*D&D 4ed*

[JonSetanta]

Still, you must accept the chance that at least one PC will go insane and attack every NPC they encounter.
Sometimes a DM must throw their arms up and move on, but it doesn't mean the NPC stats must go to waste; like the Nurse Joy dilemma, the same exact NPC concept with a "different face" might show up again later... but better armed, accompanied, higher level, and prepared, since news traveled fast that strange murderers are roaming the area.

[RandomCasualty2]

Still, you must accept the chance that at least one PC will go insane and attack every NPC they encounter.

At that point I start kicking people out of the game as problem players.

[JonSetanta]

Pssshaw. I fight back.

If they want to act like barbarians, then they are thrown into a barbaric world.

If you kill nice people, nice people won't be nice any more.
No more shops or easy temple access.
No more public or private transportation.
No more helpful strangers.
Wanted posters began sprouting up and complete strangers attack for no apparent reason.
Information travels quickly in a world with Sending and crystal balls, you know.

Eventually the party picks off more than they can chew, or redeems theirselves. In case of the former result, they die and a new party is made (with lesson learned, hopefully.)

I really have no problem playing World vs. The Party, although passive-aggressive "it's not fair" whiners really get under my skin. It's probably just a matter of personal choice.

[RandomCasualty2]

If PCs play a psychopath from the beginning, then maybe i can see running a game like that. But if you've got a PC who just randomly decides to kill the innkeeper for no in character reason, I really don't want to play with that person.

But then I'm not a fan of evil D&D campaigns in the first place, unless you've got some very good roleplayers. Otherwise the game just turns into a bunch of juvenile crap that amounts to the RPG version of a Grand Theft Auto rampage, where you keep collecting stars until finally someone kills you. And if people want to do that instead of have any kind of interesting story, then they can go play GTA and stay out of my games.

[JonSetanta]

But then I'm not a fan of evil D&D campaigns in the first place, unless you've got some very good roleplayers.

Aha. That's where we differ.

[fbmf]

From what I'm understanding that you're talking, you're saying that when you DM the PCs CAN'T influence ANYTHING other than combat?

Please don't ever ask me to join you're group


And yes, this is my first and only post. I HAD to register to say that. Because of people like you that DnD is considered a HACK AND SLASH game and not a proper ROLEPLAYING GAME.

And I'm note being polite, I'm not trying to be polite. If your insulted by that, ask someone to ban me, I don't care. I felt insulted by what you're saying as well.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Jotoco, I notice this actually isn't your one and only post. You've posted a couple of times now. You're welcome to hang around, but you need way thicker skin than you apparently have in order to post here. Work on that for us.

Welcome to the boards!
[/TGFBS]

[RandomCasualty2]

But then I'm not a fan of evil D&D campaigns in the first place, unless you've got some very good roleplayers.

Aha. That's where we differ.

Yeah probably. I never really understood the appeal of evil games. It basically comes down to the fact that because D&D is a game about killing, you really can't do evil well, because there's no good reason most of the PCs (if they were such psychopaths) wouldn't turn on each other. Seriously, most of the PCs don't even play evil, they play "psychopath with an invisible inhibitor chip that prevents me from attacking other PCs."

To make evil work, the game needs to be political, like Vampire, where there's an authority that prevents evil people from just being rampant murderers. Evil curbed in such a fashion can be interesting, especially if the PCs are willing to against each other in various plots and counter plots.

But D&D doesn't have that, because most of the time, there's often no one to control the PCs or prevent them from just going crazy. Seriously once you leave the walls of the town behind, you can just go on a raping and pillaging spree if you want. Since D&D is so superhero centric, it tends to do politics very poorly. "Yeah ok, so you've got the support of the army, who gives a shit, I can kill them with my little finger."

So the powerful NPC that keeps the PCs under control seems more like railroading than anything else and people dont' accept it well. Of course, if you dont' have any powerful NPCs to keep the PCs in line, then it's just a pointless barbaric killing spree that goes on until the DM gets sick of it and decides to throw down the hammer and run something with an actual story.

