Ask a GM [09/14/08]: "Evil" Campaigns

[Krevon]

I have done this, the campaign lasted three years. At one point the players were sacrificng paladins to the dark gods..........ahhhh good times.

[Greylond]

My current HackMaster game, as I previously mentioned, is an Evil Party although they don't work for the "Forces of Darkness(tm)". They mostly are out adventuring, fighting classic evil monsters, Orcs, Hobgoblins and most recently minons of a Lich(although they don't know exactly who these guys work for). So they are fighting against what are basically bad guys from the world's point of view. What makes them Evil is their methods. They are the classic "Ends Justifys the Means" types, i.e. they torture, they lie, they steal when they need to do so and don't feel bad about it in the morning. They also aren't doing it for the sake of Good, they're getting paid for it. In short, basically they are the Mercs who are being paid to fight evil and do whatever it takes to get the job done.

There are many faces of "Evil" beyond just the classic "Bad Guys"...

[DragonDM]

There are many faces of "Evil" beyond just the classic "Bad Guys"...

True. Remember also that Life is never simple. Choosing the lesser evil is still choosing Evil. But, even doing the Good and right thing does not always get you the result that you wanted.

That last is the part that can confuse a lot of players.

Mercenaries are the lowest form of Adventurers.
Heroes are supposed to be above Adventurers.

Villains are also above Mercenaries, but in the other direction.
Leaders and commanders of them.

[Krevon]

Of course then you have the character that giggles and sets it on fire.

[Greylond]

Mercenaries are the lowest form of Adventurers.

Why do you say that? In RL history some Mercs have been more honorable and professional than the people they fought against or even their employers. In the middle ages there were NO Permanent National Armies. The few long term professionals that there were(usually veterans from the most recent war) tended to hire themselves out for the simple reasons that;

1) They were better trained/experienced than the part-time military units that were available and

2) In some cases they were more trusted than some of the rulers countrymen for the simple reason that many of their countrymen were household milita/guards to some Noble who may or may not have supported the ruler depending on local politics.

Case in point the Nika Riots. Or the Vatican Guards(even up to today) technically are "Mercenaries". The "English Archers" that fought at Crecy and Agincourt were primarily Welshmen who had to be hired by the King of England(i.e. Mercs) because the "Loyal Nobles" wouldn't or couldn't raise enough for the campaigns in France. The White Company and the company formed by Owain of the Red Hand were both considered quite honorable(meaning that when they were bought off they never sought a better offer against their original employer).

It wasn't until long service National armies were formed and kept did the idea of Mercenaries being scum come about.

Even today the Gurkhas, the French Foreign Legion and the above mentioned Swiss Guard of the Vatican are considered to be honorable units and each of them are "Mercenary Units"...

[DragonDM]

Yes, In Real Life there are mercenaries that can be honorable.

But, keep in mind that even In Real Life, the over-all reputation of mercs is not very good.
Also, remember that - technically - a lot of the people that are working for terrorists are also mercs.
Bandits and brigands are just mercs that don't have someone giving them work at the time.

Please remember that D&D (and a lot of other Roleplaying games) is geared for the “Epic Heroic Adventure”. Being a Merc in these games will not make your Character a lot of friends or have people throw parades for them.

In D&D every town has a militia, every kingdom has it's own army, and mercenaries are usually only hired to do jobs that the rulers don't want connected directly to them. It for this reason that most mercs are looked at like most people would known criminals, with suspicion and maybe a little bit of fear.

Which is why, if the Party is not careful, they can become little better then mercs.
Adventurers are like bounty hunters, except that they hunt down and defeat/kill monsters that most people would rather not even know existed. Sure, the local militia might be able to take down that Dragon that is raiding the area, but the rulers are more concerned with keeping their own ass covered, if only to prevent another ruler or rival from attacking them (or their protected people) while their militia was away. Which means that the ruler would rather keep that militia near them, and hire some Adventurers (“Honorable” Mercenaries) to go deal with that Dragon.

To me, giving Mercenaries the same status as Adventurers would be like granting every single crook a cop badge. Heroes are the ones that are supposed to be the Sheriffs of the Game - and Adventurers are the Deputies. Granting the same treatment to Mercs would be worse then every town in the Old West treating every gunslinger that rode into town like they were Deputes. Think you have “Bad Cop” problems now – you ain't seen nothing, yet!!

