PDA

View Full Version : Good Stories of Evil Characters



Scowling Dragon
2013-03-11, 12:56 PM
Give me an example of Times you played and evil campaign with a good plot (From the GM), against generally good forces.

Not evil VS extremist repression.

The Fury
2013-03-13, 09:24 PM
I played in a Midnight game where we, the player party, were making a power grab in the hierarchy of the evil religion. I'm not sure how well that counts as being against a good-aligned opposition because while we did fight and kill good people, the Midnight setting is sort of unique in that there really isn't much of a unified force of good.
The main reason why I thought that it was such a good campaign was because of how well it dovetailed with a previous campaign in the same continuity, which was about more heroic characters struggling against an evil theocratic empire. In the campaign where the PCs got to be the villains it was revealed that the actions of the heroes from the previous game furthered the personal agendas of the evil party.
Sorry, it's sort of hard for me to come up with examples of a decent villain campaigns mostly because most evil-aligned parties I've played in tend to self-destruct.

ArcturusV
2013-03-13, 09:45 PM
I suppose it would be playing Robotech, set in the Second Invid War. My players didn't want to do the typical freedom fighter stuff and fight the alien overlord necessarily (They didn't say what, just wanted something different), and they incidentally picked Evil Alignments because they wanted the Assassin Martial Art for Crit Fishing (Which required an Evil Alignment).

So I rolled with it, and had the players play not Freedom Fighters, but thugs, bandits, and generally the scum of society that is just trying to make sure they can retire and live comfortably in the world, who cares what the Invid are doing long as they don't mess with them?

Campaign ended up with the players constantly on the run. I had them start out with practically nothing to start with. No cyclones, no Veritechs or Destroids, etc. They were cool with it and immediately set about trying to get Robotechnology by staging a daring robbery against a local resistance fighter base. Which they managed to successfully do thanks to proper levels of daring, luck, and just the benefits of being very, very ruthless.

Of course they then pissed off the Resistance Fighters. Their plan was to just keep pissing off only the resistance fighters, and use towns that are just trying to survive and aren't Resistance Friendly as safe harbors, and avoid pissing off the Invid.

Sadly, the last goal didn't work. After about a month in game of running and gunning against the Resistance, all the activity did draw Invid attentions finally. They got wrapped up into a three way fight where they were generally trying to kill the Resistance and just evade the Invid. Including helping doubleteam some of the resistance fighters along with the Invid. This series of running battles did get them kicked out of the towns they were staying in... no one quite likes having the guys around who draw missile and blaster fire. Or Invid attention.

With practically nowhere else to go, the players decided they wanted to find a Genesis Pit (knowing there would always be an Invid Intelligence in there), and team up with the Invid for safe harbor... and to keep their gear running in Protoculture since they have basically burned every bridge they had already.

Great, long adventure where I had things like Cyclones fighting dinosaurs, other pulp coolness. They finally come up to the brain, determined to make peace with the Invid. It... seeeeeeems to work. The players don't have any alarms going off. They don't quite realize that exposing themselves in order to communicate clearly to it made them victims of the Genesis Pit as well.

Cue them doing some strongarm stuff for the Invid. The Invid are supposedly "upgrading" their equipment for them, and they're noticing marked differences in their responses as I cover the bonuses from their "equipment".

Finally it gets to the point where they are so mutated that there is no hiding it any longer. I finally reveal it to players who hadn't yet guessed what happened. Minor psychic powers, physical aberrations, usual sort of stuff. Their last Adventure involves them trying to desperately earn a cure from their Invid Overlords. By taking the Invid's side in the final battle at Reflex Point, now suffering penalties to their performance due to the mutations running rampant through them.

