Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emirikol" data-source="post: 8704902" data-attributes="member: 10638">Those of us who have run evil campaigns (or one shots in my case) can vouch for the fact that evil crosses a line.Evil = all the worst crimes. "Not evil" doesn't cross that line. I don't care to ever repeat the experience of dming Scarlet Brotherhood from the bad guys point of view. Consider it a life lesson that I'll clarify with a parallel thought below.I think there's this thought that acting badass or bullying is somehow evil. Meh. Off limits characters exist in many forms.The Great Kingdom is a neutral evil kingdom. It has been described that its peasants are neutral exhausted. Somehow people there--on the scale of human decency--statistically will commit all the worst crimes opportunistically right?In the scheme of what Gary described in the DMG1e as humanocentric norms being the basis for a campaign (and cultural CHOICE hostile to human norms/goodness as being evil), evil kingdoms sound like really naughty word places--places rife with great opportunity to NOT be evil. Some DMs allow players to play out sick fantasies as evil characters--usually because they don't know how to say no f'ing way. Other DMs seem to be in league with this thinking that evil just isn't that bad. It could be played that way. In my groups I don't have that option--evil is a line that is crossed in regards to norms. Its not a mental illness. Its not an excusable thing. It's the WORST stuff and it's not cute or misunderstood or cool or badass or chaotic neutral. Its inexcusable crap like  premeditated stuff and personal violations to people of all ages that even in a  game of combat, evil acts still are a line to be crossed. In Greyhawk gaming its clear to all but the least civilized players that places like Iuz's court, Scarlet Brotherhood's experimentation and eugenics pods, or Tourrish Mak's half-orc-breeding slave pens are not misunderstood or badass or anything less than horrific--and to portray them as anything less so shows a failing of a DM's concept of "evil." Shades of evil? Nope.  There is a line. Playing and describing that stuff out in a game doesn't have to be told or roleplayed or inflicted without the X-card, but make no mistake, evil is a line that is crossed in Greyhawk quite clearly from its inception in societies and creatures. Items being evil? Nerull's scythe? Vecna's hand? Well, that's interesting isn't it. We can ponder that all day in Greyhawk discussions.Societal alignment seems to be a useful tool for some aspects of the game, but it has as much to do with statistics of acts and allowances.Will you find evil towns (statistically) on Nyrond? Sure and I find use in the descriptions put forth by Roger Moore, Gygax, and the bold moves of Carl Sargent, but characters from evil places (in regards to comparison with human social norms) arent allowed to be "evil" in regards to my gaming tolerance--and I would seriously question how many minutes a sick player needing to get-off on that as entertainment would be allowed to remain in my home.Regarding political correctness (and the other terms we use) with words for the wandering culture of the Rhennee, I can tell when a player's intentions are sour on this and I don't flip out with archaic language (unless thats is rhe intended result). That said, I think it is perfectly possible to have the Rhenn and not use the G word or references to Chocolat the movie with Johnny Depp in a mass produced game like dnd. Sometimes you also have to trust your readers not to concern-troll everything you do. Creating controversy where there is none intended or when it isn't ignorantly stated isn't beneficial, but it does stir something primordial in us with a feeling of the threat that right and wrong--a line--is being crossed.</blockquote>

Verification