If the players perceive a difference --which they are enjoying-- then sure. The question 'are they really evil' is kinda moot.
Playing Evil
Hussar
Legend
I'm not so sure.
Well, of course, "if they're having fun, who cares" is always true. But, isn't the point of playing an "evil" campaign to actually explore the issues and themes that are contained therein? If the party doesn't really care, then, well, why bother? Just run a standard game and be done with it - a whole lot less work for me as the DM to be honest.
But, if the players actually do want to explore the morality of the situation, from the other side of the tracks so to speak, then the question of "are they really evil" is the central point.
Again, I'm thinking that D&D just isn't the right vehicle for this. The game is not designed to explore this sort of thing IMO. Like I said, the whole Kill-Loot-Level Up cycle that D&D promotes is too amoral to really delve into this without a whole lot of reworking.
Well, of course, "if they're having fun, who cares" is always true. But, isn't the point of playing an "evil" campaign to actually explore the issues and themes that are contained therein? If the party doesn't really care, then, well, why bother? Just run a standard game and be done with it - a whole lot less work for me as the DM to be honest.
But, if the players actually do want to explore the morality of the situation, from the other side of the tracks so to speak, then the question of "are they really evil" is the central point.
Again, I'm thinking that D&D just isn't the right vehicle for this. The game is not designed to explore this sort of thing IMO. Like I said, the whole Kill-Loot-Level Up cycle that D&D promotes is too amoral to really delve into this without a whole lot of reworking.
pawsplay
Hero
Is there a difference between how a CG party approaches things and a LG party? A group of dwarves versus a group of elves? I'm going to say, "Yes, a big difference." You will never see the same adventure played the same way twice. Good characters and evil characters have different approaches to similar problems.
Yes. Let's go back to the servant girl who helps the princess escape (for whatever reason that motivates the poor girl). The good rogue is not going to murder her as a witness; the assassin might. The evil knight might murder her, while the good knight is not going to murder anyone at all. Good characters have less problems with making enemies, but more problems with avoiding "collateral damage." Good characters attract more loyalty, evil characters can more credibly generate fear.
Two lawful good paladins can play completely different. Imagine one, we'll call him Sir Clark of Smallville, is a shining knight. He believes in fair play, honor, mercy, and just punishment. He rides bravely into battle, affords his opponents every opportunity to surrender, and looks forward to either glorious death or the rewards of noble service. There is another equally honorable paladin of his order, named Dame Diana of Hespera. She believes in order, the law, mercy, and just punishment. She regards the battle against evil as serious business and would never give an opponent an opportunity based on a misguided sense of fair play as if combat were some kind of game. She is extremely cautious about endangerous her companions or bystanders, and looks forward to a quiet retirement, although she is resigned to the likelihood of dying in battle against the forces of evil.
Sir Clark might very well challenge the evil Baron to a duel, or threaten to simply lay siege to his castle. Dame Diana might look for an opportunity to ambush him while hunting, or failing to discover an opportune time to attack, might try to challenge him as well, as a less desirable option (she lives by the maxim of Sun Tzu that first you must become victorious, then you enter battle).
There is so much potential difference between two characters of the same alignment with similar codes of conduct, that the differences between Good and Evil are truly vast.
Both knights would likely go through the front door and demand that princess. If they were attacked (which they most likely would be) they'd kill everyone attacking them until they stopped getting attacked. They then ride off with the princess (after looting the bodies of course).
One just uses more foul language in the process.
True. Lawful Good fighters might get very frustrated with all the idiots intent on dying for their worthless Baron and let loose a few choice expletives.
Every romance novel has pretty much the same story... people fall in love, and attempt to be together. Complaining that both good and evil PCs apply violence is pretty much the same as admitting that a fighter or wizard can be either good or evil.
Nonetheless, the decision to apply violence is never the same in its application. Both good and evil characters can have honor, but it's a different kind of honor. Both good and evil characters might think of collateral damage, but for different reasons. There is a difference between a good rogue using Stealth to avoid unnecessary battles in order to take out the evil Baron, versus an evil Assassin using Stealth to get close to as many members of the Baron's family as possible in order to execute them all, down to the youngest child.
Hussar said:
My experience suggests otherwise. In the 3.5 campaign I've been running, the party is mainly good and neutral, and they have really wrestled with some decisions. Characters have taken great measures in order to preserve or restore their good alignment. I don't make it easy. In many situations, I offer an obvious alternative to the right thing, and the only immediate consequence of choosing evil is that the characters become evil. And yet time and again, players will look for ways to avoid the evil option.