Being a Hero can suck. I mean really. Running around and solving other people's problems at the risk of your life for only a small reward? Especially when the DM likes to say that being Heroically Good means that you do the job even if there is no reward from those that you are saving. (This is my stance, by the way.) Sure, sometimes the Party gets lucky and hits a payload in the Dungeon. But what do they usually do with it? They buy even more powerful Armor, Weapons and stuff to go fight the next Monster.

On the flip side, being a Villain sucks. I mean, plotting and planning to the best of your ability, only to have a bunch of “Meddling Kids” (“Roobby Doo!!”) come along and defeat you, time and time again, is just frustrating. And, some of these kids are very violent and will do everything that they can to kill you. Which means that the line between Hero and Villain can be a very fine line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the things that seems to be happening here, that I can see anyway, is that the people that are here want to focus beyond the typical “Dungeon Crawling Never-ending Adventure”.

That's great to see, but it is really rare to actually have happen. I've been DM-ing for 25 years now.
In all that time I might have had five games that went beyond this.

Living World Games require a lot more work then even the average Campaign. After all, to keep things interesting, you need to have a DM for covering a single region, and with at least four regions.
Plus, there needs to be a Grand Master DM, one that keeps track of all of what happens in the Realms and how what happens in each Realm affects all the other Realms, and the World as well.
The Grand Master DM also makes sure that everything flows together smoothly. The Grand Master also must not be overly challenged by any of the other DMs. Outside the game, All the DMs work things out, but the Grand Master always has final say. Getting this kind of cooperation is hard to get.
Too many individual DMs that would much rather just run their own Campaign Realms. It is because of this fact that a lot of the “Living Greyhawk” and “Living Forgotten Realms” games don't always have a lot of support.

The biggest problem seems to be defining “Good” and “Evil”
And the “Good Alignment” thread that is on here has the same problems as this “Evil” thread.

The following are only my opinions on this matter:
Good: Peace loving people that are Helpful to others, even when there is no reward.
Evil: Selfish to the point of harming others to get what you want.
Lawful: Wanting to work with others, because it is the best way to get large things done.
Chaotic: The Lone Wolf. Works with others only so long as it is obvious that it is needed.

Now. One thing that I want to establish right off – No one is perfect.
Good can go overboard and create pacifists, who for the sake of avoiding violence will allow Evil to grow.

Even the most Evil Villain can still love their family, and can change their ways for them.

Doing an evil act, even for a Greater Good does not make the act any less evil.
Honor is not a measure for Law or Chaos – since they can both have it.

Personal motivations are not really a great way to judge if someone is Good or Evil.
After all, most of the Bad Guys don't think that they are Evil.
Just like Insane people don't think that they are Crazy.

To me, actions speak louder then words.
It is when the person is confronted with a choice that is the test of their Alignment.
Good: Do you help? If so - how? Do you stand by their side and help them? (Lawful)
or Do you just take charge and try and do everything yourself? (Chaotic)

Evil: Do you take what you want, even knowing that it might hurt them? If so, how?
Do you give them a choice, offering logical reasons to simply give you what you want? (Lawful)
Or, do you smile as you step over their corpse? (Chaotic).

The new 4e D&D attitude for alignment is even more offensive to me:
Anything that goes out and kills monsters is Good.
From Dragonborn Fighters to Tiefling Infernal Pacted Warlocks.
Using evil to fight evil should not make that person automatically Good.

Everything that is in the Dungeon is a monster and is therefore Evil.
I really dislike the fact that they took away Good Aligned Dragons.
Misunderstandings can happen, even amongst “Good” creatures and people. It is the fact that they are willing to stop fighting (with intent to kill) long enough to figure out that there might be another way to solve the problem that makes them Good.

Evil has more of an Ego problem, and only something that is a lot more dangerous will get any group of Evil to really work together for long. Even LE Hobgoblins will still try and backstab each other. They are just a lot more sneaker about it then CE Goblins.

[Greylond]

Some problems with that. In a Medieval Fantasy game you ARE dealing with a Medieval point of view. Unless your idea of Medieval Fantasy is Modern Culture with medieval technology. Which is a style choice, just not my personal one.