At best, an evil campaign ends up just being heartless mercenaries out for gold, but eh, those are boring colorless characters with no emotional attachment to the game. Goods and neutrals with actual motivations tend to be much more interesting characters. Once in a while, you may find an evil character that's interesting, but in D&D it happens so infrequently that it's almost impossible to run a campaign based off of it.

[CatharzGodfoot]

RC--

Evil characters can be fun to play and still not turn on each other. You could play a tight-knit group of cultists trying to bring about the apocalypse. You could be a group of specialists doing the 'greater good' for the country because it lets you indulge your desire for cruelty, power, and carnage without running afoul of the government.

Or maybe you're just a group of people who genuinely like each other, and like stabbing things and taking their treasure, but don't really care about which team those you stab are on as long as you're not on your own.

[Jerry]

You're welcome to hang around, but you need way thicker skin than you apparently have in order to post here. Work on that for us.[/TGFBS]

I can understand how that can be a problem, but there are some posters here that take things a little too personally, but still provide thoughtful contributions.

I wouldn't mind him having thin skin if he doesn't cause fights.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Many times when people talk about evil parties, they are referring to parties which randomly kill Npc's on a whim, or out of boredom. This behavior also has a high correlation with douchebag players. I don't think of this type of party as evil; it's either a casual or immature gaming group.

I consider an evil party to be a good or neutral party, with all the same motivations, depth of role-playing, and fun for the group. With the notable exception that the Pc's are willing to use evil means to meet their goals.

[JonSetanta]

I consider an evil party to be a good or neutral party, with all the same motivations, depth of role-playing, and fun for the group. With the notable exception that the Pc's are willing to use evil means to meet their goals.

This is usually the case too, since D&D alignment is an awful, near-useless concept anyway.

I prefer to label these schizophrenic, neurotic parties (or douchegamers) as Nihilistic Adventurers rather than Evil.

[RandomCasualty2]

Many times when people talk about evil parties, they are referring to parties which randomly kill Npc's on a whim, or out of boredom. This behavior also has a high correlation with douchebag players. I don't think of this type of party as evil; it's either a casual or immature gaming group.

Well, I agree that you can have well played evil characters. It's just generally tough to to get 4-6 players capable of doing that in the same group.

I consider an evil party to be a good or neutral party, with all the same motivations, depth of role-playing, and fun for the group. With the notable exception that the Pc's are willing to use evil means to meet their goals.

Well, I think that evil loses a lot of depth simply because the characters have already given in to darkness. So any moral quandries are pretty much a non factor. In many regards, evil characters don't really develop personality wise, which makes them fairly boring, since their decision making processes are solely based on a risk/reward ratio. Possibly if you've got some repentant evil characters, but the typical "Evil and loving it" personality is very one dimensional, and strives for just one plot hook, treasure. It's cool to have a character who gets tempted by the Dark side, but once you go full blown darkside, eh... boring. There's just no more character conflict and you're now just entirely black.

Evil groups also can't really have too much of a difference of opinion either, otherwise usually someone gets killed. Hell, one evil group I DMed for ended up killing itself over gauntlets of ogre power. It's pretty much the nature of evil that it eventually ends up tearing itself apart, and generally only lasts for about as long as the particular evil leader can keep the group together. Unfortunately, if someone disagrees with the leader, it can very easily turn into assassination attempts, betrayal and so on. And in D&D, that pretty much means someone is going to die.

Generally, anything good that comes out of evil campaigns you can pretty much do with neutrals who cross the line now and then. And the neutrals have way more depth and are just overall more interesting characters.

[Harlune]

So still trying to be like a mmog, they apparently released a patch for the wizard today.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/dragon ... ssActs.pdf

[Jacob_Orlove]

It looks like they just took some standard attacks and added "with the power of ILLUSION!" to the flavor text. Although there are a few almost decent effects in there, which is nice to see. Well, mostly just Illusory Wall. Now your allies can explicitly see through it, which is nice, and that whole "interaction or disbelief" nonsense is now you beating their will defense if they move up against the wall.

[virgil]

Illusory Wall is peculiar. Foes can still know that it is an illusion when arrows and firebolts shoot through it after the illusionist summons it, but they're stopped dead in their tracks if you hit their Will defense. They can also never have a reason to believe it's anything but a solid wall of iron, and think nothing of it when walking by it, unless they walk adjacent to it.

