Evil Socities in DnD

[Hand of Evil]

I think every one knows my soapbox, define what is evil in your game and build your world myth around it...and let your players know it.

Lord of Light by Roger Zelzany, had an interesting take on it, what does socity find ugly and horrid? I see this as the vilianfing or making taboo a subject and try to base it around the gods I use in my games.

So, some examples (you can see relations in the real world)

• Slavery & mind control = evil
• Canibism = evil
• Orcs = evil -- Note: killing orcs is NOT an evil act because they are evil
• Cold Blooded Murder = evil but not against anything defined as evil, because then you are doing good
• God X = evil
• Worship of God X = evil -- killing worshippers of god X is NOT an evil act because they are evil

If you and your players know what evil is the more interesting your games can be.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's an odd one - it's one of my most-referred 3e books, but only because of the monsters - it serves as another Monster Manual. In terms of the actual material, it's a huge let-down.



Yep, exactly. I would have dearly loved to see a book that talked in-depth about how to build moral ambiguity into the campaign, how to run a really satisfying Evil campaign, and about topics like slavery and drugs in the game.

What we got was vile damage, and a new set of power-ups, and prestige classes that won't ever be used for PCs (and which are too much damn hassle for most NPCs)... and a "mature audiences" sticker that meant it would pretty much never again be referenced in another D&D product.

As with so much from WotC, the worst thing about it is not that it's bad, it's that it could have been so much better.

I would love to see a book that handles mature themes and real evil aimed at us adults. I am in my 50s and I find cartoonish evil dull. I prefer games with more gray areas because it gives different types of challenges.

I know some people enjoy an evil campaign and I do think it would help to have a book on how to run that and how to play evil. It is not quite as simple as swapping roles the DM playing the good guys the players playing the bad guys.

I can't run an evil campaign because I tend to utterly destroy the party. I don't enjoy watching my good NPCs slaughtered. I played in one well run evil campaign it worked because we didn't play our PCs as selfish monsters we all were in the service of an evil god so we out trying to bring our god's plans to fruition.

To be honest that party worked better together than any good party I ever played in this was for two reasons not advancing our god's plan had consequences so that was more important that anything and if one failed we were all punished,

So the rogue did not steal from the party because he knew if he was caught we would have turned him over to be tortured and sacrificed.

We also were not playing cartoon villains who kill just for killing we were subtle trying not to bring attention to us our bring the attention of the powerful good churches attention on us.

 

[Morrus]

I don't agree with the "sexism and racism are realistic" arguments. What part of a D&D game is realistic?

I don't think players should be made to have "fun" acting out social issues which they may well suffer in real life. I do think that a mature and sensible group could portray such things in a thought-provoking manner.

For me, if it's something that the players themselves have a good chance of having experienced, it's inclusion in a fun, fantasy game should be a very considered decision.

Obviously that's a scale, not a binary choice. But there's definitely a difference between orc war bands sacking villages and PCs being subject to sexism or racism. One is clearly fantasy; the other is uncomfortable.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Here's an anecdotal example of what happened when I added a little racial tension to my fledgling Mystra campaign. I modified the core world so that it was the nation of the Eladrin whom the Shadow Elves invaded (the Wood Elf nation was separate but did take in many of the refugees from the war). The Shadow Elves had been imprisoned by the Eladrin 1000s of years before and broke out taking back their ancient homeland and killing & displacing tens of thousands of Eladrin. This created huge tensions throughout the region with the Eladrin survivors trying to goad the other nations into taking the Shadow Elves down. Eladrin were united in their hatred of the Shadow Elves to the point they were waylaying emissaries from the new Shadow Elf nation in other nation's territory.

Enter my players one of whom loves the idea of the Shadow Elves (I gave them the powers of the Drow but completely reflavoured) and another really wanted to try and Eladrin Cleric. I was very excited by this and urged them both to work out how and why their PCs were working together - I also made several suggestions on how it could work, too. Sadly in the end the Eladrin player changed his mind and decided he couldn't go with it as he felt it would create 'too much tension' within the group.


tl;dr version - tried to create a racial charged party atmosphere but the players really didn't want it. So it might be a good idea but you really have to have the 'right' (i.e. ones who want this in their game) players to pull it off.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't agree with the "sexism and racism are realistic" arguments. What part of a D&D game is realistic?

I don't think players should be made to have "fun" acting out social issues which they may well suffer in real life. I do think that a mature and sensible group could portray such things in a thought-provoking manner.

For me, if it's something that the players themselves have a good chance of having experienced, it's inclusion in a fun, fantasy game should be a very considered decision.

