WotC is the one advocating a warped world view.
Warped away from the fact that there is no good or evil. But, I know as far as the game worlds are concerned, good and evil are real. I guess what bothers me most is people in the real world who mistakenly believe that good and evil are actual things, or even universal concepts, for that matter. They're just human constructs that didn't matter before us, and won't matter after we're gone. And, only in my opinion, don't matter now either. (Again, I actually don't like Nietzsche, so don't credit my outlook to him. I just like how my name bothers some others.)
Popular doesn't mean correct, and neither does unpopular. Things are either correct or they aren't. A society of intelligent people will find correct things popular. A society of idiots will find incorrect things popular. It's not hard to guess what I think of global society in general, such as it is. Even if that's not quite the case, the notion of "beliefs" of any sort is less than irrelevant to me.
Hol and Kult aren't based on D&D, much less 4e; they are entire games unto themselves.
Look, generally, I think system matters, and if you want to play a game about exploring evil, you should play a game ABOUT exploring evil, which 4e isn't. 4e, and D&D in general, isn't a generic system. It has certain design goals and presuppositions. You can subvert them and modify them to a certain extent (Dark Sun and Ebberon both are great examples of subtly subverting a lot of the "givens" that go along with D&D), but after a while, if you'll excuse my metaphor, you're better off buying a sports car than putting racing tires on a pickup truck.
System is all that really matters to me. I like this system. Gurps is garbage. WW is garbage. Paranoia was garbage. The list goes on...and don't even get me started on that poorly-written Lovecraftian crap. I'll concede though that it's not really WotC's job to make some evil setting or something.
Also, I kinda figured Kult and Hol were games unto themselves. But, they can't be any different than the other games I listed. Their systems will be crap, and they'll treat evil like some otherworldly horror or madness or some nonsense like that.
Eh...I give up.
But maybe they'd do it right this time. Like Bards!
There is no one in the universe skilled enough to redeem the BoVD in a similar manner as the Bard.
There is no one in the universe skilled enough to redeem the BoVD in a similar manner as the Bard.
Oh ye of little faith.;)
But maybe they'd do it right this time. Like Bards!
The only extra thing they did right *extra* with bards from 3.5 (Where Bards were the only thing done right in the change from 3e), was having the role section carefully and slowly explain how to use a bard to all the people who couldn't get 'battlefield control' out of all the battlefield control abilities the 3.5 bard had.
And by tactics I mean in and out of combat.
The only extra thing they did right *extra* with bards from 3.5 (Where Bards were the only thing done right in the change from 3e), was having the role section carefully and slowly explain how to use a bard to all the people who couldn't get 'battlefield control' out of all the battlefield control abilities the 3.5 bard had.
I meant that bards were done right in 4th ed.
Tl;DR
I love you.
With that in mind, I'd definitely support a book looking at evil and unaligned characters with the same approach that Heroes of Horror took (and get Ari Marmell on there, the man knows how to write! Vampire the Requiem is an awesome game filled with an in depth analysis of degeneration, and his WOTC stuff has been great as well).
I doubt it'd happen, but if Wizards asked me to work on such a book, I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.
And thanks.
I know they throw the "heroes" cheese at you on the back of the first 3 books, but the only thing I've seen forcing play style is the outwardly malicious gods being separated into the DMG, but it makes sense game-wise for the DM to have those gods under DM rationing regardless; they are group-breakers. I think the original intent was to avoid parties of loners, which being a jerk when one sees fit tends to do.
Who really needs a book to run an evil campaign?
I agree that alignment based books (& hopefully alignment in general) should stay away because of its cartoonish, evil-for-evil's-sake morality. A Dark Lord Destiny sounds fun, but a usual Lord Destiny would do as well (for all I know, one exists already).
I know they throw the "heroes" cheese at you on the back of the first 3 books, but the only thing I've seen forcing play style is the outwardly malicious gods being separated into the DMG, but it makes sense game-wise for the DM to have those gods under DM rationing regardless; they are group-breakers. I think the original intent was to avoid parties of loners, which being a jerk when one sees fit tends to do.
Fair enough, that's a respectable view.
I've bolded a section for emphasis.
I agree with the bolded part, but I disagree with their decision to avoid it. I think that such problems in "evil" parties arise because of the players, not the "nature of evil".
Ultimately though, those aspects of the game are perhaps the least important, so they should be relegated to books other than PHBs. If it has to be the DMG, so be it.
I never saw a problem with the 3E BoVD. On some levels it was very cartoony, and I do agree that more depth could be given to the subject, but I also think that a lot of people missed some of the points of the book. Eating a lot, being really skinny, and hurting yourself aren't evil; however, having such a dedication to an evil being that you are willing to sacrifice your safety and essentially alter your body (via self mutilation, starving yourself, etc) is evil. It's 'evil' because the evil has tainted you to such an extent that you put the goals of evil before even your basic needs and/or you put your own selfish desires before the safety of other people with intent to harm other people. Examples might include the person who knows they have a serious STD an yet still sleeps around and gets enjoyment not only from the physical aspects of what they are doing, but also from knowing they are spreading misery to others; a glutton such as Harry potter's cousin who couldn't stand to see Harry even have a piece of birthday cake and had to eat it all himself; I'm sure there are other examples. Aside from that, you knew what you were getting into before picking up the book. Some people found issue with the nudity in the book which is somewhat amusing considering that the 3E MM's depiction of the Nymph showed bush - something that I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention.