Militia shouldn't be as good at fighting as Adventurers or other Professionals, they spend almost ALL of their time farming and very, very little time throughout the year training. And unless you have a technology base(or enough magic) above say the 13th or 14th century you really wouldn't have enough people freed up to stay around and be in a standing national army. With the simple farming tech of the time you had to have a huge percentage of your peasants farming to provide for the cities and castles before you even thought about keeping a standing army.

Another thing is, very few "Adventurers" in my experience have been anything but "Mercenary". I've run into to maybe 3 or 4 characters in 30 years that truly didn't care about money or payment.

As for doing Good/Evil acts, yes you're right, very few "Good" people refrain from doing something Evil. Yet another reason I like HackMaster, it has an Alignment Tracking Chart/System so you(as the GM) know where the PCs stand as far as their stated alignments.

[DragonDM]

Warning – this is a very long response. I hope that you read it all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Greylord – You and I are a rare type: We both actually do as much of the research behind the historical examples that the Games are based upon, as we can.

A lot of the things that are placed into the games are very modernized versions of past social settings. For example: D&D is a combination of Renaissance France and England of the 1600's to 1700's, with a lot of influence from John Ronald Reuel Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings books and a few other fantasy books for Magic, toss in the Old Deities of Mythology and you get: An “Enlightened World” where magic (Arcane, Divine, Psionic, and in some cases even Technology) is so common an occurrence as to be blasé.

In our modern minds, Magic in these worlds is like Technology is today. Did you get sick? Technology: go to the hospital and see a doctor - vs - Magic: go to the nearest Church of any “Good” Deity and receive magical curing. The only difference between the two is that Technology requires Medical Insurance, and Magic requires a “donation” to the church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of all the things that we take for granted: Cars, Cell Phones, Computers and the Internet, Toasters, Dish Washers, Microwaves. Light Bulbs, especially in every single house – from the rich to the poor.

Try and remember that there was a Huge Gap between Rich and Poor in those days. Rich people could afford to have kerosene lanterns in their homes, as well as huge coal-burning fireplaces or furnaces for heating. Poor people were lucky to have in their home: a single whale oil lantern (which stinks to high heaven when burned) and a single wood burning stove, that was used for everything from cooking to heating the house, which is why poor houses were small and had no inside walls for private rooms. Coal was more effective, but expensive. It was this fact that the Old Santa Clause stories are based upon: even “naughty” children still got a piece of coal in their stocking – because it would be something that they could then give to their family to help keep them all warm in the winter, if only for one more night.

Today, coal has little value outside a coal burning electric-generating plant. Sure there are other ways to create electrity, but consider the facts for it:
1 - Wind. Not enough places to have the windmills put up, and there are fewer places where the wind is litterally blowing all the time.

2 – Water. Damming up a river to create a Hydro-electic plant destroys more then it creates. Entire ecosystems are ruined by it, but in front of and behind the dam. Also, it is very dependant on the weather. Too little rain means not enough water to run the generators. Too much rain means that there is a lot that is being allowed to go over the dam without creating any power.

3 – Nuclear. A lot of people are still very scared about this. Despite the advances in the means that they do it. No longer do we need to worry about another Long Island Disaster. It is actually a lot cleaner and safer then any other form of energy creation there is out there, now.

The fact of the matter is that no one really wants to challenge the status quo. Even those that can, and should. Every level of politician, from Mayor to President, simply does not want to challenge this, because to do so could threaten the very thing that they have - their political career.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try and imagine what all of these things would seem like to someone from say, 1800: When even steam powered ships were rare, and trains were even more rare – and something that was used only by merchants and nobles. Now, go farther back, to say 1700, where none of these things exist. Everything that we take for normal would be like the workings of Magic – and most people were very superstitious in those days – if it was not something that was accepted by the 'common people' as acceptable, then it was bad. If the Church did not say that it was Good, then it was Evil. Period. And “Evil” was to be destroyed on sight. And never mind that the church had members that were more 'evil' then even the worst Pirate around. Question the Church – or any member of it – at the risk of your life and “immortal soul”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gamegrene.com/node/320
While I agree that the D&D game does understate the Importance of Alignment, if I thought that I disliked the rules about Alignment before in D&D – I really hate 4e Alignment.
It is even more maddeningly ambiguous, and is conducive to certain very mindless forms of role-play.

I would have said that your Character's behavior determines your Alignment, and that your Alignment can determine what your PC should or should not do. It does not mean that they can't do it, but that if they do it, it will change their Alignment, if only a little.

