The Gaming Den

So, with Angelfromanotherpin reviewing Good from AEG, I figured I'd review Evil, which predates it a year. I remember some crazy stuff from it (like a feat that just gives you 5000g), but I also remember other AEG books (like Undead, Wilds and Dragons) and know that they're pretty hit or miss. So lets give this a shot.

The year was 2001, 3rd edition is a year old, and the Open Gaming License is an over zealous pimp, letting every publisher out there run a train on d20. Book of Vile Darkness will not be published for another year, and AEG writes books for everything they can think of, so Evil, being immensely more interesting and sexier than Good, is a good choice for a book.

The cover features a blue skinned bald guy with red eyes in dark armour edged in gold, cloak dramatically whipping out ahead of him in the wind, and holding a big dark-bladed sword. The picture is repeated in black and white, cut out from the background colour on the first page, with the line "While heroes are busy dreaming, we're conquering nations." It's easy to make evil stylish.

After that, there are the credits, and a little note from the editor. Writing credits include Mike Mearls and jim pinto. I'm suddenly less optimistic about this walk down memory lane.
It includes a credit for "Excerpts from Dungeons," which is fine, even if I somewhat dislike reprinted rules because of all the times WotC will reprint a monster. Makes sense that sometimes you'll want to include a rule or feat or something that is integral to the new product and don't want to lose people because you're asking them to go out and spend another $20.
jim pinto is also the art director, project manager, and has an editing credit, along with Andrew Getting. We'll see if this is any better than Good.
jim pinto would also like to thank the writers and artists. That's great jim, but they're already credited, so I'm sure they'd rather get an extra $50 if you're that grateful.
The book is apparently dedicated to "all of us. For every GM that ever wanted to do a little more with his fantasy campaign than merely open up a tomb and cut down a monster or two." Um... right. That is just weird. I'm not sure if it's serious or not. It also thanks Arneson and Gygax, and the nice thing is that Arneson is mentioned and gets top billing, when he so often get forgotten.

So now the Note from the Editor. Which... is not actually from an editor. It's written by John Zinser, who... is not actually in the credits at all. I know it's not an introduction, because that's the next page. It's not a foreword, because it's too short, maybe about 400 words or so. A quick google search reveals that he is the CEO of Alderac Entertainment Group. It would have been nice to have this on page, since otherwise it looks like they just grabbed a random guy from the hallway.
Anyway, he talks about running a campaign in 1980 and plugs a card game AEG produced, which was decent, if weird, Warlord. Or rather, he uses that as a time setter. He says "before I started running." So that line was literally only there to plug a product. ...wow. Apparently before he was making a product he wants to plug, playing evil characters was "all the rage in (his) D&D group." He then goes on to talk about the old style of gaming where you had a character and you played it in a bunch of different DM's games, which I would love to do, but have never seen attempted with 3.X except when I decided I really wanted to bring my wild elf barbarian with a double keen sword over into a new GM's game. He talks about setting up a session, grabbing everyone's super powerful evil characters on the the pretense of checking them over (because you need to know when some other dick GM has given someone a double keen greatsword or whatever), and then, after letting them hang there a bit, handing them a PHB and saying "ok, make new characters. Your old characters are the villains. I'm stuck between considering this a dick move and kind of cool. It is literal de-protagonization, and about as railroady as you can get, but it would make for a fun game if you had a close knit group and players who trusted you.
(I need to go get more coffee before I continue.)

So, next is the Introduction, which is in character. It's a short monologue from the point of view of someone named Janus Verenul of the House of Whims, basically welcoming the reader into a gentleman's club of ruthless conquest. Seriously, it reads like you've just joined the Illuminati, with him going on about how they will teach you what you need to know, the house being your sanctuary, it's library open to you, and servants being around to bring you literally anything you request. It's well written on the level of showing the comradery and organization that evil is capable of, and how evil can be subtle and implied. He doesn't say "Don't bitch at Skelenos the Foul about turning your parents into necroncubines, he'll rape you with a spiked bone dildo," it says "show discretion, not everyone here wants to be recognized out in the world."
The intro ends with box text with the usual obligatory disclaimer about how the authors do not condone the stuff they talk about in the book. I think my goal in life as a gamer and writer is to write a book about evil characters and not put that disclaimer in. I really doubt that it has any legal-relevance anyway. It's not like you can only be held harmless in court after your book was discovered in a serial killer's bedroom if you put it in.

Next up, Section One: The Evil That Men Do (alignment discussions, infernal pacts, PrCs, domains, feats, skills)

Section One begins with a short, in-character blurb. Looks like that Fraternity of Evil is going to be a framing device throughout the book. Supposedly this section is being presented in lecture form.

Defining Evil
Chaotic Evil
It starts to talk about how every group of people functions essentially the same. Whether Angels or Devils or Kobolds, someone in the group will be treated like Jerry in Parks and Rec, made the butt of everyone's jokes, even though he is essentially exactly what his society wants, and someone will be Radar from M*A*S*H*, able to get anything through exchange or extortion. It suggests that, instead of throwing more powerful monsters at your players, throw more organized ones. This can work, as I refer you to Tucker's Kobolds. It can also go terribly, as I refer you to a cheap adventure I ran for a pickup D&D game where a group of level two fighter/rogues led by a Ftr5 was supposed to be an appropriate challenge for an 8th-10th level party, and got steamrolled.
It goes through the three evils, starting with CE, saying that the unifying factor is "fear of the big guy" and contrasting it with CG's supposed unifying social factor of "look out for the little guy." It presents the idea that CE is perceived as super evil, because the biggest dragon and demons are all CE, but says that if there's a connection, it works the other way, Power makes one evil, rather than evil making one powerful. It's a persuasive line of thought, since great red wyrms can, as they say, end pretty much any argument with 14d10 fire damage, and if you can do that, there's little reason to be interested in civilized discourse.
Then it calls CE lazy and efficient, in that order, because it tends to go about things simply. It goes into some social dynamics and resource management, saying that CE types tend to hang together just like the other alignments, but that social size is limited due to the society being built on "violence and poor impulse control." It's only 3pm, but I'm starting to look over at my booze box... They draw the parallel to "1950s scare flick biker gangs." Yep, apparently CE societies are the Hell's Angels, which is generally portrayed as having quite a large number of members. Maybe CE only sucks at resource management when it doesn't organize it's members into chapters. Apparently they suck at it because they "don't have the patience to farm, or the organizational skills to make slaves do it." I don't believe this, personally. Slavery can be highly regimented and institutionalized, but shanghai-ing a bunch of peasants and beating them till they farm for you while you go raid surrounding settlements is basically the definition of CE society.
It says that CE individuals tend to be the toughest because they're "Crazy" and will do stuff like fight to the death, or meet mass charges with mass charges. I'm waiting to see if LE says the same, but puts it down to "for HONOR!" It then talks about how CE characters tend to fight like berserker ninjas, favouring mobility, surprise and overwhelming odds, and CE societies are super easy to take apart.
Apparently they've been watching Beast Wars and forgot that one of the bigger evil empires in D&D is a bunch of CE snake people known for multiplicitous plots, and that the race most known for gang up tactics, kobolds, is LE.