As for needing a book to run an evil game, I don't think it is exactly needed, but I do think there are many DMs and many groups who could benefit from such a book. Go to the "What should a DM do" and "What should a player do" sections of the forums and read through some of the problems which were started due to evil characters. Obviously -to me anyway- enough people have a problem with it that there are numerous threads devoted to the topic; some groups refuse to allow evil characters. I think that an evil book written in the same manner as 3E's Heroes of Horror would be a great help.
I am a proud owner of both the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, which I read simultaneously to maintain my neutral alignment.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with over the top SUPER EVIL. This is fantasy, villains that cackle manically while bathing in the blood virgins and listening to a quire of screaming babies being slowly crushed to death is a perfectly valid trope, even if it's rather disgusting and horrific. Subtle evil is all well and interesting, but evil that's as blatant as a sledge hammer upside your grandmothers head has its own place as well. That kind of evil might not be everybody's cup of tea, but for those of you that don't want it there is a simple solution, don't buy it.
I want to agree with you on this but it seemed as if The Book of Vile Darkness didnt know it was cartoonishly evil. It acted as if it was partaking in a serious discussion. Plus painting all bondage enthusiants/fat people/ skinny people as evil was fairly offensive.
My question in all this is:
Who really needs a book to run an evil campaign?
No one needs it, but it certainly can be of help. The greatest problem most people have with evil characters is that they either won't work well with other evil types or just cannot work with good guys. This, of course, is absurd. Anyone who's ever played an evil character knows otherwise. That being said, a book for "fallen heroes" or "heroes of darkness" could definitely include tips on how to reduce tensions in the group.
I, personally, have played a great many evil characters. They are some of the most fun (my absolute favorite one is described in the spoiler), and they have performed well in groups that were all evil, morally ambiguous, and even mostly good.
Show
My favorite evil character: Vash, a v3.5 half-demon cleric that worshipped herself. She even had the leadership feat to acquire some apostles. She kept a journal of her adventures that she was eventually going to edit into the bible of her own religion. It was a thing of beauty and now I have just convinced myself to remake her for 4e.
Just a quick question. I never picked up the BoVD or BoED. Are they really as cartoonish and horrible as people are saying in posts?
In a word: Yes.
Bel
Not so much cartoonish as over the top,
Which was kind of the point. It wasn't a book about regular evil, it was a book about VILE evil. It wasn't about characters that are only morally misguided or those that are just looking for a quick path to power, it was about characters that devote themselves to evil whole heartedly and with full knowledge of just how wicked they are. The Book of Vile Darkness was about evil with a capital 'E', the kind of evil that no amount of moral relativism should be able to reconcile.
Which was kind of the point. It wasn't a book about regular evil, it was a book about VILE evil. It wasn't about characters that are only morally misguided or those that are just looking for a quick path to power, it was about characters that devote themselves to evil whole heartedly and with full knowledge of just how wicked they are. The Book of Vile Darkness was about evil with a capital 'E', the kind of evil that no amount of moral relativism should be able to reconcile.
Crap...now I have to withdraw my support for a 4e BoVD. I just can't accept that something can exist outside moral relativism...aside from pure randomness, but I don't believe "pure" randomness is at all possible within human behavior.
Honestly though, I think BoVD (Is it wrong that I always think Buttload of Venereal Disease everytime I see that?) should be allowed to fade away. It would be great, but it just can't be done well. There's not enough worthwhile unique mechanics in an alignment neutral mechanical system to justify it. Oh well, fun thought while it lasted.
Crap...now I have to withdraw my support for a 4e BoVD. I just can't accept that something can exist outside moral relativism...aside from pure randomness, but I don't believe "pure" randomness is at all possible within human behavior.
Honestly though, I think BoVD (Is it wrong that I always think Buttload of Venereal Disease everytime I see that?) should be allowed to fade away. It would be great, but it just can't be done well. There's not enough worthwhile unique mechanics in an alignment neutral mechanical system to justify it. Oh well, fun thought while it lasted.
I still think that it could be done and done very well if it were to be put together similar to how Heroes of Horror was done.
One of the more famous villains that I have in my campaigns is actually the party sponsor. It was a surprise at the end of the campaign to learn that he was actually a close servant of Asmodeus, and that his actions to instruct the party were actually part of a labyrinthine plane to release an ancient god so that it could be destroyed properly this time.
A villain that I'm working on now is going to be the major foe for the party once they hit Paragon, and he's going to be something of a man that knows what he is doing is wrong. While he has a "tragic" past, he is bitter to the point of truly vile darkness, though... He could be redeemed with the right circumstances, I doubt that the players will discover them. Of course, should they go out of their way to look, their dilligence would be rewarded.