PDA

View Full Version : WFRP: Playing the Evil races. Please see thead for details.



Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-13-2009, 03:11 PM
There was a dnd module out years ago that gave a different perspective on good and bad. For each side sees the other as evil.

So, thinking it would be great fun, i started running, and designing campaigns-parties-to go against the humans, and the other goodly races in the WFRP world.

Probably the most popular race played in my campaigns were the Skaven races with their mysterious Skaven magic. There are, after all, classes already designed for said race which can easily be found on the net for with a little searching. Maps of the Skaven Underworld can even be found in the the armies books. I believe that's where i found them, i have to look at my notes.

Another race i have tested and played extensively were the Gobbos and their Waaargh magic, but back to the Skaven.

I'll admit, these are advanced games that should be played by knowledgeable players of the old world, but done right, is an incredible blast.

How many other WFRP players have taken the leap to have parties play the other side against the eeeeevil humannsessss?

For me it was a huge success, and i would like any other WFRP gamer to share opinions, questions, and/or experiences.

What share you?

Windstar
05-13-2009, 08:08 PM
I am one of the other votes, you forgot evil vs evil. That happens alot, and though I did not play it one of my DM's has a Drow
Adventure homebrew, house vs house. It sounded good, but DL always won out back then.

:cool::cool:

Baron_Samedi
05-13-2009, 08:17 PM
Thoth...

Many moons ago we were bored with the standard triad of fantasy races (human, elf, dwarf) so we designed several racial variants for WFRP, lizardmen, dark elves, beastmen and ogres...the point of my story is we played as ogre mercenaries for one of the elector counts, that worked out well enough for at least a few skirmish hack and slash games...Although it was balanced enough for the rules, it got a little boring pounding everything into dust all the time. One of us was a leadbelcher gunner, another was just a hunter, and the last was an ironguts variant. We were working on a dark elf corsair campaign, before we moved onto something else...unfortunately WFRP doesn't really lend itself to playing off beat, sinister races...you might want to consider chaos dwarves...

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-13-2009, 10:13 PM
Thoth...

Many moons ago we were bored with the standard triad of fantasy races (human, elf, dwarf) so we designed several racial variants for WFRP, lizardmen, dark elves, beastmen and ogres...the point of my story is we played as ogre mercenaries for one of the elector counts, that worked out well enough for at least a few skirmish hack and slash games...Although it was balanced enough for the rules, it got a little boring pounding everything into dust all the time. One of us was a leadbelcher gunner, another was just a hunter, and the last was an ironguts variant. We were working on a dark elf corsair campaign, before we moved onto something else...unfortunately WFRP doesn't really lend itself to playing off beat, sinister races...you might want to consider chaos dwarves...

Very cool. I think if done right, WFRP excels with offbeat sinister races. I have run the chaos dwarves before, but the party found other chaos races more to their enjoyment.


I am one of the other votes, you forgot evil vs evil. That happens alot, and though I did not play it one of my DM's has a Drow
Adventure homebrew, house vs house. It sounded good, but DL always won out back then.

:cool::cool:

Damn! I forgot that one. You know, when creating the poll i knew i was missing something, but i couldn't put my finger on it.

fmitchell
05-14-2009, 12:02 AM
Even though it tramples on another franchise, a vampire-based campaign sounds interesting. I think Night's Dark Masters even has vampire-related careers, although I'm too lazy to look. Apart from the usual angst, vampires are also, in their curious way, opposed to Chaos: they'd prefer everything remained exactly the same for ever and ever.

I'd consider other undead, but Wights, Wraiths, and Tomb Kings lead singularly dull lives, not to mention Skeletons and Zombies.

nijineko
05-14-2009, 01:02 PM
There was a dnd module out years ago that gave a different perspective on good and bad. For each side sees the other as evil.

...snip...

What share you?

the module you are thinking of is the "reverse dungeon". quite the fun one at that.

fmitchell
05-14-2009, 06:02 PM
There's also "The Ebon Mirror", in which adventurers literally go through the looking-glass to a world where peaceful orcs, goblins, and ogres suffer from the rampages of humans, elves, and dwarves ... and the "blessed dead", humans returned to unlife to pay for their wickedness, defend goblinoids against human evil.