Lawful Evil
Next is LE, because they eschew the alignment order that everyone else uses where you go from extreme to neutral to extreme. Whatever.
It talks about LE being a faceless bureaucracy which will use eminent domain laws to seize your house, confiscate your property with foreclosure, and kill your puppy because you didn't register him. It's hard to define Lawful apart from "uses laws and government" but if you're going to do that then D&D gets really weird, really quickly. It means that if a Paladin ever decides to do something without filling out forms in triplicate and waiting 6-24 weeks for a reply he immediately falls, and if demons ever organize an actual army, like to fight the Blood War, they immediately become lawful. It also says that open fights are for chaotic characters, and lawful characters would prefer to kill with subtlety. Which is again dumb. It should really be the other way around if you're going to say one is lawful and the other chaotic. Fighting your opponent in the open, where they know who is coming at them and can fight back is about as fair as murder gets. Slipping into someone's room and putting contact poison in their lube bottle is so unfair that I think a Chaotic type would spontaneously orgasm just from thinking about it. It makes the argument that CE hates to back down from an open fight, and LE hates open fights, and would rather sneak into your bedroom, cast sleep, and then smother you because it's tidier, but this directly contradicts the idea that CE is lazy evil, or even efficient, because the CE guy who starts a bar fight to assassinate someone is doing a lot more actual work, less efficiently, than the guy who holds a pillow over a helpless opponent's face.
It talks about how LE societies have more longevity than CE ones, because CE has the impulse control of a horny puppy, and LE is patient, and that CE societies can be felled by killing the big guy, but LE societies just replace officers if you kill one. Apparently if you have a bunch of guys who consider each other brothers and defer to one powerful warrior, it's Chaotic, and they'll scatter if you kill the leader, regardless of how they feel about each other, but if you have a bunch of guys in specified roles, with one guy in charge, it's Lawful, and they will immediately replace the leader if the old one dies. So warrior tribes will always be chaotic and intensely disloyal, and pirates will always be lawful, and if you kill the captain, another pirate spontaneously gets the captain's hat.
It suggests that oppression and bigotry are lawful, with the hypothetical of a society that says "only old, male humans are worthy of respect" and that if you fall outside of that, then OMH's can rob, enslave or imprison you with impunity. It says that being one of the three is better than being none, and that having two almost makes you a citizen, while all the OMH's support it because they get an awesome deal. Old male elves and dwarves are second class citizens, young human women get the shit end of the stick, and young, female halflings have to stay inside because they have no legal recourse. That... is not Lawful, that's mob rule. Institutionalizing something doesn't make it lawful, it makes it legal and institutionalized. I'm pretty sure that I could make a horrific bigoted murderous paladin, and be considered LG the way that AEG and the WotC books define alignment. Fuck.
Apparently LE societies are hard to take down because they have plans, organization, and obedience. It's like the writers never heard of Project Valkyrie, or indeed any of WW2. Apparently these regimented, ordered societies fight using the idea that individuals are interchangeable tools, so there's no specialized training for their preferred fortifications, siege engines, and phalanxes. I would love to play a game where a GM uses this book to the letter, because LE societies would be amazingly easy to fight, just because no one was trained for their job, and they would all have amazing equipment, because apparently you have to be lawful to like armour and shields.

Neutral Evil
In keeping with the discussion of LE that sounds more like CE, their description of NE sounds more like LE, or possibly CE on occasion. Basically it says that NE tries to get others to play by the rules, and then breaks them themselves, and where as 'chaotic evil wants it now and lawful evil wants it all,' neutral evil just wants, and will do anything to acquire their desires, but then immediately drop it.
Then they say that NE cannot be trusted to do anything, a trait more commonly (and just as stupidly) ascribed to CE. CE can be trusted to "rampage," and LE can be trusted to "tyrannize," but NE can't be trusted to do anything. It says that NE individuals can be very powerful, but their societies are very short lived. It sounds like what they wrote for CE is what they think NE is, and it would really fit a lot better. I don't necessarily agree, but the idea that neutral evil societies are full of selfish, and willing to fuck over the entire society for their own desires because it's an alliance of convenience, and that they'll scatter the moment the guy in charge is dead sounds a lot more like the dispassionate neutral than the freedom loving chaos. It talks about how neutral evil societies basically can't be conquered, because they'll acquiesce to your face, and stab you in the back. I know they didn't forget what section they were writing, because it constantly says NE, so clearly the writer didn't wander off for a coke, then come back and think he was still writing CE.
Basically, in keeping with the grand tradition of D&D alignment discussions, AEG has provided an offering which is contradictory, illogical, and ultimately useless.

Next post will be "Why Evil?" where they offer a reason to be evil beyond "because good is dumb." Or, well, supposedly, we'll see.

I thought the little flavor text about the evil gentlemen's club was the best part of the book.

I'd say second best. My favourite is the feat where you shove your "friends" into attacks to improve your own defences. Because everyone wants "I am a total fuckbag" as a feat.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I thought the little flavor text about the evil gentlemen's club was the best part of the book.

I agree, honestly. That one part could actually make it into a game.

Koumei wrote:I'd say second best. My favourite is the feat where you shove your "friends" into attacks to improve your own defences. Because everyone wants "I am a total fuckbag" as a feat.

I could see two legitimate uses, one is a squishy spellcaster who for some reason has to frontline with the tank, the other is a squishy wizard who keeps a couple summons close by in case he's attacked.

I don't need a feat to be a total fuckbag.

