Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

Another very simple piece of DMing advice from the 3e DMG (among other sources) on NPCs:

Don't be afraid to make them evil.

Click to expand...

One of the challenges of DMing is realizing that you are (among other things) the bad guy. In fact, you're a whole bunch of bad guys and girls.

One of the perils of DMing is setting the PCs up against some "BBEG" without ever really establishing why this particular character is so bad. It takes a certain intestinal fortitude to portray the evil ones honestly. But if you don't, what's the point of having good and evil at all?

Ahnehnois said:

One of the perils of DMing is setting the PCs up against some "BBEG" without ever really establishing why this particular character is so bad. It takes a certain intestinal fortitude to portray the evil ones honestly. But if you don't, what's the point of having good and evil at all?

Click to expand...

You don't need good and evil to make a conflict interesting or engaging, though, as so many fantasy authors outside High Fantasy have shown. Good vs Evil is all too often a lazy crutch, sadly.

Not that I don't LOVE smashing true Evil personally! I do. NG Bards and Clerics and LG Paladins/Knights are my favourite PCs to play, and it is disappointing to me when I face someone supposedly evil but who merely seems kind of "bad".

The 2E Villain's Handbook is very good on this whole area.

Ruin Explorer said:

You don't need good and evil to make a conflict interesting or engaging, though, as so many fantasy authors outside High Fantasy have shown. Good vs Evil is all too often a lazy crutch, sadly.

Click to expand...

No, indeed you don't. There are plenty of other conflicts.

The thing to me is that it's important that whatever evil there is, you don't half-ass it. I hate faux evil.

Agamon said:

That's not a "no", that's a "yes, but".

Click to expand...

No, it's still a "No." It just happens to be a "No, but..."

"Yes" would have been the wrong answer. "Yes" is not a universally better answer than "No". "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer.

Celebrim said:

No, it's still a "No." It just happens to be a "No, but..."

"Yes" would have been the wrong answer. "Yes" is not a universally better answer than "No". "No" is a perfectly reasonable answer.

Click to expand...

It's all about presentation. Note how I worded it:

Agamon said:

Sure you can probably get some sort of idea what's generally above from clues in the sewers, but to know exactly what's above you? Probably not.

Click to expand...

You certainly could say, "No. You might kinda know something, but what you're trying to do? Definitely not."

One gives the player the sense that he has some sort of agency in the game without giving him carte blanche, the other looks like the GM flashing a big red stop sign, even though both are fundamentally saying the same thing.

I like that my players get to contribute to the story of the game, otherwise, I feel like I'm reading them my novel and I get bored quickly. Sure, you need to reign in outrageous ideas, but even outrageous ideas have a kernel of plausibility somewhere in them.

Don't be afraid to make them evil.

Click to expand...

This is good advice, but kind of like salt: a little bit really helps bring out the more subtle flavors in your cooking, but if you add too much... everything just tastes like salt.

The occasional really vile villain stands out much better on a background of self-interested jerks, well-intentioned extremists, bigots, forces of nature, rivals for resources, misunderstandings, and good people who legitimately oppose the PCs' cause.

I tend to make all of my villains be heroes in their own minds (as absurd as those justifications may seem to outsiders), but the occasional villain who does vile things because they enjoy them adds a nice bit of contrast.

Not that I think I need to tell you that, [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION]. Just thinking out loud.

Ruin Explorer said:

The 2E Villain's Handbook is very good on this whole area.

Click to expand...

This is indeed an excellent book. It's one of the handful of 2E products that I still read with anything but nostalgia. It's got a lot of good ideas.

Cheers!
Kinak

Ahnehnois said:

The thing to me is that it's important that whatever evil there is, you don't half-ass it. I hate faux evil.

Click to expand...

Faux evil is bad. But I hate faux good even more.

On the whole, I don't find modern culture has a problem representing bad. Over the top scene chewing baby eating villains throwing rocks at puppies are pretty darn common. Heck, GRR Martin protagonizes a few of them, leading to a lot of fans going, "Hey wait a minute.. oh right, I forgot he was a monster.", or worse, never noticing that the guy they are rooting for is a monster.

Actual good guys are hard to come by though. Inevitably, good guys are one of two forms of lawful stupid - naïve types that just get abused by bad guys (unless they learn to be kick butt evil style) or else indistinguishable from the bad guys save for hat color and the fact that if anything they are more despicable (in which case you root for the guys in black hats).

Anti-villain versus the Grimdark BBEG is one of the two standard tropes of modern fiction. The other is, "We have met the enemy and they are us." Usually you get both. Merely having one or the other is nice change of pace IMO.

If I could get even as much nuance as Avatar the Last Airbender, I'd be happy.

[MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION]
No doubt. Moderation in all things.

I tend to have plenty of opposition forces be people acting in their own legitimate self-interests. Some are of alien mentalities (or are just mindless) and simply don't conform to human notions of morality. Others are pawns of greater evil forces that do their masters' bidding out of fear. Sometimes, they're just opportunists.

The example I was thinking of is a case where I had an undead nemesis play something like The Dark Knight's joker; an anarchist bent on destroying the world's order by force and persuading or coercing people to his cause. I was certainly uncomfortable with the idea of portraying a character whose villainy was manifest in hooking children on drugs or convincing people to sexually assault or murder each other. But the long and short of it is that if I'd dumbed the character down, it would have been insulting the players' intelligence, and it would have taken away both the threat level of the creature's presence and the satisfaction of its demise.

The important thing in terms of DMing advice is to understand that portraying something is not endorsing it. With a player, this distinction is clearer, but given the far-reaching influence of the DM, it's hard to get that nuance down that just because the authority figure at the table is acting evil in the guise of one particular NPC, it doesn't represent the entirety of the DM's thinking.

Celebrim said:

Faux evil is bad. But I hate faux good even more.

Click to expand...

True. This being the DMing thread, talking about evil seems more natural. But having NPCs be the good guy just because is equally problematic.

On the whole, I don't find modern culture has a problem representing bad.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think we do. On one hand, there's simply a lack of stomach in a lot of cases. I understand not wanting to delve into graphic elements sometimes, but the more intellectual side gets dumbed down as well.

On the other hand, I see a lot of straw man portrayals of evil that are so blatant and obvious and lack rationale.

I don't bother defining good or bad. I give the NPCs motivations/impulses and goals/desires.

Especially when it comes to non-humanoids, it's important for me to differentiate what they are by showing what they do (this goes back to mimesis, we were discussing earlier).