They all died that battle, but they had fun with it. One guy kamikazed himself into a troop transport, gutting it and going out in a blaze of glory. Another died fighting the Legendary Ace of the Resistance that I had been haunting them with all campaign, where he just got edged out in a dogfight. Third guy died screaming out challenges, trying to hold a line against an entire horde of Cyclones with his VAR. Just... everything on his ride got DECIMATED... Wasn't an undamaged part on it. He barely managed to eject. He MIGHT have lived if he tried to run at that point, but instead he broke out his saber cyclone, called out "BRING IT OOOOOON!" and charged them. Got two more kills before a barrage of Micro-Missiles took him out.

Scowling Dragon
2013-03-14, 07:24 AM
Yeah. Thats what I though. Evil just doesn't allow for complex stories as it just generally stops at self concern.

Kaveman26
2013-03-14, 09:03 AM
I ran a grittier city based campaign where the group had designs on overthrowing the ruler of an evil city. They used brutal and drastic measures to ensure their success. Initially they played nice and worked together. Initially.

We had a drow anti-paladin that for purposes of the campaign was the last of his race. This was meant to create obstacles in terms of him being recoginized. The player turned it to a sizeable advantage though. The city was mostly controlled by a group of vampiric nymphs known as the Merciful Furies. They were akin to a secret police force. Very early in the campaign the drow began regularly bleeding himself and creating a stockpile of his blood. He then used this stockpile much like a drug dealer to hook the Furies on his unique and exotic blood. When one of the other players caught on to his double dealings the drow had the vampires suck him dry and then placed under his control as a thrall. He murdered or attempted to murder nearly the entire party and caused a rift, creating different PC factions.

His blood was potent enough that he spent nearly the entire campaign with substanial con penalties due to the vampires pressing him more and more for his blood. One of the PC's that had done the least to mess with everyone else drained him to the brink of death and used his blood to make blood-pies. They then held a circus for the eccentric gnome tyrant ruling the city. They made it a zombie circus to appease his macabre sense of humor. One of the zombies threw a pie onto the overlord's face and every vampire in the room suddenly perked up. With drow blood dripping off the gnome's face his once faithful vampire forces tore him to shreds.

In a final gambit the drow antipaladin, stumbling from con damage lurches into the throne room with gaping wounds and a grossly disstended abdomen. He shouts out "last call" and the vampires all tear into him. In a great twist his character had drank himself nearly to death with holy water...corrupting his blood and basically wiping out twenty vampires in a matter of seconds.

The other players slow clapped his brilliant twist and then the leader of the group, the one that had used his blood to overthrow the big bad gave him a reward for being a team player.

They staked him to prevent his raising as a vampire.

Full story of this campaign is in my signature.

The Fury
2013-03-14, 09:52 PM
Yeah. Thats what I though. Evil just doesn't allow for complex stories as it just generally stops at self concern.

I wouldn't say that's necessary true all the time. Though it's probably fair to say that's how most players see evil alignments, to their credit that's pretty much how the rule books represent it as well. That's not to say that evil PCs couldn't, in theory, be villains more in the vein of Redcloak where the scheme that they're working on has, in their view, an altruistic goal.

ArcturusV
2013-03-14, 09:57 PM
True. Though often the "All Evil Party" doesn't actually have that going for them. They can be very entertaining. They are just as likely to have a goal beyond merely "Survive" as Good player are.

I think it's just that evil PCs are so seldom used that the fact that they almost always are a particular way stands out more. I can't even imagine how many good characters I've seen that are similarly one dimensional. But you see a lot more all good parties and thus more variety compared to just a handful of all evil parties.

Frathe
2013-03-14, 11:08 PM
True. Though often the "All Evil Party" doesn't actually have that going for them. They can be very entertaining. They are just as likely to have a goal beyond merely "Survive" as Good player are.

I think it's just that evil PCs are so seldom used that the fact that they almost always are a particular way stands out more. I can't even imagine how many good characters I've seen that are similarly one dimensional. But you see a lot more all good parties and thus more variety compared to just a handful of all evil parties.Yeah, I think this is a good point. Evil characters are relatively rare, and all too often I think they're an excuse to act like a jackass rather than a well thought out character concept.

