The Campaign Builder's Guild

So, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil?  Is there evil (or alignment)?

Do you set up the setting to be good-centric?  Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?  
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met?  Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?  

How would you handle a priest of Jubilex, or another deity of a not-so-nice persuasion?  How about a real assassin?  How would they fit in?  

I think what's hardest is playing evil in an otherwise good/neutral party.  I tried it once (the game had no alignment, but still); we were meant to be hardened mercenary types working for a dubiously moral faction, so I figured that meant play fairly evil (i.e. not shirk from brute intimidation or interrogation, or worry much about saving innocents), but a lot of the other PCs decided to play more typically good characters.  On our first proper mission some civilians were going to get in the way, and probably would end up killed.  My character was fine with it, but the others resolved to disobey orders and save them instead, and I pretty much had to go along with it.  It was quite an interesting character to play, and I had a lot of fun with him, but I was constantly in tension with the other group members.

On the DMing side, I usually present a more amoral universe where it's unclear which side in a given conflict is good (a vampire vs demon turf war, for example); if I was ever to DM a CE campaign it'd probably be that way as well.  One early game I ran for awhile had a couple of evil PCs who were professional thieves, but because of various guild codes they didn't turn on each other as much as you might expect, and the traditional forces of "good" (or, at least, authority) such as town guards became the bad guys.  Even that was verging on shades of grey-black, though, since most of the authorities were corrupt anyway.

Quote from: SteerpikeI think what's hardest is playing evil in an otherwise good/neutral party.  I tried it once (the game had no alignment, but still); we were meant to be hardened mercenary types working for a dubiously moral faction, so I figured that meant play fairly evil (i.e. not shirk from brute intimidation or interrogation, or worry much about saving innocents), but a lot of the other PCs decided to play more typically good characters.  On our first proper mission some civilians were going to get in the way, and probably would end up killed.  My character was fine with it, but the others resolved to disobey orders and save them instead, and I pretty much had to go along with it.  It was quite an interesting character to play, and I had a lot of fun with him, but I was constantly in tension with the other group members.

On the DMing side, I usually present a more amoral universe where it's unclear which side in a given conflict is good (a vampire vs demon turf war, for example); if I was ever to DM a CE campaign it'd probably be that way as well.  One early game I ran for awhile had a couple of evil PCs who were professional thieves, but because of various guild codes they didn't turn on each other as much as you might expect, and the traditional forces of "good" (or, at least, authority) such as town guards became the bad guys.  Even that was verging on shades of grey-black, though, since most of the authorities were corrupt anyway.

And that, of course, brings up the fact that evil does not (always) equate to stupidity.  Enlightened self-interest can be percieved as acting 'good, when in fact is can be just playing intelligently.

sometimes, also, it is harder to be 'evil' in a morally ambiguous setting like CE (or another one that comes to mind that starts with 'C'), since there is no real good to contrast with.

QuoteSo, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil? Is there evil (or alignment)?

Do you set up the setting to be good-centric? Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met? Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?[/quote]
I generally have no completely "good" sides (although one player in a game couldn't get the idea that the good/evilness of the groups they were running up against might be more complicated than it initially appeared) ; but of course I often have clearly evil demons -- everyone likes to kick back and relax sometimes. But everyone has a recognizable motive.

My highest point of which I am quite proud is when I had the players and 4-5 differentiated sides- after a 4 scenario game- locked in a room, negotiating the fate of a magical item. Every side had good reasons for possessing the item and everyone wanted to do something different with it. Some argued it was evil and hoped to destroy; others wanted to study it; to others it was holy and they said it would never be used for evil; etc.

The players pondered the puzzle for about 2 hours in real life, then we decided to push ahead after one commented. "This is interesting, but it's like the Treaty of Versailles... I don't think we're going to come to a good solution."

So I added in some action to help the players decide.

--
I am a large believer in people having "Interests" rather than, necessarily, "morality"... Good and Evil only make sense if the world has a standard Morality. On Earth, for example, people generally believe that euthanasia is bad because of cultural reasons or religious reasons- but what really makes it "evil"? Religion has an answer; Culture has an answer; but is there an objective reason why Euthanasia is evil? Even the statement "it results in death" warrants an answer of "so what?" what makes killing certain groups of people objectively evil? In wars, people kill all the time; even in religious literature there is a large body of support for killing enemies. (Note: Rhetorical question... I would rather not threadjack Vreeg's interesting thread here)

Quote from: Lord VreegSo, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil?  Is there evil (or alignment)?

Do you set up the setting to be good-centric?  Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?  
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met?  Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?  

How would you handle a priest of Jubilex, or another deity of a not-so-nice persuasion?  How about a real assassin?  How would they fit in?

My games don't have an alignment. You can be good or evil or whatever you want and it won't affect you mechanic wise (though it will probably effect you fluff wise).

That is one of the things I try to pride myself on with Haveneast - it's black-and-white good and evil, but at the same time that doesn't mean that good and evil can't function together; there are greater things at stake. Good and evil are obvious, identifiable forces, but the real powers and dividers are the factions that make war with each other. The best examples are probably the legions among legions of knights and knightly orders that infest the courts, the border territories, and sometimes hold their own small lands: beyond their own specific codes, oaths, and religions that they follow, they're free to be good or evil (hell, even though Justaism is a "good" religion and there are evils opposed to it, there are more than a few evil knights that crusade against them in the name of Justahn... just with more brutal and uncaring methods). It's a "faction first" setting; even though your alignment can affect what factions you choose to ally yourself with, at the end of the day your faction - organization, cult, state, nation, etc. matters more.

