PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Tales The Evil DM speaks



The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 05:02 AM
I am new to this forum but long in the tooth for role playing games. Have been reading OOTS since its inception. I have been doing research on player and DM behavior trends by reading these forums and while doing so have encountered a number of threads talking about Evil DM tricks.

As an aged and experienced Evil DM who has passed the torch of this title to a second generation, I was dismayed by the silliness and attribution of poor gaming skills to Evil DMing.

So I have registered in order to regale the gaming community of the OOTS forums with an example of true Evil DM.

I have 37 years of GM experience running games up to 2x per week. I have well established gaming techniques that prevent player railroading. The campaigns I run are built upon a matrix of possible storylines that are revealed to the players through potentially innocuous encounters, rumor mongers and other tropes for passing information to the players. The campaign world is a sandbox where the players are in control of which lines they follow.

At one point the players heard a tale of a great necromancer who sought to extend his life through lichdom - classic trope of the practitioner of dark arts seeking knowledge that cannot be learnt by mere mortals. Over the course of five or six weekly game sessions, they begin investigating this tale. The paladin in the party latches on and arbitrarily decides that this necromancer should be their focus.

Throughout the course of their investigations, they learn that the necromancer lives on the fringes of society beyond the borders of civilization. Various divinations reveal that the necromancer is somewhat reclusive and he really doesn't bother nearby villages but fools who enter his domain rarely return. The players also learn that the necromancer has a particularly well developed talent for illusion and misdirection.

Assuming their moral authority as paladins and clerics of a lawful good deity gives them certain rights, they declare this necromancer as their enemy. They communicate their intent to the high priests of their religion and they are warned away. The necromancer is too powerful a foe and there are more pressing concerns. But even with this warning the players move forward with their plans.

Thus the following morning the players gathered their gear and horses, setting out across the countryside. Their goal, the fringe of civilization and the lair of the necromancer.

Yes the necromancer was evil, and yes the necromancer was engaged in experiments with undeath that were unnatural, but the necromancer took great care not to draw attention to his activities. The necromancer did not rob graves, did not assault random villagers, in fact the necromancer traded with nearby villages through intermediaries. If it were not for his Dr Frankenstein experiments he might have simply been a reclusive mad mage.

Over the course of two more adventure session the characters traveled several hundred miles to their new foe. On the way the paladin announced to various villagers that they were on their way to rid the countryside of the necromancer menace. Through these encounters word eventually reached the necromancer that the protagonists were on their way.

So rather than wait for the players to arrive the necromancer attacked. Late in the evening, the players had camped in a wooded glen. Two players were awake while the remaining characters rested. The necromancer observed through divinations and used an opportune moment to teleport into the middle of the camp and begin the assault.

Surprised by the appearance - the players actually expected the necromancer to wait for them in his lair where they would arrive and kill him - the necromancer unleashed a magical assault. Before the guards could act the necromancer had paralyzed the first and the second was able to shout out a warning before he was paralyzed. As the party scrambled to wake, gather weapons, spells and items while camped the Necromancer picked them off paralyzing them all. The party did put up a good fight but in the end they were overmatched.

Once everyone was paralyzed the group thought to themselves damn, this is a TPK and they walked willingly into it. But the game was not over. The Evil DM had yet to unleash to true evil of this storyline.

Everyone was paralyzed but aware of their surroundings. The Necromancer wanted to teach these fools a lesson for declaring war on him. So the necromancer gathered these victims and posed them in a circle such that they could all see one another. After so posed the Necromancer chose.... EEENY MEENY MINEY MOE...

There were 8 players in the group, I counted around the table 1, 2, .... 8 assigning a number to each player and then toss an eight sided die onto the table.

The victim was chosen. A warrior/mage of no-small skill and we shall call him Bob. The necromancer approached Bob and his companions helplessly observed when the necromancer pushed bob over and dragged him to the center of the circle.

The necromancer began several unknown arcane rituals, casting spells upon Bob before pulling some strange tools out of a pouch. The first tool a scalpel with a blade of enchanted obsidian honed to a glass edge. The players observed as the necromancer gave Bob the Y cut from shoulder to shoulder and down the abdomen. The traditional cut used to access organs in an autopsy.

Then the second tool emerged, a strange inverted clamp the players had never seen before. They heard the crack of bone as the necromancer broke through Bob's chest and then used the device to spread out the ribs, breaking several. The party now had a clear view into Bob's inner workings and his heart was still beating. Bob had been anesthetized and kept alive by the necromancers spells.

Horrified by this the players continued to helplessly watch as the necromancer cut out Bob's still beating heart and placed it in a pouch. From another pouch the necromancer removed a tiny demon of some sort. It was writing and cursing but not much bigger than Bob's heart. The necromancer places this demon into Bob's chest cavity, closes up the ribcage and reseals the surgical wound.

The Necromancer teleports away the party is still paralyzed.

For another hour, they remain paralyzed, Bob lying on the ground covered in his own blood and everyone else left staring at him getting more paranoid by the moment. As they all came to, discussion on the topic "What about Bob?" began.

They decided to retreat from the necromancer's lair but Bob was slowly alienated from the group. When arranged shelter at the nearest village and members of the party began to see strange things - like swelling movement under Bob's skin. Simultaneously Bob began to hear voices. Notes were being passed player to player and player to DM at a frantic pace.

After several days of increasing paranoia over the Demon residing in Bob, seven of the eight players stood up at the table and said, "We are going into the woods to have a private conversation, Bob you stay here" The players left the room, walked outside into the back yard of the house and had a Powwow. Bob sat alone with the Evil DM muttering.... "Im Gonna Die"

When the rest of the players returned from outdoors they murdered Bob, and cut him open to find his heart. It was then they all realized that the whole process had been an illusion, and the things they were seeing and hearing were a curse giving them phantasms in their minds.

The paladin was stripped of paladinhood for his sin of willful murder and the clerics of the lawful good god found themselves without powers. The necromancer had won.

True Evil DM power is getting the players to do the job of the monsters for you.

Brookshw
2015-04-09, 05:39 AM
Huh? You let seven of them get away!

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 07:46 AM
Poor Bob. Why didn't they try Remove Curse first?

Angelmaker
2015-04-09, 08:08 AM
Huh? You let seven of them get away!

They are scarred for live.

I think this is a pretty awesome story. I don't know if there are that many illusion spells that can foolall those poeple without one rolling a nat20 on their save or something and failing their saces on seven different curse spells.

So i have no idea how this played out rules wise, but otherwise i like it. :evul:

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 08:23 AM
Wow...that's terrifying and brilliant.

Bravo! Good sir such a classically tragic twist! They forgot the nectomancers illusion specialty, playing it intense effect.

This sounds like a wonderful horror story to write up.

Red Fel
2015-04-09, 08:40 AM
Wow.

First, I thought you were being spiteful and trolling the players. Then, I thought you were being excessive and torturing the players.

... And then I saw what you really did, and it was beautiful.

Now, admittedly, nowhere did you mention saves. I assume saves were involved, or this skips straight from "brilliant" to "no, bad, naughty, go sit in the corner and think about what you did." But assuming the PCs all attempted - and failed - their saves against the curse, phantasms, etc., this was absolutely brilliant.

See? When I talk about Evil, this is what I mean. A good villain in epic fantasy knows that sometimes death is a revolving door; killing your enemies doesn't mean you're through with them. Stripping them of their powers and patronage? That'll do it. That'll do it right nice.

ComaVision
2015-04-09, 10:19 AM
I don't really agree that the Paladin and Clerics should have fallen, as they were tricked but I quite enjoyed the story.

Amphetryon
2015-04-09, 10:31 AM
As mentioned, the lack of any saves mentioned in the story is the most troubling aspect, moving this from 'DM using heavy-handed methods to demonstrate that the PCs aren't the most powerful beings in all the land' to 'DM having a power-trip to prove to his Players that he can win D&D by manipulating the flow of information.'

Also, I have issues with 'failing a Will save causes two PCs to fall on Alignment grounds.'

TricksyAndFalse
2015-04-09, 10:52 AM
I think the fall is warranted. The paladin and clerics had access to detect evil. They either chose not to use it before committing the cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder of Bob, or they ignored the fact that Bob was not evil before murdering him.

Where I raised my eyebrow was this:


[...] but the necromancer took great care not to draw attention to his activities. The necromancer did not rob graves, did not assault random villagers, in fact the necromancer traded with nearby villages through intermediaries.

If this is true, I'm not sure how the party heard about this guy in the first place.

Amphetryon
2015-04-09, 11:04 AM
I think the fall is warranted. The paladin and clerics had access to detect evil. They either chose not to use it before committing the cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder of Bob, or they ignored the fact that Bob was not evil before murdering him.

Where I raised my eyebrow was this:



If this is true, I'm not sure how the party heard about this guy in the first place.

Detect Evil would have told them the Evil Necromancer was evil. They believed he was perpetrating that evil directly on Bob, who would continue to suffer until whatever transformation he appeared to have set in motion finished. Leaving Bob to suffer through that tortuous transformation with the full expectation that they'd then have to take Bob down, if they still could, is a course of action very close to what others on these forums would point to as worthy of a fall. I'm not sure how Detect Evil would help, here.

Cristo Meyers
2015-04-09, 11:42 AM
Detect Evil would have told them the Evil Necromancer was evil. They believed he was perpetrating that evil directly on Bob, who would continue to suffer until whatever transformation he appeared to have set in motion finished. Leaving Bob to suffer through that tortuous transformation with the full expectation that they'd then have to take Bob down, if they still could, is a course of action very close to what others on these forums would point to as worthy of a fall. I'm not sure how Detect Evil would help, here.

I'm having a hard time imagining what Lawful Good diety wouldn't strip a paladin or priest of their powers after straight-up murdering an innocent for something they had no control over. Seems like 'get this dude to a church!' should have at least come before 'welp, sorry Bob, we'll make it quick. *shiv*'

Admittedly, we don't know exactly what the players did in the space between the curb-stomp and the player-cide.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 11:50 AM
Detect Evil would have told them the Evil Necromancer was evil. They believed he was perpetrating that evil directly on Bob, who would continue to suffer until whatever transformation he appeared to have set in motion finished. Leaving Bob to suffer through that tortuous transformation with the full expectation that they'd then have to take Bob down, if they still could, is a course of action very close to what others on these forums would point to as worthy of a fall. I'm not sure how Detect Evil would help, here.