[Talisman]

Illusory Wall is peculiar. Foes can still know that it is an illusion when arrows and firebolts shoot through it after the illusionist summons it, but they're stopped dead in their tracks if you hit their Will defense.

This could work if you assume it has an element of Enchantment, and it targets the subjects' instinctive gut reaction to avoid ramming their face into a hard hurty thing. To use an analogy, you may know, intellectually, that there's an invisible bridge over the chasm...but your heart will still race as you take that first step.

It's a stretch, but I could see it...maybe...I guess.

[Voss]

This is some wacky stuff. You can apparently now hand out big penalties to enemies (-12 by 30th level between Maze of Mirrors and the at will, and you can recycle Maze if you have the right path or destiny...)

I'm hearily puzzled by both Phantom Chasm and Illusory wall.

The effect of the first is prone and immobilized until the end of their next turn. So... they automatically stand up at the end of their turns?

And the wall is just wacky. Partly because like all 4e wall effects, its damn tiny, and partly because its... not really an illusion. Its pure arbitrarium. And sustain minor (until end of encounter) works differently than every other sustain effect.

Ah, well, consistency isn't their long suit.
Already, which is sad...

[SphereOfFeetMan]

It's cool to have a character who gets tempted by the Dark side, but once you go full blown darkside, eh... boring.
...
Generally, anything good that comes out of evil campaigns you can pretty much do with neutrals who cross the line now and then. And the neutrals have way more depth and are just overall more interesting characters.

This outlook is much more black and white than what I consider to be the good/neutral/evil continuum. When I think of possible evil characters, I don't automatically assume evil characters are totally evil like Fiends, or tempted by the Dark Side. Instead, an evil Pc might be otherwise good or neutral, with an evil aspect.

Here are a couple examples:
-Typical Good aligned Dwarf. Except for the fact that he tortures enemies of his clan for information, but only when they are of a different race. Also, he feels a grim satisfaction.
-A typical neutral halfling. He completes quests against great evils that would otherwise ravage towns and cities. He doesn't steal from the party or cause random havoc. But he uses his political influence to swindle wealth from a few farming towns to feed his avarice. This causes the townspeople's nice standard of living to decrease to a near-starvation subsistence. On drought years, a small percentage of the populace dies.

It's pretty much the nature of evil that it eventually ends up tearing itself apart, and generally only lasts for about as long as the particular evil leader can keep the group together.

That depends upon how you define evil. If you define evil as murderous insanity or yearning to betray anyone for any profit, then yes. If you define evil as willing to use bad means to reach some specific end, then possibly no.

[Koumei]

There's mostly just one evil character I play: the priestess of Loviatar. Mostly it involves motivations being:
1. Me. Me me me. Seriously, her own selfish goals.
2. Anything that betters the church and her goddess.
3. Helping the kingdom as a whole, because they have a fairly good thing going.
4. Helping other people realise their potential. This may involve forcing them to undergo great hardships, but if they can make their way through it, they are now stronger and deserve their rewards.

It seems to be working out pretty well. She's foiled an assassination attempt, investigated some kind of plot involving assassins (still in progress), rescued a succubus from an allied wizard (who happened to already be dead. Something had drained his soul. No idea what), halted a madman (insane hobo bard with a wand of Dominate Person, he was seriously dominating people into following him and watching his crappy performances), helped turn a morally conflicted sadistic noble into a confident priestess of Loviatar...

If Evil isn't played as Fuckhead then it works. But I'd usually choose to play Good over Evil, that being said. I find it hard not to want to be nice to characters and do the right thing.

Now, a note on 4E:

Pelor is now the god of good harvests. Forget "Law, Good, Sun and OWNING YOUR ASS", now he just throws some grain at undead. I know Vecna lost his hand and eye (twice, in fact), but for Pelor to lose his balls?

[Orion]

Character concept for a game that never launched: a Lawful Evil Bard who was a devout follower of a Lawful Good church, and also the son of a noble house. He took a fighter level, wore full plate and rode around on a horse acting pretty much like a paladin.