Gary Gygax had a very strong opinion of Alignment and the changing of it. But then Mr. Gygax had a strong opinion about a lot of other things: the foremost of which is just how “smart” every Player should be: That they should instinctively understand how Mr. Gygax interpreted every Rule, that they should never ask Questions; that they all should be as knowledgeable and as affective as the players that have been playing the game for Years. Mr. Gygax was also very harsh in the creating of his “Challenges” - where there was only one answer that solved the problem, and any other answer was (almost always) instantly deadly. I did not really agree with a lot of the things that Mr Gygax did, because teaching new players the game is just as important to me as the maintaining of the “Old Crew”.

For Alignment - In some ways Mr. Gygax was right. But, over the years, more and more people felt that the loss of an entire Class Level was too much. This was reduced to the loss of EXP, but even that was taken away. Now, the only ones that are penalized the most are Clerics and Paladins, and then it is because the Divine Being(s) that they serve punishes them, if only by stripping away the Class' Supernatural abilities. The problem with involuntary alignment changes, is that it should be easier to redeem yourself by atonement then if your Character made that choice on their own. Even if the Character was blackmailed into making that choice, it was still their choice to do it.

Stop. Let me explain what I mean a little more: say that a Villain kidnaps your child and threatens to kill him/her if you don't go and murder a prominent member of society - someone that is doing everyone a lot of good. This does not mean that your PC has to do everything that they can to carry out the deed – just enough to fulfill the requirements of that Villain. The PC could do everything that they could to make their attack upon that person obvious, so as to get caught. And if the PC does it right, the Villain would not need to even know that their attempt failed. The PC then tells the people that catch them why they even made the attempt. It now falls upon these other people to help the PC to rescue the child from the Villain.

But, let's say that the PC is high enough level that they cannot make any failure believable, or that the Villain has stated that only success will get them their child back. So, the PC does the deed, and rescues their child. The PC could then do things to 'redeem' themselves for having done that evil act. Raising thier own child in a way that they will understand that there was some bad things that you needed to do, just to protect them when they were younger, and explaining that it is entirely possible that it could cost you your life, someday. Things like making sure that the heir of that person you murdered is well protected, and receives the information that their parent(s) were murdered, but with only small clues as to who did it – and then making sure that any and all attempts of that heir for learning to become powerful enough (read “Class Levels”) to do something about the fact that their parent(s) were murdered. Making sure that your child and the heir are friends, even if you have to play the part of being the hated villain for both of them. And when the day of confrontation comes, making sure that they receive the truth about what had really happened, and that there is a true villain that they need to deal with, and that you were just preparing them for the day that they would challenge that Villain. Asking for forgiveness from the heir (and perhaps your own child as well), and helping them to truly defeat the true Villain.

Accepting the punishment for doing of that bad deed, as well as doing what you can to undo it's effect is all part of the Atonement process. Some “Evil” deeds are still not forgivable, and so that Character might very well have to leave and find a whole new place to live, where no one knows who they were, or what they did. The fear of death is another form of Blackmail, and perhaps the only way to atone is to be willing to lay down your life for someone else, and perhaps they are not even related to the PC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of various forms of Detect Evil as well as spells that are Alignment-specific for their effects are just a very easy way out for the Players. There should be some limits. Sure, the Paladin can detect that the merchant is evil, but that does not mean that the Paladin can simply walk over to that merchant and kill them. Doing this, while maybe not enough to cause an Alignment Shift, is still going to make the other people in the town very nervous, if not outright offended. And not every DM and Player wants to go to a Court and put the entire thing in Trial. It's fun to read about, but not actually do.

In my games, there are social reactions for Alignment. Most Allied NPCs (Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs) prefer to be 'good': Helpful and respectful of each other. They will treat anyone that is 'civilized' enough to get along with their society in the same way that they would any member of that society. Individuals should vary, even in an “All LG” society. Fashion copycats aside, each person likes to be noticed and respected for themselves.

Being a LG "Nice Guy” when in the company of CE Pirates is a great way to be the next target for their idea of 'fun'.
And it's a good idea for the CE Pirate on the LG Navy Ship to pretend to be just another sailor.