In real life, evil people can be very interesting as character studies. Some of the most deeply flawed people in history are both fascinating and [generally agreed to be] evil. I think in reality, "evil" is a thing that must be justified to oneself and results in inner conflict, assuming that the person realizes what they're doing is wrong.

kardar233
2013-03-14, 11:19 PM
You know, I've played many evil campaigns. Ones where the characters were forced to work together under the shadow of a greater threat, or where they were chosen to work together by a more powerful being, or where one character took the lead and bound the group together with his skill and ingenuity and lots and lots of blackmail.

But my favourite evil campaigns were the ones where the characters were friends. Sure, they wouldn't think twice before murdering some random guy and flaying his whole village, but they'd stick up for the other characters, they'd risk themselves to help them, they'd help each other without expectation of a reward and were actually nice to each other.

ArcturusV
2013-03-14, 11:32 PM
You know.. that shouldn't be the "one time" and exception really.

I mean there's nothing about "Evil" that necessarily means you are going to go around slitting the throats of your teammates at the drop of a hat. Even say, over the top comic book/cartoon level villainy usually draws the line short of that point. It might go to "I have no real strong desire to save my teammate if doing so will put me in unreasonable risk". But that's usually as far as it goes.

... which is something that supposedly "Good" characters routinely do. Least that's something I tend to see.

Scow2
2013-03-15, 02:00 PM
But my favourite evil campaigns were the ones where the characters were friends. Sure, they wouldn't think twice before murdering some random guy and flaying his whole village, but they'd stick up for the other characters, they'd risk themselves to help them, they'd help each other without expectation of a reward and were actually nice to each other.This is the best kind of evil party.


True. Though often the "All Evil Party" doesn't actually have that going for them. They can be very entertaining. They are just as likely to have a goal beyond merely "Survive" as Good player are.
Except the odds of surviving and flourishing are more stacked against Evil players than Good ones, making 'survive' a much more interesting and compelling story theme than it is for good parties. Good parties usually make long-term friends and allies against short-term enemies in their journeys, while Evil parties make short-term friends and long-term enemies on theirs as they carve a bloody place for themselves in the world.

Angel Bob
2013-03-16, 04:58 PM
But my favourite evil campaigns were the ones where the characters were friends. Sure, they wouldn't think twice before murdering some random guy and flaying his whole village, but they'd stick up for the other characters, they'd risk themselves to help them, they'd help each other without expectation of a reward and were actually nice to each other.

This. I and a few friends did a bit of an evil campaign, as a sort of prequel to another campaign in which those villains had taken over the world. Despite consisting of a tiefling blood mage sworn to Asmodeus, a brutal and sadistic Doomlord, an entirely insane demon spawn sorcerer, a cannibal shaman, and a bard constantly on acid (okay, maybe he wasn't so bad), they never once tried to betray one another. It worked so much better for them to be friends.

I didn't enjoy the campaign overall, though, for three reasons. One, we're mainly a 4E heroic-tier group, and we decided to run this one in paragon; the DM didn't really understand that paragon-tier characters are supposed to be traveling to more exotic locales, so we ended up bumbling around the countryside like our other parties. Blah. Two, he didn't really give us a chance to be villainous: we weren't going up against servants of goodness and purity, but rather enemies who were even more evil than we were (and I really hated being upstaged, since we were the main villains of this other campaign). Three, there wasn't any roleplaying. Seriously, it bites to be the only player in a group of six who has any interest in RP.

Heed those pitfalls, anyone who intends to DM an evil campaign. Try to keep the players from being Stupid Evil, but by no means should you keep them from being any kind of evil.

ArcturusV
2013-03-16, 05:20 PM
Which is less of an "Evil Campaign" problem and more a general problem I've had with 4th Edition games. DMs tend to run it as pure combat games, encounter to encounter with no roleplaying involved between. Even when you get a mission or a quest hook from someone it's more "cutscene" than interactive.