Star Wars is another game where many problems are solved by the application of violence. And yet, the Light Side and Dark Side are important themes in Star Wars.
D&D need not be amoral, and if it is, individual characters need not be amoral. The fact that many people choose to run it as a morally neutral maze game does not mean that's the only way to run it... or even the simplest. At its heart, D&D is a game about fortune seekers, each of whom is empowered to make any decision in a fashion they choose. In Monopoly, you cannot suddenly decide to burn down the Shoe's hotels in an act of arson, but in D&D arson is a possibility.
In fact, my players had a run-in with a powerful druid, due to their wanton forest-burning during a series of running battles.
Evil looks almost exactly like good when it takes a long-term view.
Afrodyte
Explorer
All this talk of evil campaigns makes me yearn to run a D&D game based on Inglourious Basterds. Imagine a half-elven ranger comes up to the group:
My name is Adran Varis and I need me eight soldiers. Eight elven-blooded soldiers. Now, y'all might of heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we'll be leaving a little earlier. We're gonna be dropped into Lala Land, dressed as civilians. And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing goblins.
Members of of the goblinoid races conquered elven lands through murder, torture, intimation, and terror. And that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. Now, I don't know about y'all, but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half this kingdom and then jump out of ain' flying ship to teach the goblins lessons in humanity. Goblin ain't got no humanity. They're the foot soldiers of an elf-hatin', mass murderin' maniac and they need to be dee-stroyed. That's why every son of a bitch we find wearin' a goblin's uniform, they're gonna die.
We will be cruel to the goblins and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies their brothers we leave behind us and the goblins will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our spells, at our arrows, and the edge of our blades. And the goblins will be sickened by us, the goblins will talk about us and the goblins will fear us. And when the goblins close their eyes at night and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they've done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with.
Sooooound good?!
But I got a word of warning to all would-be warriors. When you join my command, you take on a debit. A debit you owe me personally. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred goblin scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y'all will git me one hundred goblin scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead goblins. Or you will die tryin'.
My name is Adran Varis and I need me eight soldiers. Eight elven-blooded soldiers. Now, y'all might of heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we'll be leaving a little earlier. We're gonna be dropped into Lala Land, dressed as civilians. And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing goblins.
Members of of the goblinoid races conquered elven lands through murder, torture, intimation, and terror. And that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. Now, I don't know about y'all, but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half this kingdom and then jump out of a
in' flying ship to teach the goblins lessons in humanity. Goblin ain't got no humanity. They're the foot soldiers of an elf-hatin', mass murderin' maniac and they need to be dee-stroyed. That's why every son of a bitch we find wearin' a goblin's uniform, they're gonna die. We will be cruel to the goblins and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies their brothers we leave behind us and the goblins will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our spells, at our arrows, and the edge of our blades. And the goblins will be sickened by us, the goblins will talk about us and the goblins will fear us. And when the goblins close their eyes at night and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they've done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with.
Sooooound good?!
But I got a word of warning to all would-be warriors. When you join my command, you take on a debit. A debit you owe me personally. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred goblin scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y'all will git me one hundred goblin scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead goblins. Or you will die tryin'.
Last edited:
All this talk of evil campaigns makes me yearn to run a D&D game based on Inglourious Basterds. Imagine a half-elven ranger comes up to the group:
My name is Adran Varis and I need me eight soldiers. Eight elven-blooded soldiers. Now, y'all might of heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we'll be leaving a little earlier. We're gonna be dropped into Lala Land, dressed as civilians. And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing goblins.
Members of of the goblinoid races conquered elven lands through murder, torture, intimation, and terror. And that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. Now, I don't know about y'all, but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half this kingdom and then jump out of a
We will be cruel to the goblins and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies their brothers we leave behind us and the goblins will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our spells, at our arrows, and the edge of our blades. And the goblins will be sickened by us, the goblins will talk about us and the goblins will fear us. And when the goblins close their eyes at night and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they've done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with.
Sooooound good?!
But I got a word of warning to all would-be warriors. When you join my command, you take on a debit. A debit you owe me personally. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred goblin scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y'all will git me one hundred goblin scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead goblins. Or you will die tryin'.
I'd join!