Now, there should still be little things that the Character does that still indicates that they have a hidden Alignment.
- The "LG" guy should still be cooperative with others, and maybe do little nice things to those that he believes will appreciate it. They should take the fist chance they get to get away.
- The "CE" pirate should still be a loner and an asshole. They should take every opportunity to screw others over. They should also take the first chance to get away, and go be with those they like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, like I said before – actions speak louder then words.
But, not every action should instantly change a character's alignment.
Extreme actions and especially repeated behavior should be the things that change a PC's alignment.
The DM should always ask the Player “Why did your Character do that? What was their motive?”

The biggest thing that the DM needs to do - is communicate their interpretation of the Alignments to their players. This will help the players better portray their character's change of attitude and behavior.

The biggest problem with most games is that it does not really have anything in place for showing that being Evil is not all that great. There are no real ways to 'punish' people for being Evil. It falls to the DM to do these things.

Players have no real fear of “Hell” or “Damnation” or anything like that, since they can just quite playing that Character and create another one. And if they get too tired of constantly remaking Characters, the Player can always just quite the game and go find another group or DM.

Also, just because a Player has their Character go to “Evil” does not mean that the DM should take the PC sheet away and make them an NPC. Yes, there are Campaigns that can justify this, but it should be made clear by the DM to the Players that this is the case – before the game even starts.

For other Campaigns - The DM should just adjust the reaction of the game's NPCs: Townsfolk will become more reluctant to do any kind of business with these PCs; merchants (including Bars and Inns) should raise their prices for these PCs; political people should apply pressure of their own: everything from sicking the local town police on them, to hiring bounty hunters and other Adventurers to deal with these PCs. Also, NPC Heroes should show up and do their best to get the PCs to stop and pay attention to what they are doing, and how it is affecting everyone – including the PCs in question. As a last resort, kill the Characters - using the rules and game mechanics to do so.

Dropping the DM/Deity Blue Bolt to end that Character's life is just Deux Ex Machina. If it works for your game and the Player's don't care, then by all means use it. But for intelligent and serious players, I advise the DM to use other means to accomplish their deaths. And cooperate with the Players to make sure that Alignment is clearly understood. The DM needs to be open-minded and flexible about some things. It's unavoidable. But there should be a line that cannot be crossed without changing Alingments.

If needed, stop the game and address the issue with your players. If they are in the mood to try and do a Campaign where everyone is Evil, then see if you can run that, while still maintaining the fact that being evil does not really pay in the long run – like Crime is not supposed to. It can be fun to figure out ways to undermine the PCs, and remind them that they are evil, and supposed to undermine each other.

Lots of people love to romanticize things that are normally considered “evil”.
Gaming “Evil” Stereotype: Overcoming the minions of Hell (or the Abyss, or Hades (Greek), or Niflheim (Norse, et cetera), and escaping from being trapped in these places. Showing that the PCs could very well be trapped here, and because of their behaviors, past and present, might be the hardest thing for a DM to do. Tread very carefully on this thin ice, lest you have no players at all at your table.

Here's a great example: a Pirate ship. In Real Life: These were considered the worst kind of people: Thieves, Crooks, and Criminals that were ruthless, mean, cruel, murdering assholes. These people are the kind who would kill you for the Piece Of Eight in your pocket - or even a few Reals (a coin that the first coin was based on) {this would be like a few Nickels and a Quarter today} and leave the cooling corpse just enough out of sight to get away without being challenged by what passed for the local law. Each of the pirates were out for themselves (which would make most of them chaotic: but even the “lawful” honorable ones would simply use loopholes - “No Witnesses” being the most used) and working together only because it's the only way to work the ship and survive the ocean, as well as needing everyone to take another ship and her bounty. Splitting the booty was supposed to be 'fair', but the truth of the matter was that given even a small chance they would steal from and kill each other in heartbeat. The “Captain” was responsible for making sure that “equal shares” were given – but how far can you really trust a Pirate Captain? Sometimes, taking of money was done through various games of chance, but not always. Only the fear of the captain killing them (or ordering the rest of the crew to kill them) would be enough to keep each of them in place, but the captain still had to fear being attacked by the entire crew.

Being caught as a pirate (or bandits - or brigands – or river rats, which were different kinds of pirates) was a death sentence. To be caught once might get you only time in prison or hard labor, since good sailors are hard to come by. Sometimes a hand, foot or limb was removed, to mark the offender. However, to be caught a second time was death. Period. Only extreme political dealings would save you this time.