Which is possibly a result of how people learned 4th edition through things like WotC encounter sessions, or maybe how some of the 4th edition adventure modules are written.

Angel Bob
2013-03-16, 07:58 PM
That's good reasoning, Arcturus, but I don't think it applies to my group. The blame rests entirely on us, because we've never had any contact with WotC encounter sessions or adventure modules.

And I suppose to say there was no roleplaying is a lie; there just wasn't nearly enough for me to actually accept the PCs as characters. My group isn't bad at RP when they get their creative juices flowing... it's just that those occasions are few and far between.

ArcturusV
2013-03-16, 08:29 PM
*shrug* Might be because the system supports "Action Movie" sort of stuff. Unlike older editions there isn't TOO many non-combat related stuff. Mostly wizard cantrips. A few powers like Words of Friendship or some of the skill powers. And most people do split things so they don't think of Combat as RPing, and RPing isn't combat.

Though of course, the moment you start being colorful it's moved into RPing regardless of Combat state or not. Saying that your axe attack is a massive overhead chop aimed to Cleave the goblin's skull in two... that's RPing. Saying "I attack with my Cleave power" is not.

Though it's also a matter of campaigns just supporting it. I mean I ran 4th edition campaigns where characters, if posted to a board like this, would probably get lambasted as poorly built and horribly bad choices. But it was optimal for my campaign because I stressed non-combat more. So people wanted to take things like Skill Training, Skill Focus, Skill Powers, etc. They wanted spells like Alter Self instead of Sleep.

I think though, that the "Action Movie" problem gets worse with Evil teams because Evil in 4th edition is described as mostly Mindless Evil. Destruction for the sake of destruction, etc. So the natural bend of the system to be combat focused, along with how they define evil might lead to it.

Or it can just be getting lazy. :smallbiggrin:

Angel Bob
2013-03-16, 09:15 PM
True dat. I confess, the PCs I brewed up for that evil campaign didn't have much in the way of motivation; my Doomlord wanted to destroy the gods (the character concept began as an atheist paladin, for oxymoronic lulz), but my demon sorcerer was, well, a demon. I literally rolled dice for most every big decision he had to make because he was so free of the grip of sanity.

...Fun characters, now that I remember it. Regardless of my problems with the campaign, I have to admit I had a lot of cool moments with those characters. /nostalgia

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-16, 11:26 PM
True dat. I confess, the PCs I brewed up for that evil campaign didn't have much in the way of motivation; my Doomlord wanted to destroy the gods (the character concept began as an atheist paladin, for oxymoronic lulz), but my demon sorcerer was, well, a demon. I literally rolled dice for most every big decision he had to make because he was so free of the grip of sanity.

...Fun characters, now that I remember it. Regardless of my problems with the campaign, I have to admit I had a lot of cool moments with those characters. /nostalgia

From what I've seen this is often the main problem with evil characters and thus evil campaigns. We as people tend to see ourselves as good or neutral people, which is understandable, no one is automatically going to think they're evil, wrong and horrible (and if they do they are likely to get some sort of diagnosis and then treatment for it because it's not considered normal, and is considered harmful). Which means that we're Good (or neutral) and people who do things we disagree with are Evil. And we don't understand why they do it. Well perhaps we do on a superficial evil, but we rarely understand how they can even think that doing what they're doing is okay, and why they can't see how wrong they are (or we assume they will change if we're just given a chance to show them how wrong they are). So we struggle with finding what motivates and drives this character, and it ends up overly simplistic "evil for the sake of evil", or we end up seeing them as "darker end of neutral" because we actually do understand why the character is doing what they're doing and it's perfectly understandable and justifiable then!

Of course not everyone is like this, but it seems like a common problem. Another common one is where DM's and fellow players trip you up by revoking your "evil" alignment because you're not doing evil things and your character comes off as a generally agreeable person most of the time. Which is well, just plain wrong, but sadly seems quite common in RP's (really, just take a look at some of the biggest atrocities in human history. The people ultimately responsible for them would not have been able to get the amount of power, or keep it, if they were cartoon villains, but I've given up on trying to explain that...)