I think he was referring to Bob. Like, why didn't they Detect Evil on Bob to determine the effects of the apparent demon in his chest? That would've given them a clue to the deception.

If these guys were such a goody-goody group, paladins and good clerics and whatnot, why didn't they attempt some kind of exorcism first? Or at least try to divine the exact nature of the curse. They could cast Augury, Divination, or even take Bob to their temple and ask the high priest.

Segev
2015-04-09, 11:51 AM
What makes it murder is the fact that they didn't know what kind of threat was actually posed, they didn't have evidence of immediate harm to innocents to worry about, they took no non-lethal efforts, and Bob indicated a desire not to die. Heck, Bob did not indicate an active desire to die.

I was initially questioning making the Paladin fall, but I realized that his actions were "hard choices" made for personal expedience and out of fear. Which a paladin is explicitly immune to, anyway. So that just left expedience. Killing because it's easier than helping is definitely fall-worthy.

TricksyAndFalse
2015-04-09, 11:52 AM
Yep, sorry. I meant casting detect evil on Bob. They murdered an innocent.

Lord Torath
2015-04-09, 01:43 PM
Regarding saving throws against the illusion, in Old School you generally had to declare you were disbelieving the illusion to get a saving throw. If your Intelligence was high enough, you could be immune to various levels of illusions, but PC Intelligence scores generally didn't get that high. I'm not certain what version the were playing. Although they might have been entitled to saves against the cursed phantasms.

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 01:46 PM
Yep, sorry. I meant casting detect evil on Bob. They murdered an innocent.

Now this might be a stretch, but what if the illusion worked on all senses and all channels? I mean is it possible for an illusion master to change the message a god may send to a member from a spell like cast evil?

Amphetryon
2015-04-09, 01:56 PM
I think he was referring to Bob. Like, why didn't they Detect Evil on Bob to determine the effects of the apparent demon in his chest? That would've given them a clue to the deception.

If these guys were such a goody-goody group, paladins and good clerics and whatnot, why didn't they attempt some kind of exorcism first? Or at least try to divine the exact nature of the curse. They could cast Augury, Divination, or even take Bob to their temple and ask the high priest.

As I thought I'd indicated, they likely thought they were performing a mercy killing on Bob BEFORE whatever horrible transformation came about as a result of Evil Necromancer's machinations, thereby sparing him additional torture. I have seen several threads - and passages in BoVD/BoED - indicating that willfully allowing torture is a potentially Fall-worthy offense.

If preventing torture is Fall-worthy, and allowing that exact same torture is also Fall-worthy, then the DM has simply made an executive decision that the Paladin and Cleric are going to Fall today, regardless of what they try.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 02:05 PM
As I thought I'd indicated, they likely thought they were performing a mercy killing on Bob BEFORE whatever horrible transformation came about as a result of Evil Necromancer's machinations, thereby sparing him additional torture.

That's like shooting your dog because it chased a raccoon and now you think he might be rabid. Don't want him to suffer. Maybe you could've taken him to the vet first...?

Having curses removed is the theme of, like, a third of fantasy stories. In a world where Resurrection and Restoration spells are a thing, it's not like a demon heart is an automatic death sentence.

Cristo Meyers
2015-04-09, 02:18 PM
Having curses removed is the theme of, like, a third of fantasy stories. In a world where Resurrection and Restoration spells are a thing, it's not like a demon heart is an automatic death sentence.

Sufficiently clever (or goofy) players might try to find a way to contain it and use it as a power source for a suit of armor...

Amphetryon
2015-04-09, 02:46 PM
That's like shooting your dog because it chased a raccoon and now you think he might be rabid. Don't want him to suffer. Maybe you could've taken him to the vet first...?

Having curses removed is the theme of, like, a third of fantasy stories. In a world where Resurrection and Restoration spells are a thing, it's not like a demon heart is an automatic death sentence.

First, like, before Evil Necromancer started the apparent transformation process? What good would that do, precisely? During the process? Doesn't help against the torture, which - as I've said - is potentially Fall-worthy to allow. Yes, I know that Paladins and Clerics can Atone. No, I don't think such measures should be forced upon them without discussing it with them beforehand.

TricksyAndFalse
2015-04-09, 02:58 PM
First, like, before Evil Necromancer started the apparent transformation process? What good would that do, precisely? During the process? Doesn't help against the torture, which - as I've said - is potentially Fall-worthy to allow. Yes, I know that Paladins and Clerics can Atone. No, I don't think such measures should be forced upon them without discussing it with them beforehand.

I'm pretty sure he means first as in the first option after they think Bob has a bad case of demon-for-a-heart. The first option they went for was butcher Bob.

TricksyAndFalse
2015-04-09, 03:02 PM
As I thought I'd indicated, they likely thought they were performing a mercy killing on Bob BEFORE whatever horrible transformation came about as a result of Evil Necromancer's machinations, thereby sparing him additional torture. I have seen several threads - and passages in BoVD/BoED - indicating that willfully allowing torture is a potentially Fall-worthy offense.

Getting Bob to the nearest temple for a check-up is not willfully allowing torture to occur.

veti
2015-04-09, 03:21 PM
I'm having a hard time imagining what Lawful Good diety wouldn't strip a paladin or priest of their powers after straight-up murdering an innocent for something they had no control over. Seems like 'get this dude to a church!' should have at least come before 'welp, sorry Bob, we'll make it quick. *shiv*'

Actually, I have a problem with them before that point: when they told their religious authorities what they were planning to do, and the authorities said "no, don't do that".

LAWFUL good means that when your superiors say something like that to you, you don't just assume you know better than them and press on regardless.

Not only that, but apparently they actively bragged about their quest while en route to the Necromancer's lair. That suggests the whole effort was basically about the paladin's vanity. Yes, he deserved to fall and fall hard. If I were his church, at this point I'd be tempted to require him to complete his self-imposed quest to defeat the Necromancer without his paladin powers, before granting the atonement.

Boci
2015-04-09, 03:31 PM
Actually, I have a problem with them before that point: when they told their religious authorities what they were planning to do, and the authorities said "no, don't do that".

LAWFUL good means that when your superiors say something like that to you, you don't just assume you know better than them and press on regardless.

Not only that, but apparently they actively bragged about their quest while en route to the Necromancer's lair. That suggests the whole effort was basically about the paladin's vanity. Yes, he deserved to fall and fall hard. If I were his church, at this point I'd be tempted to require him to complete his self-imposed quest to defeat the Necromancer without his paladin powers, before granting the atonement.

Not all un-paladin behavior has to be met with falling. You could also warn them (say they have a dream of being alone and hunted, and the next day only get half their cha bonus to saves) first.

veti
2015-04-09, 03:51 PM
Not all un-paladin behavior has to be met with falling. You could also warn them (say they have a dream of being alone and hunted, and the next day only get half their cha bonus to saves) first.

They were warned. The paladin decided to ignore the warnings of his religious superiors.

Expecting your deity to always communicate with you personally, disregarding what you're told by others who are closer to the deity than you are - would be another example of overweening vanity.

Galen
2015-04-09, 04:13 PM
Not all un-paladin behavior has to be met with falling. You could also warn themTheir superiors in the church hierarchy telling them "don't do it" was the warning.


They communicate their intent to the high priests of their religion and they are warned away

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 04:20 PM
First, like, before Evil Necromancer started the apparent transformation process? What good would that do, precisely? During the process? Doesn't help against the torture, which - as I've said - is potentially Fall-worthy to allow. Yes, I know that Paladins and Clerics can Atone. No, I don't think such measures should be forced upon them without discussing it with them beforehand.

I don't know what transformation process you're talking about. Some weird demon thing was dropped in to Bob's chest, and that is all they know. Nothing more, nothing less. Any transformation process, torture, pain, or whatever is straight up assumptions made by the players and nothing else. The facts they had were something was inside Bob and maybe that Bob was hearing voices (it isn't clear in the story that the rest of the party knew this).

Could they have had suspicions about this? Sure thing. But you don't murder any innocent with a will to live over suspicions.

Boci
2015-04-09, 04:21 PM
Their superiors in the church hierarchy telling them "don't do it" was the warning.

That's a mundane warning, not a supernatural one. Given that losing powers is a supernatural event, I don't think you should jump to it from mundane warning. See below for further details.


They were warned. The paladin decided to ignore the warnings of his religious superiors.

Expecting your deity to always communicate with you personally, disregarding what you're told by others who are closer to the deity than you are - would be another example of overweening vanity.

By merely being a paladin the Gods have already taken a personal interest in the paladin, so no, I wouldn't interpret expecting a message from them as "overweening vanity". I know its easy to ignore, because it happened in the back story, but even a first level paladin has already spent years training for this position, so having their deity go "screw it" and yoinking their powers after one bad sidequest and a bit of bragging is not what I would call believable.

Edit: Regarding the whole scenario, I have some issues with it. As well as the already mentioned issue of saves, can spells not be identified by spell craft in this system, or was the necromancer using stilled silent spells to avoid this? Also, what exactly was the spell list they needed to achieve this. Scry and teleport is clear, what about paralyzing, the curse/illusion, the keeping bob alive, and how many of these were homebrew? Because I'm not too impressed with a DM tricking players with a spell combo that involves 3+ homebrew spells, especially if the players didn't know about them and didn't have the opportunity to roll spellcraft.

Galen
2015-04-09, 04:38 PM
By merely being a paladin the Gods have already taken a personal interest in the paladinIn that case, you should be willing to assume then that the Gods have taken even more interest in the Paladin's superior. And the Paladin's superior is, in fact, closer to the gods. Probably of higher level. Capable of casting higher-level divinations. It's a bit simplistic to call such a warning "mundane".

Boci
2015-04-09, 04:41 PM
In that case, you should be willing to assume then that the Gods have taken even more interest in the Paladin's superior. And the Paladin's superior is, in fact, closer to the gods. Probably of higher level. Capable of casting higher-level divinations. It's a bit simplistic to call such a warning "mundane".

I don't get your logic here. When it comes to the paladin falling from their own actions, the god would contact the paladin directly, not their superiors. Why do you assume it would be the other?

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 05:23 PM
I don't get your logic here. When it comes to the paladin falling from their own actions, the god would contact the paladin directly, not their superiors. Why do you assume it would be the other?