There's a number of tactical situations in which you might want to do that, really. The most obvious one being "Protect the healer!", but in general the ability to move incoming damage around is super-useful. Also it's wonderfully suited to NPC evil because they're reasonably likely to have tons of disposable mooks.

Reverse that feat and it becomes GOOD.

But what does it look like mechanically? I'm curious.

Why Evil?
AEG Evil presents this as an important question, and it is, I suppose, but I think they're framing it poorly. Sure, town guards are broadly interchangeable, and often as not just doing their job for their pay, because no one, generally speaking, cares if one donates all his pay not relegated to living expenses to the orphans and widows of his dead colleagues, or spends all his money on whores and booze because he's trying to escape the memory of his dead childhood sweetheart. Kings, the book says, are often just doing their job, which I laugh at, because the list of kings who were "just doing their job" is shorter than the list of kings who were genuinely concerned with the well being of their people, and both together cannot even reach the metaphorical ankle of the list of kings who were born into the position and got their rocks off on exploiting their subjects.
I support the idea that a player should have some idea as to why their character is the alignment they are, and there could be some very nuanced discussions on philosophy and psychology here.
Sadly, but predictably, there are not. AEG Evil lays forth three possible reasons to be evil, and each maps directly to one of the alignments, as if it's the only reason someone could be of that alignment. According to AEG Evil, LE characters want to rule the world because they think they can do it better (which puts good characters who want to be in charge so they can benefit all in a very weird and uncomfortable situation), CE characters see the world as the Abusers and the Abused, and have decided they would rather dish it out than take it (which would explain why they are averse to organizational structures and obedience, but fails to explain why there are any CE organizations at all), and NE characters are.... selfish. Wow, that's rather lack luster, and again, not much different from their position on CE.

Making Evil Look Good
I said that it's easy to make evil stylish, and this section is basically all about that, however it somewhat refutes my statement. I suppose what I should really have said is that it's easy if you know your audience. As they point out, a culture in which the heroes always kill their enemies will think you're stupid when you let them go, while a culture steeped in honor and tradition will at least respect your adherence to your methods. It then suggests what I'm going to call The Hannibal Lector effect, where a villain is made stylish by knowing the right accompaniments to a meal of human flesh, or by having exquisite, meticulously cleaned art deco death machines instead of rusty, blood splattered jumbles of hard ware. It talks about calling cards, though I disagree with the stylishness of arranging guards' heads in a specific pattern when you steal the crown jewels, that's just OCD. Stylish is polymorphing a guard's head into a replica of the stolen crown, and leaving it just outside the Antimagic Fielded treasury, so that when it's carried back in, the person is left holding a bloody head with your name carved in the forehead and living spiders that had been polymorphed into the gems studding the crown.
It then clumsily segues into a discussion of planning big things, as if that were integral to style, when they were just talking about glorified skilled cat burglars leaving calling cards to be stylish. It also talks about what to do when your plans fail, like don't fight to the death when you have a perfectly good escape contingency, oh, and always have an escape contingency (two I just thought of: contingent teleport circle when you step into an alcove, paired with a contingent Disjunction effect on the teleport circle after you teleport; Purple wurm eidolon with cockpit in the body so you can tunnel out, and the heroes can't follow. Oh, third one I just though of, leave a tunnel with your mechamagic-wurm, but have a contingent earthquake spell set to go off when you're followed.)

Who Says We're Evil?
Hey, awesome, a discussion on moral vagueries and villains who think they're the good guys.
Oh... but it opens with the hypothetical "a group of well armed strangers arrive in a modern city, find the local mob headquarters, and cut down everyone inside (typical D&D heroic adventuring), how would society react? Would they be given rewards, accolades, perhaps the key to the city... or would police hunt them down at least as avidly as the criminals they killed? Would the public call them good or evil?" (in order: yes-by civilians, yes-by pretty much everyone not in the mob, no-because society cannot openly condone vigilantes even if everyone likes what they do, yes-because it's the police's job, and good-except by those who are societally obligated to call them evil. I refer you to Batman and Boondock Saints)
Their next example is an offer to "bring back all of the greatest geniuses and heroes of the past ... King Arthur (even though he's fictional), Da Vinci, George Washington (even though I've heard he was a jerk and won more on luck than tactical skill), Confuscious (also a jerk), Joan of Arc (apparently being mad is the same as being great), Einstein, and a thousand others like them, all given a common language and a full understanding of current events," and you can do this "...for a price ... All you have to do to bring them back is kill one person for every person you restore. The only limits are that the victim has to be biologically human and functioning independently. Whoever asks this shows incontrovertible proof of the offer." To which I would say "Sure!" because there are two amazing loop holes there, and I'm pragmatic and don't inherently value human life. You get a list of everyone who has been convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation, double check the cases to make sure they were not wrongly convicted, and then start making straight trades. Manson for Arthur, the Aurora shooter for Einstein, the entire precinct of the police who raped an indian woman who went to them to report being raped (even though, so far as I know, they weren't convicted) for Tesla, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Churchill, and... fuck I have no clue how many of them there were, so this could go a while. If you still have people you want to bring back after trading the shitbags of the modern world, then you just start cloning people without higher brain functions and trading bio-machines.
The book recognizes this possibility, as well as the possibility of finding people who are in misery and ending their lives, and asks if this is evil. And even I must admit, whole heartedly, yes, it is, but it's a beneficial evil. ...as long as you're not, you know, trading innocent miserable people. That's kind of dickish. Especially when you'd probably be freeing up a lot of wealth, which could go to paying to solve some of the problems of the impovershed and indigent, by killing all the dickbags, like middle eastern tyrants with twenty castles full of barrels of cocaine, porn and cash.
It goes on to ask how good is distinct from evil when good heroes so often barge into peoples homes, kill them for being evil and take their stuff home in a santa sack. It asks "if the long term goal is benevolent, is a conqueror really more evil than such so-called heroes?" and points out that in most source material, the evil forces often have some justification for their actions.
It also recognizes the possibility of mixed alignment parties and talks about the fact that there are potential problems, but that it's entirely possible to have such a party, provided they are united by a common, or similar drive or goal, but that methods will cause strain.
To which I say... "no shit."

These chapters are insanely long, so I'm going to take another break for a few.

OgreBattle wrote:Reverse that feat and it becomes GOOD.

But what does it look like mechanically? I'm curious.

