What's the opinion on doing this kind of thing in a campaign, where your characters only gradually discover that the group they're working for are actually the bad guys?

Is there any difference if its, say:
a) A delta green type Cthulhu campaign where they find out that their org is actually in league with Nyarlathotep (or that their boss IS Nyarlathotep)

b) A fantasy game where the PCs find out that their Kingdom is actually the one responsible for the war that was originally presented to them as the "heroic defence of the kingdom against the evil hordes of darkness"?

c) A historical campaign where the PCs are CIA agents fighting for Uncle Sam to save South America from communism, and then they end up overthrowing the democratic government of Chile, and find themselves in a huge sports stadium filled with students and intellectuals who are going to be murdered by the new junta, and have to watch while soldiers break a popular musician's hands into a pulp and mock him asking him to "play something now", then shoot him in the head when he starts to sing a verse about freedom.

In the case of "C", would it make a difference as to whether it was acceptable or not if your DM had said "This will be a HISTORICAL campaign of events in latin america in the 1970s" (the above incident I described did, in fact, historically happen); or if on the other hand the DM had said "We're going to play a game where you're CIA agents", without explicitly selling it as historical truth?

RPGPundit

I don't really have anything against it.  The only type of gaming where I've seen it a lot is the "RPG Cyberpunk" genre.  And in that type of game, you really expect it anyway.

I do think it can be overdone.  For a while it seemed like every movie I watched had the 'heroes on the wrong side' thing going.  It got old really fast.  I think its a sad commentary that oftentimes the story would be less predictable if the heroes came in on the right side and stayed there.

In other words, it isn't a twist if everyone sees it coming.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat's the opinion on doing this kind of thing in a campaign, where your characters only gradually discover that the group they're working for are actually the bad guys?

I think that's fine, so long as the player characters have a valid choice once they find out. In other words if they can attempt to be good guys, if they want to, once they find out the truth. They may not succeed, but they can try, and in trying somewhat redeem themselves.

-clash

I think there's a pretty big difference between letting people make their characters into villains through their own choices ("Okay, do you let this rabble-rouser destroy all the hard work you've put in on establishing a rational government in the area?  Or do you put a slug in his head in a dark alley?") and applying fiat to make the characters into villains no matter what their intentions ("Yes, you saved a bus-load of nuns ... little did you know that they're all crazed suicide bomber nuns!")

Not that either one is inherently bad, but they're really apples and oranges, I think.  I personally get stoked for the first, and pissed off by the second, but that's just me personally.

Another intereresting change would be to pull a double switch, where the PCs come into the situation thinking they are the good guys, they see and hear and experience things that make them doubt their mission, then find that evidence was carefully engineered, and they really were the good guys.

-clash

I've never been able to pull off such a game without my players figuring it out early on, but I think it'd be awesome.

For your question on C, I think it would make a difference only inasmuch as the players knew about what went down in Chile in the 1970s.  If the twist you're proposing is to be a big climax point in the campaign, I'd either simply say "You're playing CIA agents in the 1970s" or create a fictional country for the events to unfold in a similar fashion.  The only reason for this is to keep the surprise from being spoiled if a player gets curious and decides to do some in-depth research into the area and period.

I've done it a couple of different genres and it worked well. The first time I did it the party in a D&D campaign was joined by what they later learned was a polymorphed red dragon. One of the many things they did at his behest was slaughter a young gold dragon because it had "gone rogue." In reality the red had used change self to disguise himself as the gold and eat a few people.

I ran a 3 year Rolemaster campaign where the PCs were part of an organisation commited to overthrowing the powers of the world. These powers were basically archetypes of common character types or emotions. There was The Warrior, The Necromancer, The Sage and loads of others. Basically, any human activity that fell under their own sphere of influence increased the powers erm, power. So they actively promoted that kind of behaviour (they actually lived in the world, kind of walking Gods). So the Warrior tried to start wars etc to gain more power.

The group the PCs belonged to wanted to return free will to humans and depose these Powers, so at least mankind could fuck up on their own, not have it done for them.

They spent years messing with the minor plots of the Powers, their priests and agents and scored the odd victory. As time went on and the PCs grew in power, they scored one or two decent victories (these were Gods they were fighting after all) and started using as many tools as they could to defeat them. This included summoning Demons to help them.

One in particular helped the PCs and although they had to bargain hard for any boon from the Demon, they were able to take on more and more powerful opposition.

Then their Demon sponsor dropped the bomb on them, The Demons used to rule the world of men and had been ousted from the world eons ago by the Powers. Before the last of them had been dismissed though, they had set up an organisation to fight the Powers in the Demons absence and pave the way for their return.

Yep, the PCs organisation. The looks on their faces was priceless as the penny dropped that they were trying to oust one group of overlords for another that might conceivably be worse.

The players told me afterwards that this was one of the best couple of sessions of play they had ever had, which made my day.

In the end, they started using the Demons more to get rid of the Powers, with the intention of betraying the Demons should they ever actually get close to deposing the Powers.