No, the god would not contact the Paladin directly, because that isn't how divine beings work. A god does not give you a phone call to schedule performance meetings to assess your work progress. A god has priorities on a cosmic level that go beyond the sidequest of a second level Paladin.

And regarding warnings...let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, there was a Paladin of Pelor. He lived in a large city. That city began to flood, and quickly, so everyone panicked. The city guard came to the Paladin's residence and told him they were evacuating. The Paladin said he would stay, because Pelor would keep him safe.

Later, once the flooding is up to the Paladin's second story, a man knocks on his window from the deck of a large boat. He asks the Paladin to join them, but again the Paladin refuses, for he trusts in Pelor.

Later, the Paladin's entire house has flooded, and he stands on his roof with an ocean rising around him. A Cleric with the Travel Domain, flying over head, spots him and flies downwards, offering to Teleport him to safety. The Paladin refuses, for he trusts in Pelor. The Wizard leaves, and the Paladin drowns within the hour. From whatever celestial plane Pelor resides on, the Paladin's spirit emerges, and his anger is without he end. He demands that Pelor personally explain the reason for allowing him to die. Pelor responds by saying he did no such thing, and in fact sent some guards, a guy on a boat, and a Cleric to help him.

The moral of this story is gods work in mysterious ways. A supernatural warning doesn't have to be obviously supernatural to qualify, and given the STATUS of those warning the Paladin away from the Necromancer, should be obviously heeded. Supernatural or not.

Milionac
2015-04-09, 05:33 PM
Furthermore, to expect supernatural signs of your own wrongdoing as a Paladin is ridiculous. If your grip on morality is so tenuous that you need your god to hold your hand every step of the way, you don't deserve to be a Paladin. And then you're going to whine, "no fair, you didn't tell me this was bad, so I want a do-over"?

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 05:35 PM
Furthermore, to expect supernatural signs of your own wrongdoing as a Paladin is ridiculous. If your grip on morality is so tenuous that you need your god to hold your hand every step of the way, you don't deserve to be a Paladin. And then you're going to whine, "no fair, you didn't tell me this was bad, so I want a do-over"?

You'd think they'd weed those people out in basic training.

Boci
2015-04-09, 05:37 PM
No, the god would not contact the Paladin directly, because that isn't how divine beings work. A god does not give you a phone call to schedule performance meetings to assess your work progress. A god has priorities on a cosmic level that go beyond the sidequest of a second level Paladin.

But the god will personally yank the powers of the paladin, so they are already involving themselves. Why not do so in a manner that can keep a servant, especially since the paladin would have needed to be a good servant for years in order to have just one level in the class, so its not like they shouldn't have any good will?


Furthermore, to expect supernatural signs of your own wrongdoing as a Paladin is ridiculous. If your grip on morality is so tenuous that you need your god to hold your hand every step of the way, you don't deserve to be a Paladin. And then you're going to whine, "no fair, you didn't tell me this was bad, so I want a do-over"?

The problem is they would have never gotten that first level in the paladin class if their grip on morality is so tenuous, so it is not at all believable.

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 05:46 PM
The problem is they would have never gotten that first level in the paladin class if their grip on morality is so tenuous, so it is not at all believable.

If you want to institute a multiple choice morality questionnaire assessment on your players before they can play the Paladin class, go right ahead.

Boci
2015-04-09, 05:48 PM
If you want to institute a multiple choice morality questionnaire assessment on your players before they can play the Paladin class, go right ahead.

Right. Alternatively I could give a supernatural warning as a way of compensating for the character/player knowledge discrepancy. But no, your way of punishing the player for not understanding your take on morality, something that is hardly a fact based science, works too. It al depends on how you define the word "works".

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 05:52 PM
Don't alignment restrictions just suck?

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 05:58 PM
Thank you for the replies. I am enjoying the discussion. Proper behavior of a paladin or lawful good cleric can be an interesting point of argument with regard to moral philosophy. But I digress. The following quote peaked my interest a little bit.


As mentioned, the lack of any saves mentioned in the story is the most troubling aspect, moving this from 'DM using heavy-handed methods to demonstrate that the PCs aren't the most powerful beings in all the land' to 'DM having a power-trip to prove to his Players that he can win D&D by manipulating the flow of information.'

Also, I have issues with 'failing a Will save causes two PCs to fall on Alignment grounds.'

First off there was no mention of saving throws, attack rolls or any other die rolls in the story because I was not trying to pass on a blow by blow of who did what and who rolled what. Suffice it to say, there were dice involved where appropriate.

As far as it was having a power trip due to manipulating information, you are partly correct. No power trip was involved, I am quite emotionless as a DM - I got over that as a Teenager and now that I am pushing my late 40's this behavior is well behind me. But manipulation of information is the key to being an Evil DM. However, if you cannot manage it with subtlety it quickly becomes heavy handed.

Let me explain with this hypothetical example.


"The party is walking down a wooded path. Both sides of the path are lined with oak, maple and a variety of ground scrub and bushes. Ahead on the trail you see a man, who smiles when he sees you. He is leading a cart pulled by a single horse. What do you do?"

Now what happens if I take that description and tweak it ever so slightly..


"The party is walking down a wooded path. Both sides of the path are lined with oak, maple and a variety of ground scrub and bushes. Ahead on the trail you see a man, who smiles unconvincingly when he sees you. He is leading a cart pulled by a single horse. What do you do?"

I added one word... Unconvincingly.

Language is powerful. Careful choices with descriptive words can lead players to all sorts of false assumptions. And once the art of doing so with subtlety is mastered the DM can wreak all sorts of havoc on the group.

What if I choose other words to insert in that description?

You see a man who smiles:

Sinisterly
Happily
Warmly
Evilly

It is easy to see that one word can trigger player assumptions and biases.

So lets take that to the next level.

One rule in the house of the Evil DM is that notes received may not be physically passed to other players but the player may role play against the information and even describe what is on the note. Also I keep a folder for each player which I can use between sessions to insert notes, background information and other character relevant info between games.

So sometimes, when I want to trigger mass confusion I take a statement such as above. And I write it on notes. But each player will have a different descriptive word insert in one spot. Often how I do this is preparing information in advance and slipping the notes into folders I keep for players. One player will see the man smiling sinisterly, another warmly. I sometimes even based these adjectives on the relative alignments of the target and the players.

Done well the natural biases of the players will take over and the DM can sit back and watch as the players implode. Its rather entertaining. They all have very nearly the exact same information. There is a man walking down the trail with a cart and a horse and he is smiling. But they disagree on the meaning behind the smile.

Some players have tried to argue that if they play with me long enough, they will be able to outwit the methods I use, but alas the opposite is true. The more I get to know a player, what their individual biases are and their triggers the easier it is for me to manipulate the information and trigger game play behaviors.

In the end it is a sales process. For each player I am selling a version of a story and the your version is just as believable as the version given to the player next to you but just ever so slightly different.

Now - I must also add that every game session is not about giving the players a hard time. In the story of Bob's demise 8 weeks of game play led up to the final moment. And in the end, they resurrected Bob, and the Paladin and Clerics were given opportunities to atone and regain their powers but a terrific story emerged and its one all the players in that group still remember and still talk about 20 years later - (The game was in 1995)

Bob is sitting in the tavern with his companions.... "Hey do you guys remember that time you murdered me? - You bastards!"

Most of the time the players are living their life and trying to make their way in a campaign world and the weekly events are very different. But with the necromancer, that party bit off a little more than they could chew.

Boci
2015-04-09, 06:03 PM
So did the necromancer use any homebrewed spells, or were they clever applications of already printed stuff?

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 06:06 PM
Except for the paralysis it was all an illusion. Everything was standard published stuff for 1995.

Boci
2015-04-09, 06:14 PM
And this was all possible in AD&D? Cool.


That said, I really do want to like this, but I can't. It all seems too convenient, either through dice rolls (the whole party failing their saves against paralysis), or just the way the system was set up (needing to actively disbelieve illusions, like the illusionary air from Yet Another Gaming Comic). They say your stories at the table usually aren't nearly as impressive to others, but then plenty of people seem to be with it, so don't let my skepticism bother you.

Also the writing descriptions differently for the PCs. Why? Why does one PCs see an unconvincing smile whilst another doesn't? This isn't inherently bad, but its aiming for a particular type of game atmosphere that I would be pretty annoyed at if I wasn't told was part of the game.

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 06:30 PM
Regarding actively disbelieving illusions that is a point of contention for many gamers and it comes down to philosophy.

As it stands the question comes down to willingness to resist. If I am an evil enchanter and I say "Hey Fighter, I am going to cast a spell on you that will enhance your strength is that cool?"

Now if the fighter replies, "Sure buddy cast your spell" and now is willingly accepting the magic but the Enchanter has lied to the fighter and casts Dominate instead should the fighter get a saving throw?

Some argue yes because it is hostile magic, others say no because the fighter has lowered his guard. The argument ultimately is determined by whether or not the structure of the system says you always get defense or you must actively be willing to defend.

This extends to illusion. 2nd ed always required an active defense as a general standard. It is something I hold to still. But illusions are a special case. Smart illusion should get no save if there is no reason for the characters to disbelieve unless the player takes the special time and effort to try.

For instance you are in a swamp. The spell caster is low on wall of fog spells so he uses an illusion to create the illusion of fog. I have never had a player attempt to "Disbelieve" fog in a swamp. Use the same fog trick in other environments and sometimes players do. Thus context is important. What happens that cause the behavior to cross the lines into railroading is when poor DMs utilize obvious illusions and when players don't disbelieve they get screwed.

In my tale, why would anyone disbelieve that a Necromancer could cut open someone's chest. The players ate it up hook line and sinker.

They did get saves against paralysis, some of the players put up a fight and the necromancer had to use a variety of spells to subdue them. They also got saves versus curses.

Strigon
2015-04-09, 06:31 PM
While I admire your creative methods - the necromancer one was simply inspired - I must say I don't appreciate the example you gave with the smiling man. While it is possible for a word's difference to drastically change the interpretation of a phrase, I don't think you would be justified in using all those adjectives to different players. They all see the same thing, and you are more or less telling them how they feel about it.
I know that, while amongst my friends, I've never seen someone smile and had this happen:
"Man, what a creepy smile... it looks like he's plotting a murder!"
"What? No; that's a smile of just pure joy, like you'd see on a child at Christmas!"
"I dunno what you guys are talking about... that's the smile of a man who's just lost everything and is putting on a brave face!"
And so on, and so forth.
Instead, I would give them all exactly the same information, but know how each one will react. For example, if one party member sees threats everywhere, maybe the man looks directly at him, and then smiles. Suddenly, self-preservation kicks in, while the others could think any number of things; friendly merchant, old neighbour, or even a serial killer looking for his next target.