Probably the typical 'knight-protector' shit where you take attacks for other people. Usually some flavor of 'if adjacent ally is hit, take an immediate action/make a save/attack, or whatever, to take the hit on your character.' Maybe with some damage buffering or whatever.

Its been a class feature for N versions of the knight protector prestige class, so it is pretty common.

Evil And Proud Of It
It's reasonable to assume that, in a world where one can actually rock up to Asmodeus' palace and ask him what he thinks of your meticulous genocide of elven orphans over tea and biscuits, there are those villains who realize they're evil. Hell, even fiction with contemporary or futuristic settings recognizes this possibility, as Johnny the Homocidal Maniac has the eponymous character telling an abhorrent admirer what an idiot the person is for idolizing a villain. Firefly has Niska, who, though cowardly, is very aware that he is not a good person, and is quite proud of the fact.
It gives a brief introduction, and says that when facing such a villain, convincing them that what they're doing is (morally) wrong is impossible, because they already know that and have chosen to do it anyway. It then gives a few paragraphs of one hypothetical such villain monologuing as a hero fights off trained dire wolves (which I may steal). Basically it's the first place I've seen the "godly =/= goodly" acknowledged in D&D, as the villain says "Since the gods first emerged from the primordial dark, there has been someone to ponder why? And ever since they came up with more than one answer, opposing ideals and philosophies have struggled with each other." It also gets points from me for having him advance the "good is merely what society considers acceptable" argument. It has him compare his choice to do "evil" to the dire wolves that the hero is fighting, and bring up a "might makes right" stance about how he is merely using his strength the way nature intended.
It goes on to talk about how the difference between good and evil is one of means, giving the example of two men who are dedicated to healing their nations and freeing them from the power another nation holds over them, Ghandi and (narrowly avoiding Godwinning) Stalin, and how their legacies were shaped by the means they used to accomplish these things.
Apparently, according to AEG Evil, these characters "define epic evil." They talk about Darth Vader in a "please don't sue us, we're not saying his name" way as the archetypical anti-paladin, and I must wonder how whoever wrote this feels a few years on after Episode III came out.
Finally it closes by talking about how simple and easy it is to decide to be evil and recognize it as such. Basically, they think that this kind of character will have no standards, where as one who sees themselves as good will balk at certain actions. I disagree. There are people who, given power, would be this kind of evil, and at least some of them would refrain from rape or molestation, especially they're couching the attitude in terms of natural order. "the honest (villain) can smile as she holds her victim's head under the water. Is someone in your way? Kill him. Did that beautiful countess laugh at your proposal? Capture her. Should the Wand of Power be yours? steal it. When you're evil and you accept it, you are truly free. All things are possible." (Hello, ladies, look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped being a pansy ass good guy and switched to worshipping our dark over lord, he could be free like he’s me.)
What I ultimately disagree with most is the last paragraph that talks about how these villains have "no friends, no love, and no real companionship." This is bullshit. Their friends may be other unrepentant villains, and their love a succubus from the deepest layers of the abyss, but I don't believe that it is entirely impossible for a villain to have friends and companions.

Fallen Heroes
The next section talks about the hero who falls and becomes evil This is so... wishy washy and "hey, here are some things you can do which you could probably think of yourself!" that there's not much notable here. It has some possible explanations for why the hero fell to continue the spoon feeding, which is ironically where the notable stuff is. First, it lists "Betrayal," seemingly continuing the Darth Vader theme, except I'm not sure how much of his backstory was known before Episodes 1-3 came out, because I'm not a Star Wars fanatic. This on it's own isn't notable, except that later on, they mention "Revenge" which betrayal could be slotted into. Other than that, they talk about "Love," and completely contradict the idea that evil cannot know love that they set up previously.

The section ends with a half page illo. of an obviously evil guy gazing dispassionately at a hanging body we see only in silhouette, while a tower, or possible a church, burns in the background. I say possible a church because there's a tall spire that looks like a cross coming off the roof. He's obviously evil because his halberd has chips in the blade and there's a skull on his breast plate.

Next we get a sidebar presenting an evil society, the Sisters of Dust. The Sisters is "a necromantic society comprised entirely of women." Basically it's a bunch of women who study bad touch magic to unearth knowledge and secrets, and they're all female because they believe "only women -- bearers of life -- can truly understand the meaning of death."
Nevermind the fact that men are symbolically bearers of life just as much as women are, if not more, given that they carry the "seed" while women essentially carry the "dirt," symbolically speaking... Also nevermind the fact that medieval societies believed that the sperm was the specific source of life.
What gets me is that there is nothing evil about this society, except that they're necromancers, and kind of bitchy in that they treat male practitioners are novices when they have to consult them.

Common Cause
Oh, hey! The book actually recognizes that a party of villains can work together without turning on one another! It's amazing! It even says that villains can be capable of friendship and even, GASP, a "twisted" (fuck you, fuck you, fuck you) form of love. It even mentions, explicitly, enlightened self-interest and suggests that "hey, those other people around the table? They're you friends, maybe you shouldn't fuck over their characters just because you have 'evil' written on your sheet!"

Who's in Charge Here? talks about how it's difficult to adjust to running an evil game, because villains act, whereas heroes react. It suggests players giving the GM their plans between adventures and the GM working out the adventures in a way that they fit around the plans, or, alternatively, players giving the GM their overall goal, but leaving the little details down to GMs. It seems to ignore the possibility that not every evil character really wants to rule the world. Sometimes an evil character is evil because they worship a demon, eat babies, and raise the dead, and otherwise are a normal adventurer.
This is followed by a blurb titled Come, We Must Plan For Tomorrow, which talks about the idea in the source material that "Good always wins," and running a game like that.
.
.
.
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU HARD CODE THAT INTO YOUR CAMPAIGN?
Why the fuck do you have to decide whether to do that and then talk to your players? Why can't they have a chance to win just like they would if they were playing good? That's bull, just as surely as if your good playing players came to you and said "listen, in the source material, good always wins, so we don't think we should lose. Ever. Whatever happens, we have to come out on top."