DeadMike
05-15-2009, 01:35 AM
I always thought that most, if not all RPG's classify evil incorrectly. A lot of "evil" beings seem to me to be more just looking out for their self interest and trying to survive in a world over-run with those "human" creatures.

BrotherDog
05-15-2009, 02:07 AM
I have no idea what WFRP means, but the fourth choice makes no sense unless it's a game of "Democracy vs. Tyranny", "Freedom vs. Oppression" , and so on.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-15-2009, 10:04 AM
warhammer fantasy roleplay

DeadMike
05-15-2009, 10:28 PM
warhammer fantasy roleplay

Yup, image D&D with a heavy dose of reality thrown in. Not reality as in no magik, reality as in harder to survive, a character being physically maimed for the rest of its life is a strong possibility, survival of the lower classes is not easy, you are not automatically one of four basic job descriptions, etc.. A much better game IMHO.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-16-2009, 12:23 AM
I always referred to it to my dnd players as dnd on evil steroids.

gajenx
05-17-2009, 10:40 AM
I loved games where you got to play evil races and do things that way. I think my fav was the evil races of WHFRP. We had a Skaven, a sneeky little gobo, whom orks would never trust, Lemer, and I had a vampiric necromancer from Elustria (the home of the lillian vamps mind gone blank fro work overlaod.) But that was one of the best games ever. I think it was far mroe entertaining than the common good guys games everyone else plays.

templeorder
05-20-2009, 10:17 AM
Though not standard, any race in my world can be played with the right story. The difficulty is often not in playing an evil race but in being evil. If the character is not in a party that coincides with their outlook, it wont matter. If the bias against the species can be overcome by the players because they are an exception, then you still have to overcome society at large. In my world, half breeds are not welcome in many places, and half breed or full of an "evil" race would be feared and driven out of a lot of places. That said, i've had my share of Orrish (Ogre, Orc, Goblin, etc.) as a PC - mostly hardened from their upbringing and mean, but not following the evil of their species culture. Its fun trying to play a character fighting against their baser intincts. Its just as fun giving in to them though - its just has to fit the campaign...

Rook
05-20-2009, 01:58 PM
I ran a campaign back in the 80s in which the characters were champions of several humanoid clans who worked together to protect their lands from humans from a nearby stronghold. The humans had built the stronghold as a base for clearing out the surrounding lands and establishing human settlements. The humans were not "evil" in game terms, but were definitely imperialistic and had no problem exterminating the "hordes of verminous monsters" in "their" domain.
The campaign ran for quite sometime with the players eventually having to give up their original goal of killing of the humans and destroying their stronghold and instead leading their people to a new home.
One big effect of the campaign was the influence it had on the players in later campaigns when they were playing "good" characters. It greatly decreased the "the only good evil monster is a dead evil monster" attitude.

Makrothumeo
05-20-2009, 04:17 PM
Why do the polls on this site rarely make any sense?

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
05-20-2009, 04:38 PM
You're kidding, right? You're actually going to threadjack/derail another persons thread on your very first post on P&PG?

Now,... :focus:

Arkhemedes
06-18-2009, 08:06 AM
One of the most enjoyable (particularly for the players) campaigns I ran was an evil campaign in the Forgotten Realms where the leader of the band was an illegitimate son of Fzoul Chembryl of the Zhentarim (the Black Network). The players (some of them anyway) wanted to play evil characters because they thought it would allow them to do anything they wanted. But they found out otherwise. Because of their connections, the group was forced into joining the Zhentarim. Later on they spent most of their career exploring a massive dungeon where they became very powerful and learned that being evil only meant that they had more enemies because they were fighting both good and evil. At one point I even had the leader of the group assassinated to try and make the point that they couldn't just do whatever they wanted without facing the consequences. The leader was resurrected of course. But from that point on the PCs were more warry of what they did and were always looking over their shoulders. By the end of the campaign, which was a long one, the leader of the group (just to give an example) rose up to be a 14th level priest, started over (dual classed) as a mage and rose to 19th level and then became a lich! Very cool indeed!

DeadMike
06-19-2009, 02:10 PM
Thinking about it, I always preferred running neutral characters. In D&D chaotic neutral. Leave the good and evil to everyone else, I'm out for me and mine. When I used to play D&D, my preferred character was a thief/mage half-elf or elf. As far as party members went, they were like family and I would never steal from or purposely harm them unless they did something first. Not just against me, but against any party member. If they drew first blood on purpose or stole something from a party member they were fair game for the most painful thing handy... till they died.