Personally, I try to run my evil characters the same way as I do my neutral or good ones. I figure out their personality and I figure out what makes them tick. Then I figure out how far they're willing to go to get what they want. For example my current warlock isn't squamish about stepping over a few corpses to further her own cause if need be, but she avoids it whenever possible because corpses draws attention, which is bad. And well, betraying allies? Why? Life is far easier when working in a group towards the same general goal than it is when trying to do everything on your own. Would she betray them if she absolutely had to? Yes. But she's going to try her damnedest to avoid it. But going by this the DM considers her neutral. Chaotic neutral yes, but still neutral. Because she doesn't act evil. I could counter with "No, she acts like someone who has a decently functioning brain", but really, what it says on top of her sheet doesn't bother me because her personality is more than two words on a sheet of paper (and none of her abilities depends on her alignment...).

But when you advertise you want to run an "Evil campaign" that's when you start getting evil for the sake of being evil. If you advertise you want to run a "dark, gritty game" you're more likely to get more interesting characters. But evil characters in a generally good "happy" world can be hard to pull of simply because it's very hard to find sensible justifications for wanting to mess up the status-quo, and even harder to figure out a character that doesn't feel like a puppy-kicking jerk.

That said, I do like the idea of playing a character so insane that dice needs to be rolled to figure out what they're gonna do next. :p

ArcturusV
2013-03-16, 11:40 PM
Always a problem, not just with evil. Chaotic often get that flak as well. If I don't act like I"m bat**** insane, I get told I'm not chaotic. If I don't go around kicking every enforcer of Law and Order square in the nuts, they tell me I'm not Chaotic.

Even though the player's guide doesn't define Chaos like that. Except for in 2nd Edition where Chaotic Neutral was literally defined as "Bat**** crazy and incapable of having rational thought processes". Chaos was defined, in third edition for example, as being about freedom and desires more than anything. An artist, for example, would be stereotypically "Chaotic" in that edition as it is about the freedom of expression unbound by rules. An irresponsible heiress who is pissing through her fortune and just drifting through life is also Chaotic. As is someone who is actively trying to be an anarchist and destroy society.

And Good/Evil isn't defined in terms of "Do you kick puppies" or not. Evil is defined as being self motivated and self interested. Interestingly enough, the way they define evil, some concepts we don't consider "Evil" would in fact be an evil alignment.

For example, Free Market Economics would be Chaotic Evil. It's all about a lack of regulation and the freedom to let natural impulses and desires define things, while all being about personal greed, and what you can do to profit yourself without constraints beyond working with the natural impulses of people. Though I hesitate to think people would naturally think of free market economics as "evil". Some might, but mostly because of exploitation and attempting to build a false system out of it, rather than actually using the complete lack of system itself.

Communist regimes would be Lawful Good... yes. Because Law's strict codes fit the definition, and the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a standard boilerplate for Good. It's right up front on what Good is. It's rigid structure, it's demands for equality and such, yes. Entirely Lawful Good territory. But I don't think most people would necessarily look at such a thing and consider them Good.

The alignments are often poorly understood by players and DMs. And often they just go with whatever they say should be the alignment, rather than what is actually written about the alignment.

Though now I'm inspired to have an "Evil" game all about people just trying to honestly amass a fortune honestly and evade people who are trying to take their money or limit their behavior in some way. :smallbiggrin:

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-16, 11:49 PM
I do agree with you Arcturus, but sadly when it's time to sit down and play it always comes down to what the DM thinks and nothing (the printed books included) will change his opinion. And unfortunately in the end, this leads to problems when people want to play characters of specific alignments without getting cartoon'ish and ridiculous about it. Or well, it often does, no rules without a few exceptions after all.

And I'm not sure what system you'd run that in but it actually sounds like it could be fun depending on how it's done. :p (Mongoose Traveller or GURPS possibly...)