Obviously that's a scale, not a binary choice. But there's definitely a difference between orc war bands sacking villages and PCs being subject to sexism or racism. One is clearly fantasy; the other is uncomfortable.

I have a question for clarification do you have an issue with these themes being included in a setting? Take the drow they are a racist sexist bunch. They believe they are above all other races and they hate surface elves and they are full of misandry.

I agree totally that the PCs should not be subjected to this kind of thing unless the players are on board with it. But I would think if you want to play a good drow in a setting that has them then you pretty much have to expect some distrust for the surface dwellers.

To me that can be fun over coming NPCs expectations. I had a blast playing a female fighter who with the party had to go on a quest to a land where woman were kept veiled and were not allowed to do much without a male present. Some toughs thought they were going to teach me my place and well it wasn't pretty. It was funny watching the rest of the party all males stand there going oh you idiots are going to be so sorry.

The DM did talk to me before hand about this culture to make sure I would be okay with the sexism that went on in it and I was because the entire game world was not like that and I didn't have to deal with it for the entire campaign.

 

[Morrus]

I have a question for clarification do you have an issue with these themes being included in a setting? Take the drow they are a racist sexist bunch. They believe they are above all other races and they hate surface elves and they are full of misandry.

My problem would be with the PCs (and by extension the players) being subjected to such depictions. I do agree that it can be handled in a mature manner; I also think that it can be handled in a terrible manner.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I don't agree with the "sexism and racism are realistic" arguments. What part of a D&D game is realistic?

I don't think players should be made to have "fun" acting out social issues which they may well suffer in real life. I do think that a mature and sensible group could portray such things in a thought-provoking manner.

For me, if it's something that the players themselves have a good chance of having experienced, it's inclusion in a fun, fantasy game should be a very considered decision.

Obviously that's a scale, not a binary choice. But there's definitely a difference between orc war bands sacking villages and PCs being subject to sexism or racism. One is clearly fantasy; the other is uncomfortable.

Here Here!!

I feel the point of a fantasy role playing game that has to be realistic is bunk, as a player and DM. The game was invented to have fun!!!

 

[The Red King]

I'm running an evil campaign right now. My players captures a gnome who has a permanent invisibility 15' radius cast on her and a permanent silence spell as well. They have a ring of regeneration on her. They have been cutting off a finger for each of them to have those powers for themselves (no it probably wouldnt work that way, but I liked the evil/torture aspect, and ruled that it worked) so they can use them to help in sneaking around and stealing from the good guys, and even some bad guys too. So far all actual PC deaths were at the hands of eachother, and when one with a great plan revealed what he was up to, the PC's all turned on him.

Am I saying acting like this in the real world is ok? Nope.

We all say how evil such and such a character is for those actions, and the group as a whole needs to keep an eye out for the good guys, as well as evil competitors. It is a harder campaign, and it has made the players more cautious and greedy. They like the ability to be able to be evil, but also feel like they have no allies they can trust.

I don't feel like anyone thinks this kind of stuff would be accepted in the real world.


But, if you are playing with a young group, or people who might be that easily swayed, maybe you don't get to specific on how evil they are in that city?

 

[Elf Witch]

My problem would be with the PCs (and by extension the players) being subjected to such depictions. I do agree that it can be handled in a mature manner; I also think that it can be handled in a terrible manner.

I see what you are saying and I agree with this.

 

[Elf Witch]

Here Here!!

I feel the point of a fantasy role playing game that has to be realistic is bunk, as a player and DM. The game was invented to have fun!!!

I don't know if I agree with this completely. Fantasy worlds still need rules to operate by they internal logic.

And the game still need some realism in it or I feel as if I am in a cartoon. For example getting your head chopped off with a vorpal sword means you are dead not that you can just pick up your head and walk around with it. Granted something undead or a monster with special properties might be able to do this. It is why I hate the whole idea of a PC who can fall off a mountain and always live. I don't want my PCs to be Wiley E Coyote.


For some of us the fun part is having to deal with some realistic things after all the game was invented to be able to wargaming in a fantasy setting.

I also like the idea of dealing with more mature themes like racism or slavery for example.

And I prefer my evil to be more than a Bond supervillian but more like say Hitler. I like villains who don't think they are evil but believe what they are doing is the best for mankind.

In my current campaign Tiamat is not evil she is lawful neutral her goal is to rule the humoniod races and put in strong laws because she believes that the younger races are to violent, short sided and can't be trusted with power. She works with Hextra to accomplish these goals. In the areas where they rule there is little crime, no one goes hungry and everyone knows their place from birth to death. There is a rigid caste system. Of course all most all crime is punishable by death and you have no freedom to do anything other than what caste you are born in. To love someone of another caste is crime.