Parzival
06-28-2009, 01:38 PM
IME, the problem with evil campaigns, is that it's nearly always a proposition bet that the GM won't stoop as low as the players are willing to.

<shrug> I've had to disabuse a few players of that notion.

;) But I'd have a lot of fun playing a greenskin in WFRP.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
06-28-2009, 03:01 PM
Greenskins and their Waaagh magic is always a sight to see.

korhal23
06-28-2009, 03:07 PM
The players (some of them anyway) wanted to play evil characters because they thought it would allow them to do anything they wanted. But they found out otherwise.... Later on they spent most of their career exploring a massive dungeon where they became very powerful and learned that being evil only meant that they had more enemies because they were fighting both good and evil.


BINGO. Spot on, sir. Being evil means you can do what you want without YOU feeling bad about it... but it doesn't make you above reprisals, and bad guys are almost always less cohesive of a group than good guys ;) I like your thinking.

Arkhemedes
06-28-2009, 08:01 PM
You are so right about not being cohesive. There were numerous times whenever someone tried to introduce a new character into the group that the older, more established characters would decide for one reason or another that they didn't like or didn't trust the new character and killed him. Unfortunately, a lot of this had to do with things outside of the game world I think, which of course was often difficult to detect. It was a real challenge to try and keep a handle on this kind of behavior and at the same time let the players properly play their characters. But I was always willing to give it a try, and as I said, despite the headaches brought on by this campaign, it was without question, one of the best, if not the best campaign I and my players were ever a part of.

korhal23
06-28-2009, 08:43 PM
Yeah. I think it all comes down to the maturity of the players too. Some players just use evil campaigns (or even other games where the characters are morally dubious) as a way to be anti-social. Nothing is more annoying than planning a whole campaign only to have it derailed by players shoot/stab each other just because they can, or wasting tons of time trying to hack into each other's comm units (instantly derailed the first Shadowrun game I was a player for, and turned me off to the game initially... I get it, your character is a good hacker, but he could use a healthy sense of self preservation, if you catch my drift), or stealing gear from each other, or whatever. The thing they need to know is that just because evil characters CAN backstab each other without negative moral effects doesn't mean that they will, unless it has a significant advantage and they are really sure they will get away with it. Just because you're evil doesn't make you a one man army out to harm every single person in your vicinity.

CEBedford
07-03-2009, 10:05 PM
I voted for staying on the side against Chaos with other for one exception. I really want to see a Gorka Morka style side game for either WFRP or 40k. Greenskins vs. Greenskins would be crazy fun.

korhal23
07-03-2009, 10:11 PM
I voted for staying on the side against Chaos with other for one exception. I really want to see a Gorka Morka style side game for either WFRP or 40k. Greenskins vs. Greenskins would be crazy fun.

LOL yeah, I think playing as a Greenskin would be fun, period. Beating up Stunties and stealing their beards and pickin' on Goblins... It'd definitely be fun.

SuccubusQueen
07-29-2009, 08:21 AM
I'd enjoy playing and Evil Cleric I think, maybe a cleric of Hextor. My DM isn't really big on straying far from the traditional aspects of good versus evil though, mostly I believe that he feels that it would be too complicated

Thriondel Half-Elven
07-29-2009, 05:45 PM
I'd enjoy playing and Evil Cleric I think, maybe a cleric of Hextor. My DM isn't really big on straying far from the traditional aspects of good versus evil though, mostly I believe that he feels that it would be too complicated

most DMs probably feel that way. *NOTE* i said most, but not all ;)

korhal23
07-29-2009, 07:15 PM
Perhaps. But it really does hinge on the players. Many players are... special... and think that evil means you must try to backstab EVERYONE. Evil != Anti-social != Good Roleplaying.

I think it's a lesson that can be picked up from video game RPGs with moral choice, like Knights of the Old Republic... even if you do play a Dark Sider, you still are working with other people (though different other people than if you were a Light Sider) to destroy the other evil guy because his plans would interfere with your own.

Except with the case of Warhammer (which is really the only one I can think of) it's immensely rare to have evil characters whose ultimate endgame is the destruction of the world. But most evil PLAYERS seem to think it's a grand idea.