Dystopian Universe is pretty much the same thing there, only I didn't worry too much about actually establishing good and evil both because there's no real magic or any other effects to function based on it (psionics are pretty neutral), and because the moral ambiguity fits the government conspiracy theme very well.

[blockquote=LD]I am a large believer in people having "Interests" rather than, necessarily, "morality"... Good and Evil only make sense if the world has a standard Morality. On Earth, for example, people generally believe that euthanasia is bad because of cultural reasons or religious reasons- but what really makes it "evil"? Religion has an answer; Culture has an answer; but is there an objective reason why Euthanasia is evil? Even the statement "it results in death" warrants an answer of "so what?" what makes killing certain groups of people objectively evil? In wars, people kill all the time; even in religious literature there is a large body of support for killing enemies. (Note: Rhetorical question... I would rather not threadjack Vreeg's interesting thread here)[/blockquote]
Not threadjacking as long as it pertains to Good and evil in a setting.  

Sometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral reaslism, can ruin a 'game'.  I have stated before that GM's are players also, We just play the 'rest of the world'.  At times this is a tall order.  Also, most of our games involve different religeous backgrounds than what we GMs grew up with, so the moral signposts may be subtly or greatly changed.  Euthenasia proponents view this particular intentional killing as the lesser of two evils, not a happy outcome, just better than the alternative, while foes find the intentional taking of life morally repugnant and the bailiwick of the deity only.  Evil is sometimes a perception.
Sometimes.

Often when someone plays evil it ends up becoming a caricature: evil for the sake of evil. In my current game we  don't use alignment and most of the characters are not exactly moralists (except for two who are rather saintly). I made some modifications to the system so the characters had a specific ambition, and following that ambition would yield them XP.
I had a very short modern d20 campaign where my players played the founding members of an evil organization out to control the world from their underground base on Malta. Although ruling the world is a more concrete goal than evil, it was still obviously an over-the-top campaign.
When i play evil or less-than-good myself i usually focus on one or more "evil" traits. I once played a female halberd-and-kukri-swinging mercenary captain who i defined in my mind with greed and cynicism. So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there) and would generally do anything for money.

>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)

How is that evil?

Quote from: Light Dragon>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)

How is that evil?

Maybe the orc was alive when she started to flay off the pieces?

Quote from: Light Dragon>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)

How is that evil?

Ok let's put this in other light. Imagine an orc making a morbid costume from the remains of your father (and smiling while he works).

So, it's a disguise-- the creature is dead. It's a creepy action, and disgusting, but not evil.

If it was done with the intent to frighten, humiliate, or scare other orcs, then perhaps it would be evil; but CC clearly said that it was for the purposes of a disguise.

Well, i'm pretty sure skinning humanoids is frowned upon in most societies. But then we are back to the discussion about whether something is evil/bad merely because consensus says so (like euthanasia). Anyway, was not a good example. I just liked the story... And all the other players seemed to find it somewhat evilish.
Another way to look at evil might be that they don't care about what means they have to use to get to a specific end, while good characters are more limited in their means even if the cause is good.

CC- that might be a good way of looking at it;

When I get into discussions relating to good/evil with my players I try to define it thusly:

Good = Altruistic and Kind
Neutral = Selfish (a bit) and Amoral
Evil = Selfish and Brutal

Neutral is a bit difficult to differentiate from Evil in that axis; but I think it clearly defines Good.

Someone who is merely altruistic could very well be evil...  if they believe that by torturing people they will help thousands. The good character would find an alternative way other than torture because the good character is kind to all. The neutral character may or may not torture the person, but the neutral character certainly would want to help the thousands. and an evil/brutal person would torture the person, but not care about the thousands at all.

Another reason why the axis is difficult in the real world is that... even hitler thought he was doing a good thing- so he may say he was altruistic... But he certainly was not kind- which I think, keeps him out of the Good square.

I think that a lot of people who play "good" characters really play neutral characters at best. I do not think there is anything wrong with this, but as CC points out, being "good" is difficult when there are lives at stake.

In Kaidan, its a bit strange. Most of the powers in control are undead, but they're undead so they can maintain their position of power, and not die, reincarnate and move to a lower position of power. While they definitely try to get advantage from others in power - this is more power hunger than actually evil.

Also most every faction, organization or group among those not in power strive to take advantage of those around them to maintain strength and achieve longterm goals - this is a lesser form of power hunger and not truly evil unto itself.

The state religion, known as Zao, attempts to maintain the cosmic order as it pertains to the Wheel of Life, at the same time it actively hides the mechanism of salvation (escape the reincarnation cycle to the Pure Lands, and/or eventual escape to Nirvana.) The religion considers pursuing salvation as both a heresy and act of treason. Thus will overtly destroy those who are publically seeking or spreading the idea of salvation. Is that being evil or attempting to maintain the status quo, which they believe is the correct thing to do.

There is a faction from Hell (Yomi or Jigoku) whose primary agenda is the destruction of that which is not Hell - they want to burn Kaidan to ashes. They have agents including both Oni-demons and demon spirits that actively do evil in small and large doses. This I believe is the only truly evil faction in Kaidan.

In every way all NPC participants seek to maintain status quo, gain advantage over others, promote their own causes and otherwise seek to keep things as they are.

While Kaidan is a dark fantasy setting. Except for the Hell faction, is it truly an evil empire? I am not sure.

GP