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 06:42 PM
Also the writing descriptions differently for the PCs. Why? Why does one PCs see an unconvincing smile whilst another doesn't? This isn't inherently bad, but its aiming for a particular type of game atmosphere that I would be pretty annoyed at if I wasn't told was part of the game.

It is about perceptions and world view. I actually answered this above. Sometimes I base the variances on the declared alignments of the players other times I might base it on sense motive ranks or other reasons. For what ever reason a character perceives something differently than the others.

Someone demonstrates that their player is racist versus half-orcs I might skew their information to reflect that .... "The half-orc smiles unconvincingly."

Remember the key is subtlety. Took me many years to master it and understand how player perceptions and assumptions affect role playing.

It can even be used to affect simple choices.

The party comes to a T junction in a dungeon crawl. I want to bend their decision towards taking a right turn rather than a left.

I say... Both the right and left corridors appear to have the same construction. Dwarven stone expertly fitted rising 10 feet to an arched ceiling. You look down the right corridor and see darkness beyond the light of your torches. You look down the left corridor and see the same.

But then I might pass a note to the Halfling in the party... You smell something really bad down the left corridor. The odor reminds you of decaying animals.

Now I don't force the players to go right or left but this additional bit of information usually results in a protracted decision process where the players argue which way to go and their biases about bad smells emerge. Over the course of my gaming career the rate at which players approach the bad smells is about 30%. Thus I can skew the odds of going right without forcing the players to go right.

Boci
2015-04-09, 06:49 PM
Regarding actively disbelieving illusions that is a point of contention for many gamers and it comes down to philosophy.

As it stands the question comes down to willingness to resist. If I am an evil enchanter and I say "Hey Fighter, I am going to cast a spell on you that will enhance your strength is that cool?"

Now if the fighter replies, "Sure buddy cast your spell" and now is willingly accepting the magic but the Enchanter has lied to the fighter and casts Dominate instead should the fighter get a saving throw?

Different issue for me. The fighter doesn't get a save there, unless they had a reason to suspect the wizard was lying.


In my tale, why would anyone disbelieve that a Necromancer could cut open someone's chest. The players ate it up hook line and sinker.

The first time sure, but after that they know have a reason to disbelieve everything, which will stall the game and is hence why people prefer a passive defense against illusions, or one that requires interaction with them (as long as it is clear what interaction is).



They did get saves against paralysis, some of the players put up a fight and the necromancer had to use a variety of spells to subdue them. They also got saves versus curses.

I'm not doubting you did, just that there had to be an element of luck that they all failed their saves, since even a single one passive could have been problematic. There are 8 PCs, so that's 17 failed saves (8 paralysis, 8 curses, and Bob should have got a save vs. the illusion).


It is about perceptions and world view. I actually answered this above. Sometimes I base the variances on the declared alignments of the players other times I might base it on sense motive ranks or other reasons. For what ever reason a character perceives something differently than the others.

Someone demonstrates that their player is racist versus half-orcs I might skew their information to reflect that .... "The half-orc smiles unconvincingly."

Remember the key is subtlety. Took me many years to master it and understand how player perceptions and assumptions affect role playing.

But to me, that is not subtle. Handing out notes to every party member instead of describing something in plain view to the group isn't subtle, and decided for a player how their character's racism manifests is a big no-no. Just describe the half-orc and let the player make the conclusions. It sounds like you wouldn't trust the players to RP the rascist aspect of their character.

Pex
2015-04-09, 06:55 PM
You won D&D. Congratulations! Must have been real hard to do considering you were only the DM.

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 07:00 PM
You won D&D. Congratulations! Must have been real hard to do considering you were only the DM.

If that wasn't the most needlessly passive aggressive statement there is, I don't want to know what is. :smallconfused:

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 07:05 PM
I can agree that my example with the man smiling is not the greatest but it is something short. Also through the medium of a forum it is impossible to demonstrate. These things I am talking about develop over game sessions many weeks - not simply a single encounter.

In my games note passing doesn't happen frequently or regularly. Most of the time the notes are left in a players folder and they find the information. But perception is everything. Even if I change my body language as I describe things players respond differently.

If I lean back in my chair and describe something - to the whole group - I will get different responses than if I lean forward and fondle my dice and drop one for no reason while describing something.

Its not about trusting the players to role play - in fact I happen to have great players who are great role players and the poor role players are the ones that don't last in my games. As an alternative - a game system once proposed long ago - introduced a mechanic that gave modifiers to social interaction based on alignment differences. For instance if a LG individual wanted to Sense Motive on an LE individual there would be modifiers.

The modifiers though get in the way of the story. Rather than use modifiers I use the descriptions of people and perceived intent to reflect perception. This way I am not revealing metagame information through numbers. At the same time it can be used dangerously and destroy games - Did that about 25 years ago.

Kalmageddon
2015-04-09, 07:23 PM
If that wasn't the most needlessly passive aggressive statement there is, I don't want to know what is. :smallconfused:

He's right though.
I can't say I speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have fun playing in a session like the one described above, unless the game was specifically horror-themed and CoC-style. It was in bad taste, smelled of DM vs players and breaks several unspoken rules that I find are necessary for everyone to have fun.

Everyone acting like the whole scheme blew their mind is also hard for me to understand. The necromancer went meta. That's about it. Because putting up the whole scheme just so that the patron gods would abandon their champions reeks of meta, if any actual roleplaying was applied to the situation, the gods would have known that their champions were tricked and they wouldn't have taken their powers, at most they would have required the necromancer's ass on a silver platter as atonement for the mistake made. If anything, the necromancer's situation would have been worst.

And, newsflash, a clever DM can always manipulate his players into doing really stupid things. Doesn't even need to try that hard and he can ass-pull whatever justification afterwards to make it sound like it was all brilliant planning.

Ralanr
2015-04-09, 07:36 PM
He's right though.
I can't say I speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have fun playing in a session like the one described above, unless the game was specifically horror-themed and CoC-style. It was in bad taste, smelled of DM vs players and breaks several unspoken rules that I find are necessary for everyone to have fun.

Everyone acting like the whole scheme blew their mind is also hard for me to understand. The necromancer went meta. That's about it. Because putting up the whole scheme just so that the patron gods would abandon their champions reeks of meta, if any actual roleplaying was applied to the situation, the gods would have known that their champions were tricked and they wouldn't have taken their powers, at most they would have required the necromancer's ass on a silver platter as atonement for the mistake made. If anything, the necromancer's situation would have been worst.

And, newsflash, a clever DM can always manipulate his players into doing really stupid things. Doesn't even need to try that hard and he can ass-pull whatever justification afterwards to make it sound like it was all brilliant planning.


I haven't really played enough rpgs. I only looked at it from a story perspective as I assumed a lot of others did. It makes a good horror story and that's usually all that matters to me when it comes to tales of games.

I wouldn't want to play in it. I get :smallfurious: when a fellow player whispers to the DM for something that ends up being nothing that anyone needed to be sneaky about (If anyone wanted to know, he was asking the DM if he could have his character steal the scroll out of my character's hands. The fact that he tried to be sneaky with the DM about it was annoying. Don't know if he was in the right, but it was annoying to me.) so an entire table where things are just passed around secretly like that (To the DM, but still)? I'd either be furious or bored. If I'm either and the atmosphere doesn't make me feel the opposite of that more times than not, then I might actually leave the game.

Calen
2015-04-09, 07:45 PM
While I admire your creative methods - the necromancer one was simply inspired - I must say I don't appreciate the example you gave with the smiling man. While it is possible for a word's difference to drastically change the interpretation of a phrase, I don't think you would be justified in using all those adjectives to different players. They all see the same thing, and you are more or less telling them how they feel about it.
I know that, while amongst my friends, I've never seen someone smile and had this happen:
"Man, what a creepy smile... it looks like he's plotting a murder!"
"What? No; that's a smile of just pure joy, like you'd see on a child at Christmas!"
"I dunno what you guys are talking about... that's the smile of a man who's just lost everything and is putting on a brave face!"
And so on, and so forth.
Instead, I would give them all exactly the same information, but know how each one will react. For example, if one party member sees threats everywhere, maybe the man looks directly at him, and then smiles. Suddenly, self-preservation kicks in, while the others could think any number of things; friendly merchant, old neighbour, or even a serial killer looking for his next target.

If the adjectives in the description were the result of…say an insight check would you have the same reaction to the concept? Communicating information about what a player perceives on a gut level either through a skill check or the simple telling of a story is a very fine line to cross. I don't think that the smiling example is to extreme.

Kane0
2015-04-09, 07:48 PM
Bravo, Evil DM. I'd hapily have you at my table!

Edit: not sure why people are siding with the players here. They picked a fight with someone very powerful but not actually that threatening, and were advised not to before they went around advertising it all. The target took the initiative, and chose to teach them a lesson rather than just waste them. And it was all fair, the PCs knew what they were up against and severely underestimated their opponent, as well as forgetting his specialties.

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 07:49 PM
Quoting myself here to clarify a previous statement...


poor role players are the ones that don't last in my games

I actually did not intend to imply that people who don't play with me are all poor role players. There is definitely a subset of people with different interests and play styles who simply don't play. But in general strong role players do very well in my campaigns because they are very very open ended and sandbox format.

The story is taken out of context a single event played over many weeks of play. As discussion gets bogged down into minute details of who/when did people get saves, or this is breaking a rule of gaming etc the purpose is lost.

Perception is everything. 10 people witness a crime and they all see different things. Your reality varies from my reality through the veil of our own personal biases and assumptions. Using this a DM can do very bad things to a game. Even as I noted destroy the group and break real life friendships.