ArcturusV
2013-03-16, 11:53 PM
Well, the concept is open ended enough I could probably run it in anything. Some aren't necessarily suited to it. DnD only because Conjuration and Transmutation effectively break the concept. When I can just Poof in objects the idea of gaining material wealth doesn't matter anymore.

But I mean I could run the concept in Dark Heresy. Well, Rogue Trader I suppose would be the game for it, but I don't actually have Rogue Trader and do have Dark Heresy. Could run it in a game like RIFTS, Robotech, etc, as well.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-16, 11:59 PM
Anything with a more controlled magic system than D&D really (which still wouldn't stop some because they're under the impression that it's better to houserule D&D into submission than change your system). Or no magic system at all. I just like the thought of it as a sci-fi game myself and GURPS and Traveller are the main ones I've been exposed to for Sci-fi games.
Then again, that's most likely because fantasy games always gets a more "epic" feeling to them for me. You're supposed to save the world (or at the very least a decent sized country) and become heroes, who has time for little things like economics? :p

ArcturusV
2013-03-17, 12:04 AM
I wouldn't run GURPS myself mostly due to not being familiar with it. And remembering what a pain in the butt it was the few times I did try it out. Worse than doing math homework on the Entertainment Scale.

Though I could run it as a Prime Directive game, which does support it. And I've wanted to run Prime Directive for a long time but could never get a group into it.

Hallavast
2013-03-17, 12:07 AM
Always a problem, not just with evil. Chaotic often get that flak as well. If I don't act like I"m bat**** insane, I get told I'm not chaotic. If I don't go around kicking every enforcer of Law and Order square in the nuts, they tell me I'm not Chaotic.

Even though the player's guide doesn't define Chaos like that. Except for in 2nd Edition where Chaotic Neutral was literally defined as "Bat**** crazy and incapable of having rational thought processes". Chaos was defined, in third edition for example, as being about freedom and desires more than anything. An artist, for example, would be stereotypically "Chaotic" in that edition as it is about the freedom of expression unbound by rules. An irresponsible heiress who is pissing through her fortune and just drifting through life is also Chaotic. As is someone who is actively trying to be an anarchist and destroy society.

And Good/Evil isn't defined in terms of "Do you kick puppies" or not. Evil is defined as being self motivated and self interested. Interestingly enough, the way they define evil, some concepts we don't consider "Evil" would in fact be an evil alignment.

For example, Free Market Economics would be Chaotic Evil. It's all about a lack of regulation and the freedom to let natural impulses and desires define things, while all being about personal greed, and what you can do to profit yourself without constraints beyond working with the natural impulses of people. Though I hesitate to think people would naturally think of free market economics as "evil". Some might, but mostly because of exploitation and attempting to build a false system out of it, rather than actually using the complete lack of system itself.

Communist regimes would be Lawful Good... yes. Because Law's strict codes fit the definition, and the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a standard boilerplate for Good. It's right up front on what Good is. It's rigid structure, it's demands for equality and such, yes. Entirely Lawful Good territory. But I don't think most people would necessarily look at such a thing and consider them Good.

The alignments are often poorly understood by players and DMs. And often they just go with whatever they say should be the alignment, rather than what is actually written about the alignment.

Though now I'm inspired to have an "Evil" game all about people just trying to honestly amass a fortune honestly and evade people who are trying to take their money or limit their behavior in some way. :smallbiggrin:

I think people willfully disregard "what is written" about alignment for very specific reasons. What is written doesn't gel with our ideas of "good" and "evil". Law and chaos are even more nebulous. As a result, they are not very useful guidelines to describe a character that's supposed to be an actual person. What is written is fairly easy to understand. If people are like me and my friends, they simply ignore it, because it doesn't match reality.