Shame the campaign ended before the conclusion, as two of the three players moved away. I'd have liked to have finished that one.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there any difference if its, say:
a) A delta green type Cthulhu campaign where they find out that their org is actually in league with Nyarlathotep (or that their boss IS Nyarlathotep)

Any player who doesn't suspect such a situation from the start is either a newbie or a moron.

Quoteb) A fantasy game where the PCs find out that their Kingdom is actually the one responsible for the war that was originally presented to them as the "heroic defence of the kingdom against the evil hordes of darkness"?

Fantasy games generally have the concept of absolute truth wired into them.  Some things are objectively Good and some are objectively Evil.  If the GM tells you at the start of the campaign that your homeland is Good and this later proves false, I would call foul.

Quotec) A historical campaign where the PCs are CIA agents fighting for Uncle Sam to save South America from communism, and then they end up overthrowing the democratic government of Chile, and find themselves in a huge sports stadium filled with students and intellectuals who are going to be murdered by the new junta, and have to watch while soldiers break a popular musician's hands into a pulp and mock him asking him to "play something now", then shoot him in the head when he starts to sing a verse about freedom.

In the case of "C", would it make a difference as to whether it was acceptable or not if your DM had said "This will be a HISTORICAL campaign of events in latin america in the 1970s" (the above incident I described did, in fact, historically happen); or if on the other hand the DM had said "We're going to play a game where you're CIA agents", without explicitly selling it as historical truth?

How the game was pitched makes all the difference here.  I would expect an historical CIA game to be very, very ugly.

Quote from: TonyLB("Yes, you saved a bus-load of nuns ... little did you know that they're all crazed suicide bomber nuns!")

Hmmm... my campaign could use some crazed suicide bomber nuns....

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsFantasy games generally have the concept of absolute truth wired into them.  Some things are objectively Good and some are objectively Evil.  If the GM tells you at the start of the campaign that your homeland is Good and this later proves false, I would call foul.

Thank you, jrients! I think I know why my fantasy game bombed.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI think that's fine, so long as the player characters have a valid choice once they find out. In other words if they can attempt to be good guys, if they want to, once they find out the truth. They may not succeed, but they can try, and in trying somewhat redeem themselves.

I've seen it where PCs (where I joined in the game makes my exact role a long story) had a valid choice....except that an NPC lied to them. It was an alternate history, semi-mythical Britan and the PCs met an NPC name "Arthur King". He asked them to help save the Bishop of Canterbury from demonic possession by getting him to ingest a magical potion. So they said yes. The then proceeded to succeed in poisoning the bishop. DOH!  Arthur King had lied. The GM hadn't expected the PCs to succeed, he had expected to capture them and then have the bishop pardon their attempt if they went back and killed Arthur King (who the PCs found out later was someone completely different than King Arthur who also inhabited this world, so the GM was playing a bit foul with the metagame info).

A lesson learned about underestimating the resourcefulness of PCs.

Quote from: One Horse TownI ran a 3 year Rolemaster campaign where the PCs were part of an organisation commited to overthrowing the powers of the world.  ...
...
Shame the campaign ended before the conclusion, as two of the three players moved away. I'd have liked to have finished that one.

I just want to say that this seriously rocks as an idea.  Well done!

Quote from: jrients... Fantasy games generally have the concept of absolute truth wired into them.  Some things are objectively Good and some are objectively Evil.  If the GM tells you at the start of the campaign that your homeland is Good and this later proves false, I would call foul...

Of course, there are some serious exceptions to this generalisation.

'Stormbringer' is an obvious one.  No clear 'good guys' there.

While 'Warhammer' has the powers of Chaos as clear baddies, the 'good guys' don't seem especially 'good'.  In fact, they often seem like ripe bastards (e.g. witchhunters, conniving nobles, etc.), but at least 'human' in contrast to the scaven, etc.

With respect to D&D settings, Judges Guild's 'Wilderlands' seems to lack a straightforward 'good-vs.-evil' dynamic.  Yes there are 'alignments' and paladins (it is D&D after all), but there are no truly 'good' cities (well, except maybe for Valon, but they're also elitist jackasses).  The best most can hope for are 'lawful' cities, even if they're 'lawful evil' like the City-State of the Invincible Overlord.  Overall, the vibe of the place is pretty grey, much like the Sword-and-Sorcery genre it draws on.

Some of ICE's Middle-earth campaign modules -- especially the ones that dealt with Gondor's relations with 'lesser' human civilisations, such as the Haradrim of the south, the Easterlings, or the Woses -- included a surprising amount of moral ambiguity.  The Southrons/Haradrim had their own culture, sense of honour, etc., and while many (though not all) were deceived by the agents of Sauron, they weren't clearly 'bad guys'.  Moreover, the imperialistic Numenoreans/Gondorians weren't unambiguously 'good' or 'noble' in their motivations.

Quote from: AkrasiaOf course, there are some serious exceptions to this generalisation.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that point.