The next section talks about fiends by type, and more specifically, alignment. It basically just reiterates the first section about the three alignments, just in the context of fiends and pacts. Seriously, they could have done better by just splitting CE, NE and LE into separate chapters, and having everything relevant to a given alignment in it's own chapter. When it gets to NE fiends, it of course doesn't talk about Yugoloths, it talks about hypothetical daemons, and, in keeping with the "NE means there are no rules or reasonable expectations," advises GMs dick players over if the players made a deal with a NE fiend. Seriously, it says "If a PC does attempt to bargain with one of these creatures, it is best that the DM use whatever means necessary to insure that the deal goes sour." Because it wasn't bad enough having to beat demons into submission, or have Harvard law students look over the contract you're signing with a devil. On the other hand, if you sign a deal with a Daemon, feel free to completely disregard it, because the daemon most likely will itself.

Oh, and the editing through the entire book sucks. Misspelled words, typos, truncated sentences, and awkward phrasing can be found every couple pages. It's particularly noticeable when they're talking about devil society:

AEG Evil, Devils wrote:Infernal society is very different from the politics -- or lack thereof -- of the demonic Abyss. Carefully structure, with an elaborately detailed heirarchy, the planes of the Abyss.

I read that four times to make sure my eyes weren't skipping a line or something.

There's a small piece of clip art of a chick in a bikini, cloak and kneeboots, with some kind of weird head dress. Because we all know that evil females don't own anything else.

It then goes on to talking about actually making a deal. Given that you're an arcane spellcaster (because an divine one can just get Big Daddy to give them a pet fiend), I suggest beating down a demon by crafting Contingent Affliction (Depraved Decadence) to go off if the demon acts against you in anyway. Demons don't eat, so feeling actual gnawing hunger they can't satisfy should be pretty torturous to them, and the demon should respect that kind of cruelty.
The little blurb about how devils actually don't mind being called up to enter pacts reminds me of Perdido Street Station, and how Devils act so damned genial. In talking about terms, it basically advises treating demons like reticent pets or children (do this and I'll give you this, don't do this and I'll do this to you), which I'm ok with, I suppose, at least in general terms. Some demons should be able and willing to enter actual contracts -- Pazuzu and Graz'zt have clear desires and tastes which a would be pacter could promise to satisfy, paladins dominated to say Pazuzu three times so he can offer them their fondest desires, and concubines, respectively. Devil pacts, it basically advocates treating like an actual legal contract. It'd be fun, I suppose, but also really tedious for my internet-blasted attention span. I wonder if K would be willing to serve as legal council...
There's stuff about serving a fiend, and it basically says "it's like being a priest of a dark god, except they can't grant spells (I'm assuming they mean non-prince/archdevil fiends), and watch you more closely" but it seems to forget that they're talking about serving fiends now, as it implies your demon master will watch for weakness and an opportunity to kill it's servant...

There's a little bit here about Talismans, things bound to devils or demons that can be used to command their obedience, like a physical piece of the devil (say... a tooth) or ritual dagger or a location that's important to the demon. It's a cool idea, and implies that there might be powers that require the character be strong enough to command, but of course there's no system, so it's a bunch of MTP.

Infernal Pacts
Finally we get to some actual mechanics. Basically these are feats you can take once you have a pact with a fiend (they often use Infernal or demonic interchangeably. Whatever). Spellcasters are hinted at being able to do more, and they'll get to that later. There's a pic here of a horned, four armed humanoid of indeterminate provenance, which has nothing to do with the feats on this page.
The feats range all over the place in terms of power, and all have drawbacks:

Claws/Fangs
You can do 1d8 points of damage in unarmed combat. It's using terms that don't mean anything, and not using the right terms (you gain a claw or bite attack, your choice, it deals 1d8 damage). It can be taken twice, and the drawback is that it inflicts a one step penalty to diplomacy each time you take it. So if you have claws, normally friendly NPCs treat you with indifference. If you had fangs too, they'd treat you as unfriendly. Creatures unconcerned with human(oid) society are not likely to notice or care, so basically you let someone else be the face until you're dealing with monstrous humanoids, fiends or dragons. You might be able to make a case for the fact that you're now a cute monster girl and can maybe actually get a benefit with people who like that sort of thing.

Darkvision
You get darkvision 60'. Downside is that you have cat eyes. Woopdidoo.

Element Resistance
25 point resistance to a chosen element. Shit son, that's actually not bad. You can take it multiples times, choosing a new element each time. Drawback is your skin looks weird.

Flight
Have I pointed out that up to this point the only prerequisite has been "Infernal Pact?" Yeah. At first level you can cast fly as a spellcaster of your level once a day. You can take this more than once, increasing the number of times you can use it. Not bad, but nothing to go crazy about. The drawback is a -6 to your strength for the purposes of resisting bullrush because your bones are hollow.

Immortality
Requires Unholy Blessing (see below) expenditure of 5,000 xp. You don't age, you won't die from old age, magical aging effects automatically fail. The "downside" is that the fiend that gave you this is counting on someone killing you eventually, might have provided them the weapon, will claim your soul when you die. So... you don't give a shit.

Immunity
250 xp for complete immunity to all diseases and contagions. You suffer from a throaty cough once a day, and the DM is encouraged to have it come up at bad times. There is a pile of fucks here by me, and no, you may not have one.

Imp
You have to be a spellcaster, you get an imp/quasit familiar. It serves it's master but works for you. It's kind of a dick. The drawback is that if you already have a familiar, your new fiend sidekick eats it.

Improved Flight
You have to have Flight, and pay 200 xp. You get flight at will, with no action required to cast. Pretty cool, actually. I suggest picking it up at level three if you don't rely on melee. The drawback is that you have small unnecessary demon wings that move on their own, and you need specially modified armour. I'm seriously just going to make a kawaii demon chick warlock with this stuff sometime.

Improved Regeneration
You get regeneration, 3 hp/round, nothing deals normal damage. You can take this feat multiple times, increasing your regen rate by 2 each time. You have to have Immunity and Regeneration (a feat, see below), and pay 500xp. The drawback is that you basically look like you're always suffering a wasting disease, appearing sickly and feverish. Every second time you take the feat your charisma drops by one, which says to me "take me three times, get Regen 7 for one lost Charisma!"

Increased Movement
+20 base movement. Your feet become cloven hooves. Each time you take this after the first, you get +10'. Not bad, but I think too much of a premium is placed on moving fast.

Infernal Pact
Ok, I forgot this was a specific feat, rather than a "special" prereq. Basically it exists purely to qualify for other feats. The "Benefit" is that you've offered something (hp, ability points, life of a loved one) to a fiend, permanently. The drawback is that you're now evil, and only wish level magic can change that. Fuck this noise, just make it a flavour thing and take real feats.