Belisarius
First Post
All this talk of evil campaigns makes me yearn to run a D&D game based on Inglourious Basterds. Imagine a half-elven ranger comes up to the group:
My name is Adran Varis and I need me eight soldiers. Eight elven-blooded soldiers. Now, y'all might of heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we'll be leaving a little earlier. We're gonna be dropped into Lala Land, dressed as civilians. And once we're in enemy territory, as a bushwackin' guerrilla army, we're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing goblins.
Members of of the goblinoid races conquered elven lands through murder, torture, intimation, and terror. And that's exactly what we're gonna do to them. Now, I don't know about y'all, but I sure as hell didn't come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half this kingdom and then jump out of a
We will be cruel to the goblins and through our cruelty they will know who we are. They will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, disfigured bodies their brothers we leave behind us and the goblins will not be able to help themselves from imagining the cruelty their brothers endured at our spells, at our arrows, and the edge of our blades. And the goblins will be sickened by us, the goblins will talk about us and the goblins will fear us. And when the goblins close their eyes at night and their subconscious tortures them for the evil they've done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with.
Sooooound good?!
But I got a word of warning to all would-be warriors. When you join my command, you take on a debit. A debit you owe me personally. Each and every man under my command owes me one hundred goblin scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y'all will git me one hundred goblin scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead goblins. Or you will die tryin'.
Awesome! I'd play too.
"Good" characters slowly being corrupted by the madness of war and the lure of greed can make for a compelling story, and my players started down that path without prompting.
I ported Morality from WoD to PF/3.x, and I found it really adds to the atmosphere of evil. My players don't take things seriously unless there are in-game mechanics for evil.
DEGENERATION
DC....Act
2.....Selfish thoughts.
4.....Minor selfish act (withholding charity).
6.....Injury to innocent (negligent or otherwise).
8.....Petty theft (shoplifting).
10....Grand theft (burglary).
12....Intentional, mass damage (arson or armed robber).
14....Brutal crime (manslaughter or mutilation).
16....Planned crime (murder, breaking a sworn oath).
18....Monstrous crime (serial murder, treachery, or rape).
20....Utter perversion, heinous act (mass murder or ritual sacrifice).
Roll a d20. Neutral characters can add +5 to their roll, Evil can add +10.
Compare the total with the listed DC for the act.
If the total is less than the DC, the character gains a question mark next to his or her alignment. Three marks result in alignment change, from Good to Neutral or Neutral to Evil. If an Evil creature acquires three marks, the Gods change it into a form more appropriate to its nature.
REDEMPTION
DC....Act
20....Charity or good works
18....Privately expressed remorse
16....Confession before a priest, an angel, or the community
14....Penance
12....Reparations
10....Forgiveness by victim
The first time a character completes an act of redemption after gaining a question mark, roll a d20. Compare the total with the listed DC for the act.
If the total is equal or greater than the DC given, remove the question mark. If a roll is failed, that particular act no longer offers redemption until the character removes the mark in some other way.
If all methods fail, the character cannot ever remove that mark, and should take care not to gain more. Alignment change is irreversible, although a character can certainly take the role of a guilt-wracked ex-villain trying not to fall any further down the spiral...
Gort
Explorer
The game in my sig certainly worked well.
I think I'd give you a few pointers on how to run an Evil campaign:
1) Make sure the party has a really good reason for working together. Have the good guys really pressing them so if they screw each other over they're going to die. Alternatively, have an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful (as far as the PCs are concerned, anyway) evil boss watching them at all times for signs of disloyalty or going against the mission.
2) Make sure each adventure will obviously result in tangible gain for the characters. This could be land, money, power, destruction of a rival, revenge, something like that. No "defend the town for the nebulous possibility of reward" - those villagers better have a good reward on hand if they want THIS party to help.
3) Make the PCs as a team so you all know what your jobs are - you might even put a leader in charge who is backed by the ALL POWERFUL BOSS GUY to settle any disputes. (obviously, make sure out of character that your players are AOK)
4) Make sure that the PCs are always under threat, so they don't turn on each other.
I think I'd give you a few pointers on how to run an Evil campaign:
1) Make sure the party has a really good reason for working together. Have the good guys really pressing them so if they screw each other over they're going to die. Alternatively, have an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful (as far as the PCs are concerned, anyway) evil boss watching them at all times for signs of disloyalty or going against the mission.
2) Make sure each adventure will obviously result in tangible gain for the characters. This could be land, money, power, destruction of a rival, revenge, something like that. No "defend the town for the nebulous possibility of reward" - those villagers better have a good reward on hand if they want THIS party to help.