Its definitely not the norm. Most of the time the players are moving their individual stories forward. But occasionally they bite off a little more than they can chew.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 07:59 PM
While I admire your creative methods - the necromancer one was simply inspired - I must say I don't appreciate the example you gave with the smiling man. While it is possible for a word's difference to drastically change the interpretation of a phrase, I don't think you would be justified in using all those adjectives to different players. They all see the same thing, and you are more or less telling them how they feel about it.
I know that, while amongst my friends, I've never seen someone smile and had this happen:
"Man, what a creepy smile... it looks like he's plotting a murder!"
"What? No; that's a smile of just pure joy, like you'd see on a child at Christmas!"
"I dunno what you guys are talking about... that's the smile of a man who's just lost everything and is putting on a brave face!"
And so on, and so forth.
Instead, I would give them all exactly the same information, but know how each one will react. For example, if one party member sees threats everywhere, maybe the man looks directly at him, and then smiles. Suddenly, self-preservation kicks in, while the others could think any number of things; friendly merchant, old neighbour, or even a serial killer looking for his next target.

You've never sat on a jury, have you? Amazing how the exact same testimonies can produce 12 different reactions.

Boci
2015-04-09, 08:00 PM
Edit: not sure why people are siding with the players here. They picked a fight with someone very powerful but not actually that threatening, and were advised not to before they went around advertising it all. The target took the initiative, and chose to teach them a lesson rather than just waste them. And it was all fair, the PCs knew what they were up against and severely underestimated their opponent, as well as forgetting his specialties.

Its not so much that I'm siding with the players so much as I'm finding it hard to like this story as much as a probably would had a different person told it. When someone opens up a post with "you're all doing evil DMing wrong. Here, let me show you"...pretty much anything that follows can be nothing short of a disappointment after that opening. I'm also trying to understand how the scenario unfolded mechanically (hampered by my limited understanding of AD&D), and it seems like bad dice rolls were required, given the number of failed saves, on which a single pass would have spiked the trick.


You've never sat on a jury, have you? Amazing how the exact same testimonies can produce 12 different reactions.

That's what they said: you don't need to change the information to get players to react differently to an event.

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 08:01 PM
He's right though.
I can't say I speak for everyone, but I wouldn't have fun playing in a session like the one described above, unless the game was specifically horror-themed and CoC-style. It was in bad taste, smelled of DM vs players and breaks several unspoken rules that I find are necessary for everyone to have fun.

Everyone acting like the whole scheme blew their mind is also hard for me to understand. The necromancer went meta. That's about it. Because putting up the whole scheme just so that the patron gods would abandon their champions reeks of meta, if any actual roleplaying was applied to the situation, the gods would have known that their champions were tricked and they wouldn't have taken their powers, at most they would have required the necromancer's ass on a silver platter as atonement for the mistake made. If anything, the necromancer's situation would have been worst.

And, newsflash, a clever DM can always manipulate his players into doing really stupid things. Doesn't even need to try that hard and he can ass-pull whatever justification afterwards to make it sound like it was all brilliant planning.

I'm not seeing it. Bad taste is a matter of opinion. They rolled their dice, and they lost. That isn't DM vs. Player. I don't know your unspoken rules, and I probably wouldn't like them.

As far as meta goes, unless Clerics and Paladins being endorsed by codes with rules is some hidden and mystical knowledge, still not seeing it. If I was a player at your game, I would be amazed that the gods are even aware of what just transpired. Deities are not exactly omniscient, and they aren't omnipotent, so they can't take action in response to every single thing they know. A common thought seems to be that gods personally power these people, and personally stop powering these people. I find that a hard pill to swallow. It seems more likely that a Paladin is given some power, and that power is linked to the Paladin's aura. If a Paladin's aura ever wavers and produces an Evil bit of energy, it turns off until atonement.

If you ask me, though, that's tertiary. Even assuming that the necromancer actually did put a demon-looking thing into Bob's chest cavity, so what? Bob is still alive, and doing fine, other than some weird movements in his chest. There was zero evidence to support that anything would have come of it. Trickery or no trickery, there is no way that the party should have killed Bob. It is Evil, plain and simple. That group would have fallen so fast I wouldn't even be able to hear their outcries on the way down.

As for your last point...it doesn't even seem like much of a point. You're insinuating that the OP manipulated his players, and that DMs can manipulate players? Good to know he managed to do something that is within the realm of possibility. I was worried there for a second. And then you go on to insinuate that he lied about planning it. Cool!

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 08:03 PM
Boci I understand now

What I said was not


"you're all doing evil DMing wrong. Here, let me show you".

as it was, things attributed to being "Evil DMing" should be attributed to "Bad DMing"

I am looking to make the distinction.

Boci
2015-04-09, 08:05 PM
Boci I understand now

What I said was not



as it was, thing attributed to being "Evil DMing" should be attributed to "Bad DMing"

I am looking to make the distinction.

That's the same thing though. "You attribute things to Evil DM that should be attributed to Bad DM" is pretty much the same as "You are doing evil Dm wrong."

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 08:10 PM
I disagree,

Some of the things I have seen attributed to "Evil DM Behaviors" are things that reflect inexperience and lower levels of skill. I was there once too. The first games I ran using the original red box back in 1979 were quite poor. I can give stories of my own DM behavior at its worst.

Where I am looking to make the distinction is the DM using tools that are actually manipulative and evil - without breaking the system - or is the DM displaying inexperience.

such as

Player favoritism is called evil dming - but it is really bad DMing

and so on

Boci
2015-04-09, 08:14 PM
I disagree,

Some of the things attributed to "Evil DM Behaviors" I have seen are things that reflect inexperience and lower levels of skill. I was there once too. The first games I ran using the original red box back in 1979 were quite poor. I can give stories of my own DM behavior at its worst.

Where I am looking to make the distinction is the DM using tools that are actually manipulative and evil - without breaking the system - or is the DM displaying inexperience.

So you're saying the forum as a whole understands evil dming, but thinks bad dming is evil dming and needs to hear an example of evil dming?

Plus, its kinda funny that your example of evil dming was perceived as bad dming by several posters on this thread.


Player favoritism is called evil dming - but it is really bad DMing

Really? I've only ever seen it called bad dming.

goto124
2015-04-09, 08:17 PM
'Why did you kill him instead of bringing him to medieval hospital church?'

'Because he was transforming into a overpowered demon RIGHT IN FRONT OF US! He would've taken down the entire city by the time we brought him there!'

Kane0
2015-04-09, 08:19 PM
The first games I ran using the original red box back in 1979 were quite poor. I can give stories of my own DM behavior at its worst.


Ooh, yes please! Love a good story, good or bad.

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 08:19 PM
'Why did you kill him instead of bringing him to medieval hospital church?'

'Because he was transforming into a overpowered demon RIGHT IN FRONT OF US! He would've taken down the entire city by the time we brought him there!'

...isn't this the second time you've posted this non sequitur?

Boci
2015-04-09, 08:20 PM
...isn't this the second time you've posted this non sequitur?

Yes, although they did delete the first one. Maybe its a reference to something?

Rakoa
2015-04-09, 08:25 PM
Yes, although they did delete the first one. Maybe its a reference to something?

I didn't think of that. Sounds like it could be something from a funny movie. I'll go with that until some clarification arrives. :smalltongue:

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 08:31 PM
So you're saying the forum as a whole understands evil dming, but thinks bad dming is evil dming and needs to hear an example of evil dming?

Not necessarily everyone as a whole. There are a few examples but here is a link to an old thread I didn't want to resurrect by replying in it.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?215268-evil-DM-tricks


Plus, its kinda funny that your example of evil dming was perceived as bad dming by several posters on this thread.

I do too. It actually helps to illustrate the point about perceptions. One man's bad is another man's evil.

veti
2015-04-09, 08:56 PM
The problem is they would have never gotten that first level in the paladin class if their grip on morality is so tenuous, so it is not at all believable.

This argument right here? This is why "paladin" should never have been a base class. You shouldn't even be allowed to take levels in paladin until you've actually shown, to the satisfaction of some competent authority, that you understand this kind of thing.

And if it's the player who's responsible for upholding their alignment, then it's the player - not just the character in "backstory" - who needs to receive training in it.

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 09:31 PM
Ooh, yes please! Love a good story, good or bad.

Will do, this one is recent and furthers the idea of how perceptions can lead players down a false path, even if unintentionally.

My current campaign group is a group of level 20 characters involved with a war on epic scale. They learned about an enchanted warship on the bottom of the ocean from an age 500 years past when the mortals of the world were at a peak of high magic. The ship was rumored to be able to perform various feats such as plane shift to other worlds, fly and become invisible.

They decided that this ship would give them an advantage against their enemies and it could be used to raid supply make some strategic moves.

So they have embarked upon this journey.

Having access to high level clerics in their party, they decided to use commune to get some information. I work very hard to ensure that Commune is adjudicated well and gives useful true advice. I gave them the following warning... (this is excerpted from a private website that I use to communicate to players)


When asking questions like this

Is the Dragon typically located in one of its lair rather than being constantly on the move?

I must interpret the word typically. My interpretation of typically as the one who answers the question may be different than your interpretation as the one asking.

You will get more useful concrete data if you quantify the question into something like.

Does the Dragon spend more than 50% of its time in one of its lairs rather than being on the move?

So they started asking questions.

They verified that the tales were true. They verified that ship does exist. They also learned - through the use of a vision - that the ships magical capabilities were controlled through possession of the Captain's Sword.

They continued with the divine investigation and things got sticky.

They asked me - If we have the sword can we use its magic to raise the ship from the bottom of the ocean?

The answer from the gods was yes and it was the absolute truth

But then they continued to ask other questions and about 10 questions down the line I realized they had a massive false assumption. One that made my previous answer untrue. It was true in in the literal sense but there was missing information Missing information based on my assumptions.

They asked me about raising the ship from the bottom of the ocean - assuming that they merely possessed the sword.
I answered yes under the unspoken assumption on my part that they understood they were required to be standing upon the deck of the ship when using the sword.

So now the players are off searching a tropical sea for the lair of a sea beast to retrieve the sword, under the false impression that gaining the sword will give them the ship. But I know that the ship is not with the sword, it is far away and they have yet to realize that they need to find the ship as well. I have caught myself in a lie through commune but it was unintentional. So when they get the sword and activate its power..... nothing will happen and they will be upset.

Argh the gods lied to us.

So - now twisting this back to the concept of using information to toy with players as an evil DM behavior. The Players are all northmen following a Norse styled pantheon. Would Loki intercept a commune and lie in response to play tricks on the players? is this allowable within the context of the divine contract between god and followers?

This story is current and still unresolved.

sakuuya
2015-04-09, 09:55 PM
Why not just change the way the sword works? Since they don't know your original plan, they won't know you fudged it.