Infernal Soul
Requires Immunity, +10 hp. You now radiate evil out to 100', but your master's kin are inclined to be slightly less dickish towards you. Or rather, they see you as one of their own, so maybe that's more dickish, who knows. Fuck this, just take one of the billion toughness variations.

Invisibility
Become Invisible once per day at will. I think AEG needs to look up game terms. Like flight, each time you take it it raises the number of times you can use it each time you take it. The drawback is a -3 penalty to charisma based skill checks because people notice you less. I'd argue for a +3 on stealth checks given that.

Shapechange
They apparently gave up on alphabetical order. Like Invisibility or Flight, you get a spell you can use once a day, more if you take the feat multiple times. I would just take Persist form (it's seriously not termed a spell-like ability, you change shape as per the spell), find the best form I could use and stay in it all day. Also, I'll point out that shapechange allows you to change form once per round as a free action while it's duration is running. Each time you take it, you get -1 int. Good for fighters. It doesn't say a caster level, but it's safe to assume it's supposed to be your character level, like the other "spell, once per day" feats. A third level spellcaster could do worse than shapechanging into a white wyrmling and strafing with a cold breath weapon after stunning the enemy with colour spray or something. A Ftr4 or other meleer could turn into a medium earth elemental for a decent strength boost. Strictly speaking you can also just shapechange into Half Dragon You and get +8 strength. Or fuck, Vampire You for boosts to everything but con and +8 to a bunch of skills.

Magic Item
Requires Wealth (see below). You get a randomly rolled item from the DMG. It doesn't say that this rules out scrolls and potions, but it does say the item is permanent, so your DM should reroll those if they pop up. The drawback is that there's a greater chance the item was cursed, and more than likely was stolen from someone. If it's cursed and they come looking for you, just say "hey, I removed a cursed item from you. You're welcome."

Multiple Limbs
Given that they said "fuck alphabetization" they should have put this with Claws/Fangs and the pic of the four armed guy with no pants. Whatever. You get your choice of two extra arms, two extra legs, or a prehensile tail. Requires Shapechange. The drawback, besides looking like a freak, is that you get -8 to your charisma while your extra limbs are visible, and paladins and clerics are likely to consider you evil and attack you on the spot. Apparently they never heard of the Hindu pantheon at AEG.

Poison Blood
Requires Immunity, 100xp. Exactly what it says on the tin. You can choose from a bunch of bullshit poisons on a chart, from a DC 10 no initial, secondary Death, to a DC 25 1d6/1d6 hp poison. I'd say the best is either the DC 22 1d6 Int/1d4 hp or the DC 18 1d6 Con/2d6 HP. You're also immune to all poisons. Drawback is that you're now cold blooded, have vertical eyeslits, and are becoming nocturnal. Also, if you wear armour heavier than leather, you lose the benefit, because it's hard to actually get cut in fullplate.

Rot
Requires Immunity. You can spread Mummy Rot. You stink like a rotting corpse. But then, D&D takes place in a ancient/medieval setting. So does everyone else.

Regeneration
Given that they said "fuck the alphabet," I wish they'd grouped shit together into chains. Whatever. Requires Immunity, 300xp. You are constantly under the effects of the Regenerate spell. This is actually strictly better than Improved Regenerate, I think, unless you're undead (which means that normally you wouldn't be able to have it, but whatever). Basically you get Fast Healing 4d8+character level (so, 5-33 at character level 1) and regenerate lost limbs, at the cost of being cold blooded and taking double damage from fire on a failed save.

Undetectable Lie
Basically only magic cast by outsiders can discern your lies. Even artifacts have a 50% chance to fail to detect them. Drawback is a forked tongue. So if people make a spot check, opposed by your bluff, they can notice, and will likely assume everything you say is a lie. Except you can tell them it was a horrible accident in battle, and they can't tell you're lying.

Unholy Blessing
Requires Immunity, 500xp. You have a permanent Unholy Aura, CL 20. Drawback is that you sprout little horns, that grow into full demonic horns over time.

Unholy Strength
+2 strength, permanent. Can be taken multiple times. Drawback is that your muscle growth is not normal, and every second time you take it, you lose 1 dex. This says to me "Play a barbarian, take three times if you can find a way to get free feats, look like Conan."

Wealth
Gain 15,000 gp in gold, gems, goods or magic items. Seriously. Each time you take it after the first, you "only" receive 10,000gp worth. No direct drawback, but it's likely the stuff came from other people. No one cares because you just became the richest man in town and can probably hire the town guard to beat people up for you.

Wish
Wow. And I though Wealth and Magic Item were absurd. Requires two other infernal feats (plus the anti-feat Infernal Pact), 1000xp, and 3 hp. You cane make one wish. This feat can be taken multiple times. Fuck this shit. I wonder if you can with for 20 bonus feats. I mean, sure, the DM would probably say "ok, but they have to be Infernal Pact feats," but, fuck, that's worth it, even if you're just taking wealth 10 times, magic item five, Immunity, Regeneration, Shapechange, Unholy Aura, and Undetectable Lie. Then you run around telling people that your were cursed by a demon, and they believe you. You also 105,000 gold, and five random magic items.

Next up is the Demon Summoner PrC, but that will have to wait.

Back in AD&D days, people jumped their characters from one campaign to another all the time. Even hopping through to completely different worlds. There weren't any rules for starting equipment for higher level characters, so if you wanted to join or sit in on a game where the players weren't lowbies, you pretty much needed to have an established character ready to go. The standard at the time was for people to put all their weird campaign specific magic items on index cards, hand the pile to the new DM, and have the DM line item veto all the ones he thought were over the top or too weird. I'm pretty sure most people brought in ringers that DMs could veto in order to make their real magic items look more reasonable.

In 2nd edition, things were pretty much the same, although for some reason I do not remember anyone getting their items line item vetoed away one by one. Also, the index card items were a thing of the past. Possibly this is because in 2nd edition I don't remember people coming up with as many bullshit items like maces that leaked highly corrosive bases (because it was high pH instead of low, so acid resistance shouldn't apply!). But by late in 2nd edition, the rules themselves had fragmented so severely that that stopped being possible. You'd go to a new table, inform the DM that you had a crossbow specialist using the Combat and Tactics rules with some sort of Gnome specific kit or some shit, and the DM would get glassy eyed and tell you to roll up a new character because this game only uses the Complete book of Ninjas and the Chronomancer's Handbook or some shit.