And all those stories about how pirate crews stuck it out, like they were some kind of family are mostly just fantasies. Sure, “pirate families” existed, but most of these were actually privateers (LN or LG), which were “honorable” pirates sanctioned by one government against another government. To attack the ships of anyone flying the flag of the first government were instantly considered pirates, and hunted down and killed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcing the bad things that are supposed to happen to PCs that become Evil is not easy, especially if the DM is running a High Magic Campaign. The higher the level the PCs become, the harder it gets to keep them “in line”. Consider trying to stop a 21st level Party from simply destroying the lands of a non-epic Realm. The “rampaging monster” bit might not be enough to get them to stop, and take care of that. I usually always have at least one, if not three things that can get the players to stop doing things that not supposed to be done:

(1) Monster of high enough CR.
(2) Villain of high enough ECL.
(3) Adventurers and Heroes of high enough ECL.

- if none of these work, I stop the game and talk to the players about what they really want to do in the Game. If at all possible, I work something out. However, there are times when I just have to accept the fact that it is time for me to put the Books up, and wait until I find a new Gaming Group.

[Greylond]

[sarcasm]Who is this Greylord person you speak of?... [/sarcasm]

Yea, if anyone hasn't noticed I lurve history and learning about what it was like at all levels of society for a given tech level. I also get irked, just a bit, by the continuing proliferation of urban myths about history, like the belief of no baths and everyone thought the world was flat.

Maybe Gygax came across like that in his writing but in person, via Net Chat/Message board and face-to-face he was a cool guy that wasn't that uptight.

[DragonDM]

[sarcasm]Who is this Greylord person you speak of?... [/sarcasm]

LoL !!!
Sorry about that. Missed the 'n' and read it as a 'r'.
Aye can't help it, I'm a Professional Pirate.

Muppets: Treasure Island.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdK4yxgzxWY

Yea, if anyone hasn't noticed I lurve history and learning about what it was like at all levels of society for a given tech level. I also get irked, just a bit, by the continuing proliferation of urban myths about history, like the belief of no baths and everyone thought the world was flat.

Well, I for one try to debunk those urban myths, just like the Mythbusters.
I loved Robot Chicken's merging them with the Ghostbusters. Hilarious!!!

Maybe Gygax came across like that in his writing but in person, via Net Chat/Message board and face-to-face he was a cool guy that wasn't that uptight.

Well, I only got to meet Mr Gygax once, and I suppose that a convention filled with thousands of other people is not really the best way to try and get to meet someone. However, he came across to me as very rude and impolite. I have read a lot of the things that Mr Gygax wrote about, and not all of it I agree with. I never got the chance to actually chat with him online: I actually got my laptop just before he died. A shame, really. There were a lot of things that I did like, and respected, about him.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I've never run an evil game (though I've run a few one-shot evil adventures), but I've discussed the issue (because I allow evil characters in my current campaign) and this is what I tell them.

Evil characters are people.
They have all the flaws, weaknesses, strengths, and platitudes of normal people. Being evil doesn't mean you want to kill everyone or even just some people. What seporates good from bad is their motivations and what they are willing to do in order to get what they want. They might be a psychopath that just wants to watch others writhe because of their horrid acts. They might be otherwise normal people who are just willing to murder someone to get what they want.
More importantly, however, is that alignment is not a straight-jacket and that they should pick an alignment that they think best fits their character.

Being evil doesn't mean you lack co-operative skills, especially if you feel you're in a team of like-minded individuals. Evil people can trust other people just like non-evil people can and not all of them are out to stab one another in the back at the first opportunity or murder every baby in their path.

[Meatbag]

I just finished an evil campaign, then got my players to roll good guys to go hunt them down. It depends on the players whether or not an evil campaign is going to work. They have to understand that evil doesn't necessarily mean burning down every orphanage you come across. There's plotting and planning involved, which makes it a lot harder than being the good guy all the time, who almost always has a clear and concise directive. Is playing evil hard? Yes, but GMing an evil campaign is much harder. Nothing is linear, because evil is unpredictable.

[DragonDM]

Evil characters are people.
They have all the flaws, weaknesses, strengths, and platitudes of normal people. Being evil doesn't mean you want to kill everyone or even just some people. What seporates good from bad is their motivations and what they are willing to do in order to get what they want. They might be a psychopath that just wants to watch others writhe because of their horrid acts. They might be otherwise normal people who are just willing to murder someone to get what they want.
More importantly, however, is that alignment is not a straight-jacket and that they should pick an alignment that they think best fits their character.