His goals were to protect and advance civilization, where "civilization" meant his family's wealth and prominance. He would cheerfully lie, forge documents, break into homes to plant evidence, etc. He poisoned his blades, tortured prisoners, etc, etc., etc.

Since the party was trying to stop a ravenous orc horde, and it was headed for *his* land, I figured he'd find them useful enough to be worth whatever style-crimping the more benevolent unleashed.

[Talisman]

Evil characters can be fun to play and still not turn on each other. You could play a tight-knit group of cultists trying to bring about the apocalypse.

Damn - I have got to use that for an evil mini-campaign!

Pelor is now the god of good harvests. Forget "Law, Good, Sun and OWNING YOUR ASS", now he just throws some grain at undead. I know Vecna lost his hand and eye (twice, in fact), but for Pelor to lose his balls?

Evil Cleric: "Taste the power of the Hand of Vecna!"
Good Cleric: "Oh yeah? Fear the might of the Balls of Pelor!"

[JonSetanta]

By the Balls of Pelor, I will defeat these abominations. By His mighty Scote will justice prevail, O Great Lord of Dangle.

[RandomCasualty2]

This outlook is much more black and white than what I consider to be the good/neutral/evil continuum. When I think of possible evil characters, I don't automatically assume evil characters are totally evil like Fiends, or tempted by the Dark Side. Instead, an evil Pc might be otherwise good or neutral, with an evil aspect.

Here are a couple examples:
-Typical Good aligned Dwarf. Except for the fact that he tortures enemies of his clan for information, but only when they are of a different race. Also, he feels a grim satisfaction.
-A typical neutral halfling. He completes quests against great evils that would otherwise ravage towns and cities. He doesn't steal from the party or cause random havoc. But he uses his political influence to swindle wealth from a few farming towns to feed his avarice. This causes the townspeople's nice standard of living to decrease to a near-starvation subsistence. On drought years, a small percentage of the populace dies.

Yeah, I mean characters like that can be interesting. The problem is that they're (at least in my experience) the exception and not the rule when it comes to evil PCs.

Most evil PCs aren't really good or neutrals that use questionable methods, but rather just outright one dimensional black hats. Sure, one or two PCs may make interesting evils, but trying to get a group of 4-6 people to all make interesting evil characters is damn hard. And even if people do make interesting characters, it's often hard to get them all to work together, unless they all have one theme.

And of course, usually when you try to recruit for an evil campaign, you're going to get at least a couple fucktards who try to make Stabby McBabykiller as their character.

I've just never really had any good experience with evil games. Individually I've let good roleplayers play evil characters in good campaigns, and it's worked out alright, but a full blown evil game always ends up falling apart in a few sessions.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

And of course, usually when you try to recruit for an evil campaign, you're going to get at least a couple fucktards who try to make Stabby McBabykiller as their character.

I've just never really had any good experience with evil games. Individually I've let good roleplayers play evil characters in good campaigns, and it's worked out alright, but a full blown evil game always ends up falling apart in a few sessions.

From what I hear, that is more likely to happen in evil games. On the other hand, I've had a lot of good experiences with evil games.

I started playing Dnd at the tail end of 2e, only a few months before 3e was released. I played in a good/neutral campaigns for ~5 years...huh, I guess for nearly 3 years now I've played exclusively in evil games...

I have to say though, the most fun games I've ever played in were with an evil party. In my experience there is much more opportunity for roleplaying. Most times with good/neutral parties, it is just Team Party vs Team Dm. With evil parties, there are varied/conflicting motivations, goals, secrets, espionage, planting false information, secret identities...all just within the context of the party. When you add Npc's into the mix, it gets really interesting.

It is really fun when players each have multiple secrets (and motivations), and each Pc only shares some of their secrets with other party members as needed...and oftentimes they are not the same secrets. In such situations, it basically encourages or forces players to roleplay with each other as if they were roleplaying against a Npc. Devious, misleading, but ultimately needed for an alliance towards a common goal.

The best way I think I can describe the tone of such a game is by referring to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Basically, try to envision a party composed entirely of Garak's and Odo's.

[Koumei]

I've seen the horror that happens when a person says "Hey, I'm running an evil game, who wants in?" One really has to pick their players in advance for that kind of thing.