Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Why is it so fun to play as an evil character but so hard to DM a group of evil characters?
Let's face it, it's pretty fun to play as an evil character. Evil characters get all the bitchin' undead spells and sweet perks. It's pretty fun to play a character who randomly butchers three people and eats their hearts afterwards.
But why does it have to be so hard to DM an evil character? Like, let's say a quest giver tasks our PCs to kill a red dragon for 3000 gold, or something like that.
A good PC would kill the dragon and take the 3000 gold. No fuss, no mess, get on with the story.
An evil PC, on the other hand, would kill the quest giver (an infinitely easier target to kill) and take the 3000 gold. And you have to make it up from there! You have to rewrite your entire campaign COMPLETELY!
Why does it have to be this way?
Comments
Maybe you should stop writing campaigns for good characters if your players are all evil.
And there's no reason for the quest giver to actually have the 3000 gold on him.
I basically just crib campaigns from sourcebooks. I don't write them.
Yeah, what ponicalica said. This wouldn't be a problem if your story did not depend on the characters doing good.
^ Are there campaigns for evil players then?
Probably because stereotypical fantasy campaigns are predicated on the notion of the protagonists being the god guys.
Also because the scale of good vs. evil is actually not "good" vs. "evil" but "nice person" vs. "jerk".
The solution is obvious: the quest giver is a dragon in disguise. Could be the same dragon, or a different one.
In fact, all the quest givers should be dragons in disguise. The barkeep? He's a Dragon. The city mayor? Why, of course, a dragon. The little old lady in a cabin in the woods? Dragon.
There are
Because they joined Team Aqua in one campaign, the Professor who is secretly Arceus (they already know this due to a side quest involving mind wipe at the end), instead of getting ticked, congratulated them on infiltrating. This slowed them down enough that they encountered Raikou early... And then caught him first shot (best part was that it was the player who plays as an abra - His talking counts as ultra + 25% or less health left, with 5 more difficulty every time he fails, he attacks, a team mate attacks, etc. As such, I couldn't even pull the, "You are not worthy" card)
So now they are getting info, etc and are about to be screwed by:
Ruins of Alph: A level 40 Mew
Dark Cave: Level 70 Giratina reviving an army of zombies (one of the players killed a ton of pawniard)
Ecruteak: Level 40 Entei
Azalea: Magma admin stopping aqua plans
Plus the body count that is soon to rise is going to get the police on them
Yet they always find hilariously creative ways to break it
Why don't you just make your campaign about being a criminal? Or find one?
Dragon's Dogma actually had something a lot like this.
I'm currently running a Riddle of Steel campaign for my meatspace friends. They aren't exactly playing nice characters. One of them intends to conquer the Italian city-states and unify the peninsula through force; another is a black knight who wants his name to become feared across the land.
One piece of advice I can give is to allow the players to define their own overarching goals and the general approach they want to take. For instance, let's run with the example of the dragon slaying quest above.
If the 3000 gold is the only incentive for them doing the quest, then sure, an evil jerk is just going to shank the quest-giver and take the gold. Or find it some other way. But think about the implications of a dragon being... well, anywhere.
A dragon is going to have a lair. They often have a hoard of treasure. Therefore, whoever can claim the treasure will immediately become extremely wealthy -- and I guarantee that any dragon's hoard is going to be worth well beyond 3000 gold. In addition, people don't often slay dragons, so succeeding in that task is going to bring a lot of attention towards the dragonslayers. They'll be famous. And if that wasn't enough, it's likely that those with political and economic stakes in the region will be sending their best warriors, trappers and whatnot to take the beast out. We're talking monarchs.
So take the two characters I mentioned above. One wants to be a conqueror; one wants to be feared. Imagine how far towards success slaying a dragon will take them. Not just in the slaying itself, but concerning the wealth, reputation and attention gained. In addition, a character (or the whole party) might want to cut a deal with a monarch and slay the dragon in the name of a particular kingdom, sharing the wealth and earning high positions and land. Or perhaps, instead, they'd cut a deal with the dragon? Who knows?
Evil isn't necessarily about taking the most violent or visceral path, first and foremost. It's about incentivising one's own well-being over others to such a degree that one causes inordinate amounts of suffering around them. An evil character will take control of a region's granaries and artificially inflate the prices of bread for their own profit -- a stupid, malevolent character will run into the granaries, kill everyone and loot everything. Because they're stupid.
Yeah, but forethought and planning aren't as fun as mindless, wholesale slaughter.
That's just your taste. :P
Heist movies say otherwise.
Nothing like a plan coming together.
I've been thinking, does a chaotic evil character has to be one for wanton destruction and that stuff? I mean, can't they be able to plan ahead the destruction of all methodically?
Why not, The Joker is a classic example of CE, for example.
Yeah, but heists can also be pulled off by good/neutral characters.
Like, in some cases stealing is a morally acceptable crime.
It's still a crime.
And crimes are - usually - an evil, selfish act.
Even when it's stealing from a corrupt, greedy noble to help free your old political prisoner father?
Key-word: usually.
As in, "What happens most often."
Most thieves, fantasy or not, are stealing for themselves. Sometimes it's necessary and they wouldn't eat otherwise.
But it's always in the interest of yourself.
Additionally, by stealing, you are working against a system. Predatory or not, people work in that system, exist in that system, live in that system, and by stealing you are undermining that system, hurting those people for your own gain.
But like I said, what if they deserve it? Not every person existing inside a system is John the poor but honest and hardworking farmer who would never hurt another innocent person. What if they're corrupt, greedy assholes who are either criminals themselves or little better than them?
Self-interest isn't always inherently wrong. Eating is also in the interest of yourself, and it isn't evil.
Do you not understand the word "usually"?
So here's a situation.
You steal the big chest of gold that they keep around for when the tax collector comes around. What happens? The taxes are raised for everybody to recoup the loss.
Here's another one. You set fire to the town hall and ransack the place. What happens? Guards go around, stomping on heads, knocking noses in, setting an example so nobody decides to try it again.
One more; you swindle, cheat, and bluff millions of dollars out of a casino with a well-thought-out and executed plan. What happens? The casino goes out of business, and the employees no longer have jobs.
Every time you undermine the system, you're hurting everybody that lives within it. Doesn't matter if they're good, doesn't matter if they're bad folks. You're fucking all of them.
It's like rain; it falls on the just and the unjust. And you - my friend - are the one with the fucking cloud-seeder. And you won't stop pressing the goddamn button.
Well, I'm impressed. A thread about roleplaying as evil characters has turned into a debate about ethics and morality.
Carry on.
Incidentally, I heard a Catholic priest give a sermon a few months ago about the distinction between institutions vs. office-holders. He cited the story of Jesus and the tax collectors, or was it Jesus and the people who wanted to avoid paying taxes. Basically, they knew that he didn't like the Roman regime, and so they wanted ethical backing to not pay taxes or something. So they asked Jesus whether paying taxes was right, expecting him to say that the taxes were unjust. Instead, Jesus answered them with the phrase "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", or something like that. The priest's explanation of this is that Jesus is showing respect for the institution -- the feature of society that maintains order. While he didn't like the people running the place, he nevertheless acknowledged the fact that order had to exist in order for society to function.
Or something like that.
The people who questioned him on taxes were people hostile to him, trying to entrap him into saying something that would get him arrested by the Roman authorities.
You're surprised that a thread about evil is discussing morality?