If it's important that the sword only work from one location, have it give them some sort of hint when they find it. Maybe it constantly tugs its wielder toward the deck of the ship or something.

Kane0
2015-04-09, 10:00 PM
Would the deities be inclined to inform the party if they see that their information has a part missing? Perhaps via an angel or on the next communication?

Other than that, a third party might reveal te information, along with another little tidbit like "Now i wonder why they didnt tell you that?" A devil could find that enjoyable, sowing a bit of doubt and distrust.

Or say when the sword activates it leads the wielder to the ship, then it assumes command as normal. Handy compass to the treasure.

Surk, Sir
2015-04-09, 10:00 PM
I like it! As an older school player I totally approve, and you really do have to work to get under a player's skin like that. Of course I assume you skipped the rule-sy portion for our sake, as it can bog down story telling.

Pex
2015-04-09, 10:07 PM
Quoting myself here to clarify a previous statement...



I actually did not intend to imply that people who don't play with me are all poor role players. There is definitely a subset of people with different interests and play styles who simply don't play. But in general strong role players do very well in my campaigns because they are very very open ended and sandbox format.

The story is taken out of context a single event played over many weeks of play. As discussion gets bogged down into minute details of who/when did people get saves, or this is breaking a rule of gaming etc the purpose is lost.

Perception is everything. 10 people witness a crime and they all see different things. Your reality varies from my reality through the veil of our own personal biases and assumptions. Using this a DM can do very bad things to a game. Even as I noted destroy the group and break real life friendships.

Its definitely not the norm. Most of the time the players are moving their individual stories forward. But occasionally they bite off a little more than they can chew.

It's more than just you winning D&D. It's the satisfaction we all get of your need to boast how you got one over on your players to show what a great DM you are. Well done!

Applause!

Maglubiyet
2015-04-09, 10:11 PM
Would the deities be inclined to inform the party if they see that their information has a part missing? Perhaps via an angel or on the next communication?

I love it: "D*mn autocorrect. That last message was supposed to say..."

Given the nature of oracles and prophecies, I would think that the gods are cool with only providing partial information. They probably see it as a way to test their heroes.

Amphetryon
2015-04-10, 05:30 AM
As far as it was having a power trip due to manipulating information, you are partly correct. No power trip was involved, I am quite emotionless as a DM - I got over that as a Teenager and now that I am pushing my late 40's this behavior is well behind me. But manipulation of information is the key to being an Evil DM. However, if you cannot manage it with subtlety it quickly becomes heavy handed.

Let me explain with this hypothetical example.



Now what happens if I take that description and tweak it ever so slightly..



I added one word... Unconvincingly.

Language is powerful. Careful choices with descriptive words can lead players to all sorts of false assumptions. And once the art of doing so with subtlety is mastered the DM can wreak all sorts of havoc on the group.

What if I choose other words to insert in that description?

You see a man who smiles:

Sinisterly
Happily
Warmly
Evilly

It is easy to see that one word can trigger player assumptions and biases.

So lets take that to the next level.

One rule in the house of the Evil DM is that notes received may not be physically passed to other players but the player may role play against the information and even describe what is on the note. Also I keep a folder for each player which I can use between sessions to insert notes, background information and other character relevant info between games.

So sometimes, when I want to trigger mass confusion I take a statement such as above. And I write it on notes. But each player will have a different descriptive word insert in one spot. Often how I do this is preparing information in advance and slipping the notes into folders I keep for players. One player will see the man smiling sinisterly, another warmly. I sometimes even based these adjectives on the relative alignments of the target and the players.

Done well the natural biases of the players will take over and the DM can sit back and watch as the players implode. Its rather entertaining. They all have very nearly the exact same information. There is a man walking down the trail with a cart and a horse and he is smiling. But they disagree on the meaning behind the smile.

Some players have tried to argue that if they play with me long enough, they will be able to outwit the methods I use, but alas the opposite is true. The more I get to know a player, what their individual biases are and their triggers the easier it is for me to manipulate the information and trigger game play behaviors.

In the end it is a sales process. For each player I am selling a version of a story and the your version is just as believable as the version given to the player next to you but just ever so slightly different.

Now - I must also add that every game session is not about giving the players a hard time. In the story of Bob's demise 8 weeks of game play led up to the final moment. And in the end, they resurrected Bob, and the Paladin and Clerics were given opportunities to atone and regain their powers but a terrific story emerged and its one all the players in that group still remember and still talk about 20 years later - (The game was in 1995)

Bob is sitting in the tavern with his companions.... "Hey do you guys remember that time you murdered me? - You bastards!"

Most of the time the players are living their life and trying to make their way in a campaign world and the weekly events are very different. But with the necromancer, that party bit off a little more than they could chew.
If this is considered good DMing behavior among your group, congratulations. I have never been in a group that would have perceived it that way, having also started with the Red Box Set.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 05:46 AM
If this is considered good DMing behavior among your group, congratulations. I have never been in a group that would have perceived it that way, having also started with the Red Box Set.

Well Actually, Quite the opposite. It is considered Evil DM behavior.

Nice to meet another old timer.

Just for note.

Core players have been with me for 10 years. Current campaign setting has been running continuously since 1999. Have had 150 players in the world and 6 different GMs use it across five western states. Most of the "Civilization" in the world has been designed and built by the players.

I only pull these tricks out of the hat when the players knowingly and willingly put themselves in a position where they are facing highly intelligent, evil beings who will do what they can to confuse and demoralize the PCs. Certain enemies and certain monsters deserve an element of uncertainty in this manner.

The players know - if their path is defending the villages against the bandit raids the style and abilities will reflect that. If they are entering the lair of a conjuror who has brought forth hideous beasts from hell the style of the encounter will reflect that. Ultimately they chose where they go.

Kane0
2015-04-10, 06:19 AM
I only pull these tricks out of the hat when the players knowingly and willingly put themselves in a position where they are facing highly intelligent, evil beings who will do what they can to confuse and demoralize the PCs. Certain enemies and certain monsters deserve an element of uncertainty in this manner.


I hope to some day see my players become like this. One does not simply say 'lets go kill a dragon' one day and expect it to be quick, simple and/or easy.

hewhosaysfish
2015-04-10, 06:58 AM
I can't help but think that the whole demon-heart thing would've had more punch without the secondary illusions of movement under the skin and voices-in-the-head.

If they had still killed Bob in that case then there would have been a sort of twisted lesson being taught:

They went to kill someone they knew was Evil but who hadn't committed any specific crimes because of what they assmed he would do; they killed a friend who had been... infected?... but who wasn't actually demonstrating any changes in behaviour because of what they were worried might happen to him.

Of course, I agree that they still jumped to "Death is the only cure!" far to early. But having the secondary illusions there gives them a fig-leaf of "But something wa growing inside of him!" to hide behind and avoid learning that lesson.

I do have to wonder what Bob said to his friends when it was obviously what they were plotting, and how they responded...

Cluedrew
2015-04-10, 08:01 AM
To those who are beating down The Evil DM I would like to point out one little thing:


Now - I must also add that every game session is not about giving the players a hard time. In the story of Bob's demise 8 weeks of game play led up to the final moment. And in the end, they resurrected Bob, and the Paladin and Clerics were given opportunities to atone and regain their powers but a terrific story emerged and its one all the players in that group still remember and still talk about 20 years later - (The game was in 1995)

Bob is sitting in the tavern with his companions.... "Hey do you guys remember that time you murdered me? - You bastards!"

Now this, as The Evil DM demonstrates, could mean various meanings depending on how he said it. However to me it suggests that, although it was a terrible time for all involved at that time it created some impactful and fond memories for those involved. It reminds me of a little bit of poetry about DMing:

"I will kill you and I will save your life,
I am your worst enemy and your best friend,
I am the Dungeon Master."

We see the "kill" and "enemy" part here but there seems to be a lot of "save" and "friend" as well going on. And considering that the players still seem to be talking about it, yes he did win D&D in that moment. Killing the Bob doesn't get you any points, but the stories and memories do.


On the other hand I agree with some of the other posters that I don't think I would enjoy that type of game, but I'm not one of Evil DM's players, who do seem to enjoy it, so the point is irrelevant. Different groups, different play styles, nothing wrong with that.

Rakoa
2015-04-10, 08:21 AM
It's more than just you winning D&D. It's the satisfaction we all get of your need to boast how you got one over on your players to show what a great DM you are. Well done!

Applause!

You are completely missing the point and making a rather large ass of yourself in the process. :smallsmile:

Boci
2015-04-10, 12:29 PM
You are completely missing the point and making a rather large ass of yourself in the process. :smallsmile:

I dunno, other people have said they can see where Pex is coming from on this issue. Just because we have a different take on these events than the OP and you doesn't mean we are making asses of ourselves.


On the other hand I agree with some of the other posters that I don't think I would enjoy that type of game, but I'm not one of Evil DM's players, who do seem to enjoy it, so the point is irrelevant. Different groups, different play styles, nothing wrong with that.

But the opening post doesn't try to sell this as "a cool story that probably wouldn't work with a lot of groups" but rather "an example of true Evil DM". He has since clarified this stance, but the tone of the opening post is still there.

Galen
2015-04-10, 12:43 PM
It was in bad taste, smelled of DM vs players and breaks several unspoken rules that I find are necessary for everyone to have fun.The fact that, 20 years later, everyone are still together, and are still reminiscing about that time, makes me wonder just how important those unspoken rules are.

Boci
2015-04-10, 12:58 PM
The fact that, 20 years later, everyone are still together, and are still reminiscing about that time, makes me wonder just how important those unspoken rules are.

Highly relevant, given that this thread was meant to be a discussion/demonstrating of the concept of evil DMing, rather than a "hey guys and girls, listen to this cool story of mine".

Red Fel
2015-04-10, 01:10 PM
But the opening post doesn't try to sell this as "a cool story that probably wouldn't work with a lot of groups" but rather "an example of true Evil DM". He has since clarified this stance, but the tone of the opening post is still there.

Actually, this is a rather good point. All analysis of creativity, fairness, and alignment restrictions aside, I am curious what the OP meant by "Evil DM." Did you mean a DM who is a naughty or sadistic person, a DM who has a grasp of how to play Evil characters, or some third option bearing some or no similarity to the other two?