Being evil doesn't mean you lack co-operative skills, especially if you feel you're in a team of like-minded individuals. Evil people can trust other people just like non-evil people can and not all of them are out to stab one another in the back at the first opportunity or murder every baby in their path.

Darkest Angel – What you write about is also what my point was – Life is never simple.
However - while it is true in Real Life that people can be that are that way, remember that the Games are all about Over-Melodramatic Actions and Behaviors.
Especially for the differences between Good & Evil. It is this that separates Real from Make-Believe.

Placing too much 'reality' into the game can cause other, far more difficult problems to deal with.
D&D is not designed for this style of play, although a Mature (actions) enough Group can do it.
Here are a few that are: White Wolf's World of Darkness (d10), C.J. Carella's Witchcraft (Unisystem), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Unisystem), & Legend of the Five Rings (d10).

But, even in these games, walk as if you were on Thin Ice.
Keeping the Communication between Players and GM is even more important, then in normal “Beer and Pretzel, D&D Dungeon-Crawling” Games.

Trivia Fact: Leonard Nimoy is what is normally referred to as an “emote” style of actor. Which just means that he actually becomes the Character that he is portraying. It took several years for Mr. Nimoy to separate himself from “Spock”. And when he finally did, he then had to write a book that was titled “I am not Spock” - which was the story to his Fans about himself separating from the Star Trek Character: So that they would understand that there was a huge difference between Nimoy and Spock.

When you encourage yourself - or your players - to place too much of themselves into their Character, then you are lowing the barriers that separate Reality from Fantasy. It is neigh impossible to not place at least a little bit of yourself into every Character that you create. If you didn't do this, then you could not relate to them, or understand their inner motives: What they are willing to do, how far they are willing to go, and what limits they apply to themselves.

I'm not saying that every Player will go crazy and really think that they are actually a Wizard (or other Class), and start mimicking the casting of fireballs (or other extreme Class Abilities) while standing on main street. There was a case of a guy that did this, but it was established that he had already been mentally unstable before he got into the Games, and that his inability to separate Reality from Fantasy caused him to go even deeper Over The Edge.

Making the line between Good and Evil should not always be hard to tell, especially for new players. Having the reality that there are reasons for why someone is Evil, and they might not even realize that what they are doing is evil – is something that is best breached when the DM has been with the same Players for a while – like at least 6 months, if not several years. The DM also needs to make sure that the Players understand how behavior affects Alignment. And how an Alignment Shift can happen, and what affects it had on behavior.

Now, the problem here is what happens with a lot of CE Characters – everyone thinks that they are insane: Sure, not every C.E. (N)PC is a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath that will kill babies at every chance. But, there should be some way to show that this individual is more likely to do things that are far more destructive then they need to be.

I'm going to take some of Spiderman's foes, and use them as a comparison. Comic Book Characters or not really the best things to use – since they have only a little basis in reality. But, for what I am talking about here, they should work.

The Green Goblin as a great example of a C.E. Character. As Norman Ozborn, he's a NE businessman: He's reluctant to take too many risks, especially those that involve personal confrontation – sure, Norman will foreclose the mortgage on a little old lady's house, and not really give a damn that she's only a month behind, and that kicking her out will not only force her to be in Retirement Home, but will also harm her entire family. But, Norman won't show up at her home, and try to kill her. Norman's lack of compassion is what makes him evil. But, as The Green Goblin, he's unafraid to take risks, and he loves confrontation – and scaring & killing people. Green Goblin will deliberately place other innocent (read 'helpless') people at risk, forcing the Hero (usually Spiderman) to take the time to save them, while Green Goblin goes and does something else that furthers his personal goals. It is this that makes him Evil. Make no mistake, Green Goblin is insane, but that is not really what makes him Chaotic - it's the fact that he is selfish to the point that he cannot work with others, not even those that work at his companies. It is his arrogance in the belief that he is better then everyone, despite being beaten by Spiderman (and a few other Heroes) over, and over, and over again.