It also goes without saying that your characterizations of those two philosophies are oversimplified at best. The invisible hand of the market and the price system are not well characterized by people simply following whims and desires. There is no "lack of system". It IS a system. There is as much or more rational calculation involved in free market economics as there is in a planned economy. It is simply decentralized. It doesn't do to compare an organism like the economy of an entire region to an organism like a human being.

ArcturusV
2013-03-17, 12:20 AM
I know it was simplified. But I was worried about getting too close to some taboo debate. Though I should have said "Without outside controls" instead of "system" perhaps.

The point being the general nature at first blush and not going into the gritty details. Though Alignments have to apply not only to people but also to greater philosophies, in fact entire cultures as you have entire planes that are defined by Alignment, entire races defined as being exemplars of that alignment, etc. So I wouldn't say it's entirely baseless to compare it to a conceptual system or society.

Lvl45DM!
2013-03-17, 06:04 AM
BACK ON TOPIC!
Meeting Evil

Our evil party was adventuring through the underdark and we arrived at a drow city. After a few errands like dragging elves back alive for the resident mind flayers to snack on, we started getting into the meat of the story. We headed to the shop to resupply. But there was a problem. He had died of a mysterious illness. We had a war council, wondering who was out to get us terrified we were being hunted. We were a little paranoid but hey Drow city.
There is a spell in BoVD called Identify Transgressor. We cast it to find the murderer and a giant red arrow appeared in the air and pointed right at one of our party. We all turned to the Anti-Paladin, Geler Mors, (who has a Cause Disease ability) and he just smiled and asked "Seriously how many people that we've met do you think are alive?"
We were all a little scared of him at that point.


Eviler than Thou
Later in that same campaign the Anti-Paladin was charmed into attacking the party. He scarred and diseased the Thief, Ransul, before we broke it. The Thief got healed, magnanimously forgave the Anti-Paladin and we moved on. But from then on little things just kept going wrong for Geler Mors. One day he tried to disease someone again only to find all the diseases he had been building up in his body had vanished (The fluff for the Cause Disease ability was that the Anti-Paladin was a carrier for a bunch of diseases rather than it being a magic spell). Next session he start coughing up blood because his water had been replaced with holy water. He couldn't use his sword one fight because it had been Protected From Evil. His Armour got swapped with clothes that had an illusion cast on it. The next day the Armour was back but was invisible so it took him over an hour to put on his Full Plate. This all stopped when he coughed up enough cash to make the Mage cast Identify Transgressor. The big red arrow this time pointed, of course, to the Thief. Ransul smiled and said "Do not piss off that which you cannot put down". Geler charges him sword drawn and Ransul throws a smoke bomb and vanishes, yet to be seen again.

SiuiS
2013-03-17, 06:29 AM
Yeah. Thats what I though. Evil just doesn't allow for complex stories as it just generally stops at self concern.

Nah, that's only true on the surface. Note this is the same surface where "good" is a bunch of murderhobos who only don't kill each other because they instead all agree to pick on a minority faction.


I've played in an admittedly stalled game where the party was intentionally evil, and all got together, realized they had Asventuring Group Synergy, and could use it to conquer the world. The roster was somewhat fluid as players couldn't always make it, but the main thrust was that the Cleric had made up a religion (well, "discovered" it, as he was a believer) that relied on psychology and inversuon of standard belief, so the faithful would eventually feel ostracized by and rise up against the light-worshipping peoples. The fighter and rogue specialized in generic combat with secondary governmental and
Infrastructure building skills, using the time-honored murderhobo tradition of founding your own kingdom as a front for the religion's spread, and the magic user was alternately a demonologist or necromancer, focusing on summoning spirts and making deals. He covertly wrangled agreements with nearby nations, learning secrets and leveraging blackmail to keep the power players o the political arena from looking too closely at the conquests or the growing superstitions.

The entire party was on pretty good terms, and ha as much or more motive drive than most adventuring parties. The only conflict was between the cleric and the magic user, because one had a new religion to follow and the pter had an old religion to appease.

Need to get that going again, somehow. DM has expired, unfortunately...