I think that knowing what you meant by "Evil DM" would be very helpful in avoiding further semantic dissection of the post, and focusing on whether your story successfully reflected what you intended.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 02:09 PM
Actually, this is a rather good point. All analysis of creativity, fairness, and alignment restrictions aside, I am curious what the OP meant by "Evil DM." Did you mean a DM who is a naughty or sadistic person, a DM who has a grasp of how to play Evil characters, or some third option bearing some or no similarity to the other two?

I think that knowing what you meant by "Evil DM" would be very helpful in avoiding further semantic dissection of the post, and focusing on whether your story successfully reflected what you intended.

A little of both to be precise. So I have mentioned elsewhere and in another thread that I run a campaign that is a sandbox. Some areas of the sandbox are horror. If the players go to the places that are horror filled they get what they asked for. They all know what they are getting into before they go. If players stay in the cities and engage with the rogues guild they get a game of intrigue, theft and criminal activity. If the players participate in the various wars in the campaign world they get massed combat and miniatures battles. The group rotates through these depending on what they want and the flavor changes based on where they are and what they do.

So yes - It is about the skill to play evil. When faced with an enemy that has the intelligence to use all its resources, the wisdom to anticipate what the players will do and the evil sadistic streak to torment them as part of its tactics I pull out all the stops.

The saving grace is not every enemy is evil of this nature. Most goblins and other humanoid tropes are merely trying to survive. They may engage in banditry or slavery but they are not the sinister evil. Sinister evil is special and I treat it as such.

So again both... How do you play an evil NPC and how does the DM maximize the use of ones own sadistic tendencies to create the horror. It is not easy to get a level of immersion and horror where the players are actually experiencing horror. Most players are so jaded by media that it is a true challenge.

I have found it amusing that people have latched onto this as if I have a group of players that show up week after week just to be tortured. That is not the case and if I ran total horror every week, the game would fall apart. But there is a dungeon - which I will leave unnamed because I am working on some publishable tales - where the horror is so vast, one player ended a game session with,

"My character can't take this anymore. I sit in a corner and wait to starve to death."

Another group entered that dungeon and watched as a creature sucked the soul out of a companion and vomited forth a Larva to be transformed into a tortured demon - See first ed Monster Larva.

General rule of the campaign world is... If the villagers are telling you stories that a great evil lies in the dark forest and people who enter returned damaged and insane. Its likely true and if you don't want to return damaged and insane, don't go into the forest.

PvP is neither explicitly discouraged or explicitly encouraged. In some cases there is PvP - a case where a party member picked up a curse that radically changed his behavior. The rest of the party began plotting to subdue and submit the player to a remove curse. That is PvP. One group of characters - Same Players I have now - had a storyline build up for 18 months of play that ended with one character backstabbing the group. The story was a greek tragedy in its truest form. It would no be possible if I nor my players could play evil without being richards about it. We know evil, we know when to do PvP and when not to. It is all about balance.

A game that is all PvP all the time sucks.

A game that is all Evil all the time sucks.

A game that is all Mechanical combat all the time sucks.

A game that is all Political intrigue all the time sucks.

Balance and moderation of all things is the rule. The game rotates through the different styles of play as needed by the story and it prevents stagnation. Young and relatively inexperienced DMs typically have one trick, one style and the games last for a while and fall apart. To get an enduring group you gotta be evil sometimes, and good at others.

Rakoa
2015-04-10, 02:26 PM
I dunno, other people have said they can see where Pex is coming from on this issue. Just because we have a different take on these events than the OP and you doesn't mean we are making asses of ourselves.

You are not making an ass of yourself at all. You disagree with the OP, and you're expressing the reasons why in quite a civil manner, rather than being sarcastic, condescending, and full of yourself. I haven't the slightest problem with you.

If Pex has a point to make, I don't have time to find it under his layers of petty antagonism.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 05:02 PM
If Pex has a point to make, I don't have time to find it under his layers of petty antagonism.

Petty antagonism rolls off my shoulders and has no effect on me. I have ignored all of Pex's comments. If he is unable to discuss and debate in a civil manner he should go join the ranks of US politicians.

And Cluedrew above mentioned people beating me down. Honestly I find it amusing because it just goes to show how much world view creates judgment and clouds interaction. I just use manipulation of world view as a way to bring horror and evil into the campaign when it is appropriate for the interaction.

I can say I have been through the bad DM stages. At one point I was a teenager, I DMed Monty Haul Games, Killer Games had a phase where I did actually try and kill players. In this particular story Bob was tormented but I expected the players to take Bob to the temple. They didn't - Oh well that is what resurrection spells and atonement are for. You can make mistakes you can have gruesome consequences but in the end all can be made right again.

So the question might eventually run to - how did I develop various aspects of my DMing? How did I work on horror, work on intrigue? In 1992 I had managed to put my munchkin years behind and I had a good group of players. So I approached them with an idea. My plan was to build a campaign world. The world itself is system generic but that is another topic. For this I wanted to focus on story elements. So I conspired with my friends to run a series of short campaigns - 3 to 6 months max each. Each campaign focused on a singular aspect of gaming. Rogues and Thieves Guilds, Political Intrigue, Massed Warfare, Survival against the Environment, Naval adventures and warfare, Clerics Paladins and the details of religion, and finally horror. Over six years we made characters and ran scenarios. All rogues and warrior thugs for the Thieves Guild. Warriors and Generals for massed combat and so on.

Incidentally the story of Bob is from one of these scenarios.

I took copious notes, tried different things threw out things that didn't work, and kept the rest. I took all the best experiences of those scenarios and merged them into my sandbox world. In 1999 play in the World of Cardia began. At this point there are over 20000 pages of records on the collected adventures and events in this world. The things I am most proud of.

The central civilization is 100% constructed by players. The major NPCs are PCs who built the cities, built the roads and established the laws. As it is now if a group wants to interact with the lord of the realm, they can call that player - who lives 1500 miles away, and interact with him. These long time players will get on a plane and fly across the country to spend a weekend bringing the epic characters out of retirement to deal with the worst of threats to their world.

18 years and 150 players and over 450 PC characters later the world is rich with story. New Players sometimes are overwhelmed when I point them to the private website where 20 years of in game history are timelined, recorded and available to review.

Sure - I have done some bad things to good pcs that go to the darkest places. But the strength of this story is due to the players. I have had the pleasure to have had hundreds of players at my table that can roll with the change of style as well as I can.

Just as a DM can be a one style pony so can players. We roll from humor, to politics, to tragedy, to horror, to epic warfare and I am not ashamed or too shy to say if a player cannot deal with that then this is not the place for them.

As a player myself when I go to a game and see a DM feebly trying to play an Evil NPC and it just comes across as buffy the vampire slayer camp I am disappointed.

The bit about PvP above I mentioned one player backstabbing the rest. It was all part of a tragedy that rolled throughout the campaign. But underneath that the players began in the slums of a city. Their first adventures revolved around the thieves guild. Then they were required to make a choice in order to repay a debt to that guild. Perform a murder on behalf of the guild - A particularly vile one at that - or flee the city. Prior to this the players had engaged in low level criminal activity but they chose against committing a conscious act of evil....

So they fled. They fled a 1000 miles inland to a fringe territory on the edge of the empire. At this point the characters had a small boat and they set up shop hauling goods up and down the river. For several weeks the players focused on their "Business" and making a little gold while they got involved in local politics. Mean while the tragic undercurrent was building.

Then they heard a tale of a place, a monastery where they could learn martial arts, and the ways of monks. They had decided that they wanted to leave their material life behind and become monks - the individual who was the tragic element was intent on corrupting these teachings to become an assassin. So once again they shifted gears, set out across the desert looking for a hidden monastery. The style of play shifted dramatically from intrigue and business to wilderness crawl, desert nomads and sand filled ruins of undead.

They found the monastery and their characters studied for four years. They emerged as students of martial arts and psychometabolic (mind over body) arts and set out on a quest - of their own design - to thwart an enemy that was threatening all the realms.

As they journeyed onto this quest, is when the tragedy really began to pick up. The one character was torn between his lifelong friends and eventually came to an agonizing decision. Leave behind his birthright or betray his friends and take his place amongst the evil that threatened the realm.

The player chose betrayal.

it took 20 months of play to build this tragedy up. And by the time it happened some players were utterly convinced that J would not betray them, others were skeptical. The tension crept up so slowly when the time came it was utter surprise.

Et Tu Brute.

I hear a lot of players complain about Character death. In the end this tragic story has an important place in the lore of the campaign world. It will live on within the codex. The one rule I have in my game is bad luck can result in an arbitrary death - this is what resurrection is for. However, death occasionally advances the story. A good death so to speak is some of the most remembered and spoken of tales. Players often have a desire to retire a character. In my world the player can make that character an NPC that lives on, or we can make that character's death an element in the big picture story of the world. My players embrace this death as part of the literary experience.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-10, 05:20 PM
As a player myself when I go to a game and see a DM feebly trying to play an Evil NPC and it just comes across as buffy the vampire slayer camp I am disappointed.

I would think this is just a matter of etiquette. Not all people are comfortable playing or experiencing evil (especially ones who have lived through it IRL). If you've got new players you might not want to go full splatterpunk until you learn their preferences.

When I run games with minors or my wife I always keep the themes, violence, and language PG-13.

Boci
2015-04-10, 05:22 PM
I took copious notes, tried different things threw out things that didn't work, and kept the rest. I took all the best experiences of those scenarios and merged them into my sandbox world. In 1999 play in the World of Cardia began. At this point there are over 20000 pages of records on the collected adventures and events in this world. The things I am most proud of.

You have over 20,000 pages of campaign notes? Over what time period? Even 40 years would averages over 500 pages a year, all of which was kept. That is unbelievable impressive. Quite literally. It makes it rather hard for me to believe anything you have said so far in this thread. Don't suppose you could link me to the private website of yours?

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 05:27 PM
You have over 20,000 pages of campaign notes? Over what time period? Even 40 years would averages over 500 pages a year, all of which was kept. That is unbelievable impressive. Quite literally. It makes it rather hard for me to believe anything you have said so far in this thread. Don't suppose you could link me to the private website of yours?

Two things contribute to the volume.

1) not all the notes are written by me. All the players have contributed to that pile.