The Hobgoblin is a great example of a L.E. Character. Although he copycats Green Goblin in a lot of ways, his methods are a lot different. He only uses what is needed to accomplish his goals. Hobgoblin had no problems working with other evil people - or even for: like Kingpin. And so long as Hobgoblin got what he wanted, he was “honorable” enough to keep the deal. Hobgoblin will normally attack the one that he wants to take down – and will usually start with the Hero. But Hobgoblin's targets are not normally random, or accidental. Sure, Hobgoblin's will blow things up to place innocent people at risk – forcing the Hero to go save them, instead of chasing Hobgoblin, but only in the heat of battle will Hobgoblin simply start shooting at random innocent people, as a desperate ploy to get the Hero off his ass. And even then, Hobgoblin reverts back to his normal 'methodical' ways as soon as he can.

Doc Octopus is great example of NE. The justification of “for advancing science” and “for the good of all mankind” do not change the fact that Doc Ock will do Evil deeds like: steal, kidnap, blackmail, or even kill (although this is usually rare) to achieve his goals. Ock does not really have a super independent streak, nor does he rely on others too much. If Ock trusts you enough, he will work with you. But, he's not dumb, and is always alert for betrayal, especially after having had some of these in his past.

Venom also started out as C.E. Now, it was because of Spiderman's consistency with being a Good Guy, and always trying to treat even Eddie Brok as he would anyone else, and trying to help Eddie and Venom over and over, that caused Brok to force Venom to slowly change. First, Venom became NE. And then he became LE. In the End, Eddie Brok gave the symbiont up and sacrificed his own life for others. I would place this as NG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on the Good Side, which I will say is the “compassion for, and protection of others”.
– let's take a look at the Fantastic Four.
Each of them have personal flaws, and it is this reason that Americans love them.

It is hard to really nail down their alignments, but I normally go with:

LG – Reed Richards, Mr Fantastic: Everything is based on logic.
Cooperation of people achieves larger goals. Flaw: I'm always right. Failure is personal.

CG – Johnny Storm: The Human Torch. Self impressed with his powers, and very independent.
Flaw: Showoff.

NG – Suzan Storm: The Invisible Woman. The 'voice of reason' and usually the most concerned about achieving the most good for everyone. Flaw: Overprotective.

CG – Ben Grim, The Thing: Although he can work with others and follow orders, Ben really prefers to take things into his own hands, and solve problems his way. Flaw: Short Tempered.

Doctor Doom is LE. He will work even with his enemies, the Fantastic Four, to prevent the destruction of the World. Sure, it's because there is little point in ruling a ball of ash, but that's just an excuse.
Flaw: I'm always right. And I will do anything prove it. Failure is just a learning experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I am not saying that you cannot – or even should not – try and put more reality behind the Alignments into your Games. No. I'm just saying that you should do so with caution and with open eyes to the problems and dangers of doing so. Every Member in the Group should do Reality Checks on everyone else, including the DM. And when they are challenged, they need to remain calm and listen to what the others have to say. Be willing to reflect on your behavior and actions, explain them to the other Members - and then still be willing to change them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As always - these are just my Opinions.
Until next time – Enjoy the Games.

[DragonDM]

Is playing evil hard? Yes, but GMing an evil campaign is much harder. Nothing is linear, because evil is unpredictable.

I have had way too many 'Intelligent Players' over the year, and let me tell you that Good or Evil, it is never easy to be the DM for them.

I would have said that there is a lot more involved with being Evil, then when being Good.

Most Good Characters are traditionally reactionists, something bad happens and then the 'Heroes' go and try to take care of it.

Evil has to deal with the little BS stuff, like gathering enough money to pay for their mercenary guards.
Successfully kidnapping the person they need to blackmail someone else. And a lot more things that the Player's normally don't think about.

But don't think that Good PCs can get behind the scenes and do those kind of things – building contacts and making sure that they are financially covered.

It's the players that make the difference – not what alignment they are playing.
Adapting to them is the real challenge for the DM.

[Meatbag]

Yep, that's pretty much it. But people generally do tend to be reactionists, and that is what makes people (who are conditioned to playing good aligned characters) wander about aimlessly when given no linear action sequence to follow. The players do have to adapt to playing evil alignments, though. You don't simply decide to play evil, you have to go outside your normal realm of roleplaying to do it right. You have to, in some ways, become a GM that's on the other side of the screen. Players do not normally plot. That's the GM's job. They do not normally set obstacles int he way of the heroes, that's the GM's job. It would be nice to always have 'intelligent players' but that isn't always the case. There's always one in the group who grow tired of plotting, and decides to burn down a church or something, just to get some combat going.