3) Make the PCs as a team so you all know what your jobs are - you might even put a leader in charge who is backed by the ALL POWERFUL BOSS GUY to settle any disputes. (obviously, make sure out of character that your players are AOK)
4) Make sure that the PCs are always under threat, so they don't turn on each other.
Last edited:
That could be the point. Or an evil campaign could be simply be a cathartic exercise in acting out, with no deeper meaning or exploratory goals. Or perhaps the group is looking for a different set of tactical challenges: fighting the Holy Church and her paladins instead of the Evil Cult and it's demons. The 'point' varies.
Agreed.
It's easy enough to do, if that's the experience the players are looking for. You don't really need rules support to throw moral quandaries at your players.
DrunkonDuty
he/him
Re: does it make a difference if the actions of both Good and Evil characters all turn out to be (basically) the same I would say: It depends on the person playing. One player will only enjoy playing Evil if they get to kick puppies, ie: makes a definite difference in game actions. Another player might well enjoy the roleplaying of all the nasty thoughts but never do anything particularly untoward.
eg: I've had friends tell me about how much fun they had playing their character in X way (not on the Good/Evil thing specifically); how they reacted to this, thought that, was so close to doing the other. I, sitting in the chair next to them, hadn't noticed much of anything different in their game that night. BUT, and this is the point I'm drunkenly wandering towards, roleplaying is such an internal game, it's so personal, that external differences in game play are not required. Sure, it can be more fun for all concerned if everyone shares what's going on in their characters' heads. And for many folks the sharing is a big part of the fun. But it isn't necessary for everyone.
So if the players get fun out it, then yes, Virginia, there is a difference.
So, Hussar, could you do me a favour if it's not a hassle? Ask your players if they felt any difference in the game for playing Evil. I'm curious to know. I shall ask my mates the same.
On the Proactive/Reactive thing: I think that the environment the PCs find themselves is an important factor. In Heroic gaming the Heroes will act to make the game world fit their POV. If it already fits the characters' POV then they will react to changes. If the game world is opposed to them they will fight to change it. F'rinstance: imagine a campaign in which the heroes must overthrow an Evil tyrant. I can see the Good Guys being pretty proactive here.
I can also see Bad Guys going against an Evil game world in order to put themselves on the top of the Evil heap. And I grant that this is not something that the Good Guys would do in an equvialent situation. So the Bad Guys are more likely to be proactive in more situations*. I guess there are just times when being a Good Guy means sitting on your arse and enjoying the fruits of Goodness. I shall think of it as the rewards of Goodness.
Then there's the players who just consider Alignment to be a box to tick on the character sheet that determines what spells and magic items are usable. And that's cool too.
ANyway, out of beer. Off to the pub.
cheers all.
* oooo, Italics. I must be drunk.
eg: I've had friends tell me about how much fun they had playing their character in X way (not on the Good/Evil thing specifically); how they reacted to this, thought that, was so close to doing the other. I, sitting in the chair next to them, hadn't noticed much of anything different in their game that night. BUT, and this is the point I'm drunkenly wandering towards, roleplaying is such an internal game, it's so personal, that external differences in game play are not required. Sure, it can be more fun for all concerned if everyone shares what's going on in their characters' heads. And for many folks the sharing is a big part of the fun. But it isn't necessary for everyone.
So if the players get fun out it, then yes, Virginia, there is a difference.
So, Hussar, could you do me a favour if it's not a hassle? Ask your players if they felt any difference in the game for playing Evil. I'm curious to know. I shall ask my mates the same.
On the Proactive/Reactive thing: I think that the environment the PCs find themselves is an important factor. In Heroic gaming the Heroes will act to make the game world fit their POV. If it already fits the characters' POV then they will react to changes. If the game world is opposed to them they will fight to change it. F'rinstance: imagine a campaign in which the heroes must overthrow an Evil tyrant. I can see the Good Guys being pretty proactive here.
I can also see Bad Guys going against an Evil game world in order to put themselves on the top of the Evil heap. And I grant that this is not something that the Good Guys would do in an equvialent situation. So the Bad Guys are more likely to be proactive in more situations*. I guess there are just times when being a Good Guy means sitting on your arse and enjoying the fruits of Goodness. I shall think of it as the rewards of Goodness.
Then there's the players who just consider Alignment to be a box to tick on the character sheet that determines what spells and magic items are usable. And that's cool too.
ANyway, out of beer. Off to the pub.
cheers all.
* oooo, Italics. I must be drunk.
Similar Threads