3e saw a fair amount of campaign hopping. Custom magic items would generally get vetoed left and right, but if you showed up with your character who had some bullshit bonus gear and crap right out of the books you'd get slotted right in. By 3.5, that ceased happening, and I blame the overcomplication and subsequent fracturing of the rules.

-Username17

Presumably you can only Wish for what you can normally Wish for: if you have an oldskool [EDITED] of an MC, that means you can have absolutely anything ever but he will bend over backwards in his efforts to fuck you ("I wish for twenty feats" "He mishears you and gives you eighteen extra legs so you have twenty feet!"), if your MC uses normal 3.X Wish rules then you can't wish for Feats (or rather, you will be told to get fucked), you can simply increase an ability score by 1 point or something.

In either case there'll probably be a special drawback related to the wish because of who is granting it.

Also, I love how flying means you have hollow bones (because that's realistic) even though you have tiny wings (because fuck realism, you're flying with magic).

I have actually wanted to institute the game jumping, even if only because it gets tiresome having to make brand new characters every damned game. It'd probably also provide for some interesting circumstances. But house rule and splatbook proliferation is probably way too high for it to work outside a specific group.

On the hollow bones-- because you made a deal with a demon, so you have to start looking like a "freak," --even though taking Claws, Fangs, and Flight/Improved Flight would, or could, just give you a cute monster girl that every male in Japan, and a lot of men and women outside of it, would want as a "waifu."

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I don't need a feat to be a total fuckbag.

Sigging.

Warlord is not actually out of place in a discussion of evil campaigns. At that point, it was just being released, and since it's (extensive) backstory came from a dnd evil campaign, it was probably on the guy's mind.

Except he didn't even discuss it, he said "Back in 1980, before I started running the campaign in the world that the Warlord CCG is now set..." It's a complete non-sequitor, given that he doesn't say "which happened to be an evil campaign." It only serves as a product plug.
-----------------------

So, the Demon Summoner. It starts with a bit about how it isn't necessarily tied solely to demons, they just are using the term for convenience. Man, I wish there were some word, some term that referred to evil outsiders from the lower planes, irrespective of chaotic or lawful tendencies...
Anyway, it says that demon summoning is anathema to most societies so demon summoners tend to be hermits who only talk to fiends they call up, pour through musty tomes, and occasionally go into town to resupply, buy more tomes, or acquire victims. It talks about how only spellcasters can qualify (duh), and that arcanists are the more common, but there are totally clerics.
The requirements, however, are just bizarre. Any evil, Kn. Demonology (new skill in this book) and spellcraft all make sense, as well as Abyssal/Infernal. What's weird is the spellcasting requirement. You'd think it'd require Lesser Planar Binding/Ally, right? Or maybe Dimensional Anchor, or something. No, it requires "Cleric 7th level or higher, Sorcerer 6th level or higher, or Wizard 5th level or higher." A quick check of the SRD reveals nothing that is 3rd level for wizards/sorcerers and 4th for clerics, at least, nothing relating to demon summoning. Even this book doesn't have anything. No, wait, scratch that. It's not with the other spells, but it seems that the actual requirement is the new spell Belarosh's Law, which is basically made pointless by the fact that Magic Circle and Dimensional Anchor fulfill the same purpose. But I don't recall if they did so in 3.0.
The class gives full casting, poor BAB, good will, six metamagic feats an apprentice (level 0 wizard who gains experience at half the rate you yourself do), and an Imp or Quasit follower. The spellcasting is a bit odd in that the only spells you learn through advancing your spellcasting with this class are various verstions of Summon/Dismiss (fiend), which is a custom, and weird, spell. It's level is "Summoner equal to half the level of the entity being called, round up." So if you want to learn Summon/Dismiss Vrock, it's level 5. Presumably you can't learn Summon/Dismiss Balor without epic feats. It takes thirty minutes to cast, though you can dismiss the fiend as a single action, but you have to learn it twice for each demon, even though it's one spell... wow. So basically, there is a single spell "Summon/Dismiss (type of fiend)." When you learn it, you decide what type of demon it can summon (actually, call), and it's HD cannot exceed your caster level+1. In order to use the spell to dismiss the fiend, you have to learn it again. So basically your spell list starts looking like "Summon Dretch (lv 1)," "Dismiss Dretch (lv 1)," "Summon Bebilith (lv 6)," etc. It's close range, instantaneous, and seemingly puts the fiend under no compulsion. There is basically no reason to learn these spells. Planar Ally/Binding have more versatility, a shorter casting time, and don't have random results. Yeah, this one has a chance to screw you over. When you cast it to summon, you roll Spellcraft (DC 20). If you fail, but you have an assistant who knows the spell then they get to make a check to save your casting, and you can keep having people try until you succeed or run out of apprentices. It's better to just use aid another if you have more than a couple. If you fail the roll, you then roll a d20. On a 1-5, you call up a puff of foul smelling smoke, nothing else. 6-9 you call something one level lower (I think they mean something that can be called with a spell one level lower), a 0 means you don't get anything. 10-12 as above, but it appears outside your magical circle. 13-15 you successfully summon, but not into the circle. 16-17 you get something one level higher, 18-19 one level higher and outside the circle. 20 the spell sucks you into the lower planes.
If you're successful, the demon you want appears (though you need a name for a specific demon), and it's not allowed to leave until dismissed or it completes a bargain. As I said, you need to learn a dismiss spell specific to your chosen demon type too, and the demon can resist being dismissed with SR, but most are eager to go home. Given that, there is very little reason to worry about Dismiss (fiend), because you can just tell it that you're done, and the calling magic lets it go home if it wants. If you don't want to leave that up to chance, you can just learn Banishment.
I'm not opposed to a special thematic spell, but I think this was poorly written, what they really want is this:
Call Fiend
Conjuration (Calling)
Level: 1
Components: V, S, Focus (specially prepared circle)
Casting Time: Thirty Minutes
Range: Close (25'+5'/2 levels)
Target: One random evil outsider of a given race
Duration: Instantaneous (D)
Saving Throw: No
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell allows you to call an evil outsider with up to 2 HD. By preparing this spell in a higher level slot, you may call a fiend of 2 more HD per spell level. For example, as a first level spell, you may use this to call a dretch. If prepared as a 6th level spell, you may call a bebilith.
Unless using a fiend's secret name, the resulting fiend is a random member of it's race. If using a name, you will get that specific fiend when casting this spell and intoning it's name.
A fiend may resist being called, or sent back, if it so chooses, forcing the caster to roll a caster level check against the fiends' SR.
When using this spell, all participating casters who could prepare or spontaneously cast the spell may make a DC (15+Fiend's HD) Spellcraft or Knowl. Planar (I'd say Demonology, but this works). On a failed check, a mishap happens. Consult the table below.
On a successful cast, the called fiend appears and cannot return from when it came without the caster's explicit permission, or a pact has been formed.