2) I have a very highly paid job and only work 1 day a week. I spend the rest of the time working on my campaign world. 40-50 hours a week spent on role playing preparation. During the month of November 2014 alone I wrote 60,000 words of campaign material as part of participation in NaNoWriMo

I am willing to let you to the website. I will PM a link and I will need for you to reply to me with a desired login name, email address and password.

The condition is everything on the site is copyright. I am actually preparing to begin releasing stories. My goal is to compile the documentation on how the campaign world functions and release it as world building framework.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 05:43 PM
I would think this is just a matter of etiquette. Not all people are comfortable playing or experiencing evil (especially ones who have lived through it IRL). If you've got new players you might not want to go full splatterpunk until you learn their preferences.

When I run games with minors or my wife I always keep the themes, violence, and language PG-13.

With minors absolutely. Most of my players are adults. This last spring break I ran a 72 hour game with 7 of the teenage friends of my sons. We never got into the pure evil stuff.

Re: New Players. Absolutely have done that. A new group starts. They get going, they live happy-go lucky adventurer lives and then they read some of the game history on the website and decide "Hey what is in the dark forest" They get told exactly what is in there, it is a place of utter dark evil. Other older more experienced players will warn them through our forums. Don't go there but they insist.

Usually its a low expectation of what evil is.

No my use of evil is more insidious and twisted than pure splatter punk. Sometimes the new players break, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they break but continue to play and just vow to never return to the dark forests. LEAVE ME OUT of those missions.

Jay R
2015-04-10, 05:56 PM
Put the sword in the hold of the ship, and as soon as they have the sword, they can raise the ship.

[I realize that your answers to other questions may have made this impossible, but it seems so elegant as a solution.]

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 06:11 PM
You have over 20,000 pages of campaign notes? Over what time period? Even 40 years would averages over 500 pages a year, all of which was kept. That is unbelievable impressive. Quite literally. It makes it rather hard for me to believe anything you have said so far in this thread. Don't suppose you could link me to the private website of yours?

Boci

Your private message system here is full - sent info to your email.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 06:40 PM
Put the sword in the hold of the ship, and as soon as they have the sword, they can raise the ship.

[I realize that your answers to other questions may have made this impossible, but it seems so elegant as a solution.]

Thank you - and all the others above, for a suggestion on what to do with the sword. However I was using it as an example of how quickly and easily communication assumptions can lead things down the wrong path. That said, the players already know that the Gods are not omniscient in this campaign world. When the get the sword and try and use it to no avail there will be disappointment but there will also be some humor when they realized the folly of their assumptions and how they mixed with my own.

In the immortal words of Homer - "DOH"

Pex
2015-04-10, 07:09 PM
You are not making an ass of yourself at all. You disagree with the OP, and you're expressing the reasons why in quite a civil manner, rather than being sarcastic, condescending, and full of yourself. I haven't the slightest problem with you.

If Pex has a point to make, I don't have time to find it under his layers of petty antagonism.

I need your approval as much as Evil DM needs mine.

Rakoa
2015-04-10, 10:29 PM
Thank you - and all the others above, for a suggestion on what to do with the sword. However I was using it as an example of how quickly and easily communication assumptions can lead things down the wrong path. That said, the players already know that the Gods are not omniscient in this campaign world. When the get the sword and try and use it to no avail there will be disappointment but there will also be some humor when they realized the folly of their assumptions and how they mixed with my own.

In the immortal words of Homer - "DOH"

That is a problem I have always had with Divination spells. How is a DM supposed to predict the future when a spell calls for it, like Augury or Divination? Augury tells you if a specific course of action will bring good things or bad things. So say a PC wants to know if challenging the Orc King for his treasure in a solo duel to the death will bring about good or bad things. Well, short of rolling the dice ahead of time...how am I supposed to know?

Divination sucks.

HappyHammer
2015-04-10, 11:10 PM
Honestly, after reading through all the "Evil DM" horn tooting, egotrophy polishing and TAMC yammering....

I didn't see anything I would actually call evil.

Douchebaggy? Yes.

Evil? Nope, not really.

The Evil DM
2015-04-10, 11:57 PM
That is a problem I have always had with Divination spells. How is a DM supposed to predict the future when a spell calls for it, like Augury or Divination? Augury tells you if a specific course of action will bring good things or bad things. So say a PC wants to know if challenging the Orc King for his treasure in a solo duel to the death will bring about good or bad things. Well, short of rolling the dice ahead of time...how am I supposed to know?

Divination sucks.

Agreed. I have largely moved all divination away from asking questions that predict the future. The players may use an omen spell to get a clue - such as we are at a crossroads, which way is best for us - omen. They can use augury or divination to ask yes no questions about game lore, current events and the history of the world. So they might be able to ask, does the colony of hobgoblins we seek live on this island? yes - no. Finally commune can answer yes-no and give numeric data rounded to two significant digits. So they might ask, how many hobgoblins live in the colony we seek, if the answer is 13467 they get 13000.

No predictions. Even with these rules, poorly formulated questions can produce misleading results when I interpret the question. I just figure they confused the gods.

Ettina
2015-04-11, 07:39 PM
Everyone acting like the whole scheme blew their mind is also hard for me to understand. The necromancer went meta. That's about it. Because putting up the whole scheme just so that the patron gods would abandon their champions reeks of meta, if any actual roleplaying was applied to the situation, the gods would have known that their champions were tricked and they wouldn't have taken their powers, at most they would have required the necromancer's ass on a silver platter as atonement for the mistake made. If anything, the necromancer's situation would have been worst.

I don't see how the necromancer deliberately set them up to lose their powers. The necromancer's motivation could have been simply to scare them off or mess with them, and the fact that two of them lost their powers as a result was just an added bonus.

Also, as others have pointed out, the characters had alternatives they could have exploited before jumping straight to the mercy-killing option. It's not like they took the only reasonable option based on false information. They went straight to an extreme option without gathering enough information first, and got burnt by that decision.

veti
2015-04-12, 03:52 PM
That is a problem I have always had with Divination spells. How is a DM supposed to predict the future when a spell calls for it, like Augury or Divination? Augury tells you if a specific course of action will bring good things or bad things. So say a PC wants to know if challenging the Orc King for his treasure in a solo duel to the death will bring about good or bad things. Well, short of rolling the dice ahead of time...how am I supposed to know?

For Augury, you can treat it as the opportunity to create a save point. Play on as if the spell had never been cast, and when you get to the end of the predicted time, ask the PC who cast the spell if they're content with this outcome or do they want a do-over?

For Divination - you just have to provide a useful "cryptic rhyme or omen". No reason why there has to be any actual prediction going on there.

Pex
2015-04-12, 11:25 PM
I don't see how the necromancer deliberately set them up to lose their powers. The necromancer's motivation could have been simply to scare them off or mess with them, and the fact that two of them lost their powers as a result was just an added bonus.

Also, as others have pointed out, the characters had alternatives they could have exploited before jumping straight to the mercy-killing option. It's not like they took the only reasonable option based on false information. They went straight to an extreme option without gathering enough information first, and got burnt by that decision.

Let's take this all as a given. It's still not something to be proud of. It's not an "added bonus" a DM should pat himself on the back about as some great accomplishment. It is not a teaching tool on how to be a DM.

Whinn
2015-04-12, 11:49 PM
if any actual roleplaying was applied to the situation, the gods would have known that their champions were tricked and they wouldn't have taken their powers, at most they would have required the necromancer's ass on a silver platter as atonement for the mistake made.

About that falling Paladin -

In The Evil DM universe, evil is an absolute. Killing is evil, period. It may be "justifiable" but in reality - it's still evil. A mark against you. A stain on your soul. And it gets worse from there, as evil has implications reaching far beyond the individual(s) involved in the act in question.

You kill your friend after a misunderstanding - after some "wizard" clouded your mind?

Tell it to the judge.

It's interesting to me that this discussion (intended I think to introduce consideration of a particular DM style labeled "Evil") at first centered on an alignment based discussion. There's probably something in that.

Evil DM - how do you use alignment, especially the "real" nature of alignment - to "Evil DM" (v.)?

And btw, those 20k+ posts are quite real, I assure you - I myself have written quite a few hundred over the years.

The Evil DM
2015-04-13, 12:31 AM
About that falling Paladin - Evil DM - how do you use alignment, especially the "real" nature of alignment - to "Evil DM" (v.)?

Well - That is a huge answer and one that might take many hours of effort to fully answer. But - I can bullet list out several pieces of it.

During the creation of the universe, two beings - one that represented the absolute personification of Law and Good while the other represented the personification of Law and Evil fought over creation trying to force a center. In the resulting conflict - Chaos was born, along with the various immortals such as angels demons etc.

These beings are in continuous conflict on infinite scale across the universe representing factions aligned with a certain set of view points the most of extreme of which is Law and Evil who want to undo creation and reset in a manner that they feel is ideal.

Within that context of universal conflict amongst immortals, the mortal beings across the universe are comprised of a Physical Body (connected to the prime plane), a Spirit (connected to the Elemental Planes) and a soul (Connected to what I call the Soul Planes, Planes of Consciousness or Heavens)

Your soul carries your alignment. Once long ago when I was playing some of the test scenarios mentioned above, I asked myself - How does Detect Evil, or Protection from Evil work? The answer I came to after some days of pondering the thought was - There is something tangible about alignment and I decided that I would explore alignment as an object attached to the players soul.

The ramifications of this as I went forward is Alignment became important but I also need to be more realistic about applying it to creatures. The vast majority of mortal life in the universe are varying degrees of Neutral. Most mortals live their day to day life merely seeking to survive. Where alignment comes into play the most is through religion and its influence on culture.

This is because on the immortal scale the immortals are competing for the souls and spirits of mortal kind. Celestial Deities spread their teachings in accordance with philosophical principles of alignment and work to get their followers to engage in acts of good - or evil - in their name to spread the influence of that power. These same acts also leave a mark upon one's soul. This mark is what is acted upon with alignment based magic.

Functionally, it gives me something to use as a basis for alignment based magic, but it also has an effect on planar travel assuming you head for an aligned plane that is far removed from one's own alignment. On the typical mortal scale adventures, alignment has little to do with day to day life of the characters.



And btw, those 20k+ posts are quite real, I assure you - I myself have written quite a few hundred over the years.

In that note above I wasn't just including posts on the forums. I was also including all the drawings, files, spreadsheets and other game note data that has been collected over the years. Not to mention the boxes of material that predate my use of computers to record game data.