The book then discusses "Why summon a (fiend)?" Which, I think, is obvious, but they feel the need to call out the benefits of calling up one of the Abyss' ass kickers. Those are: fighting for the demon summoned, casting a spell, teaching a spell, giving or getting the summoner a piece of information, providing infernal powers.
Then it jumps behind the DM screen to give tips on how to roleplay a demon, and give some crunch for the summoning. This is stuff like bonuses on a charisma check for the mood of the fiend, offered goods/victims/services/boons/a previously made Kn. Demonology check/true name/talisman. Protip, the more you are loathe to part with the wealth offered, the more it works, which is to say, it has to be a sacrifice. except, not. It only cares about your level times 5,000 gp for a +1. Basically, there's some ok stuff, but Tome of Fiends was better.

Next up is Worshipping Evil, which presents special evil dieties.

Prak_Anima wrote:I have actually wanted to institute the game jumping, even if only because it gets tiresome having to make brand new characters every damned game. It'd probably also provide for some interesting circumstances. But house rule and splatbook proliferation is probably way too high for it to work outside a specific group.

On the hollow bones-- because you made a deal with a demon, so you have to start looking like a "freak," --even though taking Claws, Fangs, and Flight/Improved Flight would, or could, just give you a cute monster girl that every male in Japan, and a lot of men and women outside of it, would want as a "waifu."

A friend / player of mine wrote up a tortoise-riding gun/blunderbuss/rifle-wielding dwarf meant specifically to game hop. He has a sheet prepped for each level of play and campaign specific gear stays behind when he leaves any particular world.

I thought that was relatively clever.

Yeah, a friend and I have done stuff like that. Meh.
----------------------------------------------------------

So, wow, I've been procrastinating this longer than I thought. I've been lazy, what can I say?

Anyway, the next section is Worshipping Evil. Should be... interesting.

The section starts out by talking about how normal rank and file fiends generally don't desire worship by large groups, and would "probably just eat them." I call partial bullshit on this. I can totally see fiends trying to gather mortal worshippers, especially demons, due to general lack of hierarchy. A devil who attracts worshipers is really just feeding his superior's power. A demon who attracts worshipers has minions.
It also calls out evil worshipers as "almost always doing it for their own, selfish reasons." I'm sorry, that's what religion is. No one worships god out of gratitude. They do it to stay on the magic sky fairy's good side.
A handful of Non-copyright-infringing evil gods is offered:
Saaneeraa: Essentially Wee Jas. LE goddess of corruption, fav. weapon dagger. Looks like "a tall, comely erinyes." Oh, I should mention that it considers evil deities to be upstart fiends who achieved a modicum of power and can bestow spells. so... deities.
Menetor: Hextor expy. LE "lord of pain." Enormous, whip-wielding Cornugon.
Draam: LE god of the undead. Opposed by the "god of death." Appears as a "large (nine-foot-tall) zombie." So.... what the hell necromancer is going to worship something it can animate at level 5?
Fenestraal: CE Lady of Disease. "a once-beautiful woman ravaged with every known disease." There you go. You now know that there is at least one god in D&D with crabs and syphilis.
Rolisch'kah: CE lord of darkness. He's a humanoid darkness fiel with glowing eyes. His favoured weapon is, somewhat oddly, the sap.
Elri'kah: CE Lord of destruction. Gigantic balor, with a huge greataxe instead of a whip. No, I don't know why the thing known for carrying a whip has an ax instead, especially when the "god of pain" has a whip.

Each god has the evil and appropriate of law/chaos domains, along with one other (two in the case of Saan-y.) Saaneeraa has Corruption and Lust (at least, according to the table. The text just says "evil, law and corruption."). Menetor has Pain, Draam Death, Fenestraal Disease, Rolisch Darkness, and Elri'kah has Destruction. The book reprints chaos, death, destruction, evil and law for convenience. It also introduces the previously mentioned Corruption, Lust, Pain, Disease and Darkness domains, along with Blood, Plague and Rot, which aren't associated with anyone specific.

Blood Domain Granted ability- bleed out 1hp/sp lv from yourself to extend spells. Not bad, actually. If you can get a DM to ok allowing you to do the same for persist, maybe as long as you actually take Persist, then do it, because 4hp for all day Full BAB, +6 str, and +CL hp is fucking amazing. It also gives Time Stop as your ninth level spell. I don't know why, but most the choices make little to no sense (Cause Fear, Magic Vestment, Summon Monster IV, Scrying, Wind Walk, Unholy Aura...).

Corruption should have been called "Temptation." The granted ability is a meaningless, but flavourful "once er day, know the dearest desire of a target creature." It then gives Charm Person, Enthrall, Suggestion, Dominate Person, Mind Fog, Geas/Quest, Lim. Wish, Demand (?) and Wish. Pretty cool, really.

Darkness granted ability "Darkvision." Full stop. No range. Wow. That's crap. Gives Obscuring Mist, Darkness, Deeper Darkness, Invisibility, Invis. Sphere, Mislead, Mass Invis., Power Word Blinf and Gate. Only two of those have anything at all to do with darkness. Fuck this domain.

Disease Granted ability: immune to natural diseases, add CL to saves vrs. magical diseases. Gives Curse Water, Inflict Mod. Wounds (why???), Contagion, Poison, Slay Living, Circle of Death, Destruction, Horrid Wilting, Energy Drain. ...very few of those have much to do with disease...

Lust has a weirdly worded, strange granted power. When using Bluff or Diplomacy against humanoids, you get a bonus to Charisma for those skill rolls, equal to your level. That... well, it's a diplomancer. The spells generally make sense, except for wish. Why the hell is Wish a Lust spell? Who's going around using Wish to make their massive cocks fit?

I'll have to come back to this. Bed is calling.