Well, to be fair, I also level players excruciatingly slow, so though the mechanic is there its importance fades through distance. Granted that makes it an even larger time-out penalty. But there is so much time in between there's room for atonement before too heavy a shift accrues to new alignment.

I'd recommend Complete Handbook Thieves for a good primer on guild/faction creation. They also mention alignment as well as both competing social approaches in the face of different merchant guild and law enforcement alignments. Useful all around to sketch social play and internal faction-izing.

My big thing for running 1st time team evil is "short leash" and "keep idle hands busy." That sets the paranoid tone of leaders and keeps players from slipping into boredom induced petty evil. Also a powerful, yet resented boss in the in-group keeps the pressure on, curbing in-fighting through mutual oppression. It's a finesse thing, be sure to not oppress too hard and keep up the value of belonging -- though feel free to stunt growth by the occasional item losses or wild goose chases.

I have zero interest in running an "EEEEVIL" type of campaign. A campaign of good vs. evil? Sure.  A campaign of morally-shady assholes? No problem. But one where everyone's a sith lord? Just seems adolescent and dumb to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;831387I have zero interest in running an "EEEEVIL" type of campaign. A campaign of good vs. evil? Sure.  A campaign of morally-shady assholes? No problem. But one where everyone's a sith lord? Just seems adolescent and dumb to me.

I think all three of those things can fall under an "EEEEVIL" campaign. Most of my "evil" campaigns are purely situational. I don't demand my players be "good" (or evil for that matter) - but some things are natural fits.

Drow <> Sith Lord. It all depends on how it's handled. Anything can be adolescent, the care given has to, invariably, rest with the GM to make the repercussions, both good and bad, be meaningful. I could very much run a Sith campaign and it would not be adolescent at all. I would point to the possibilities found in the context of the Old Republic series. It is not only possible, it might damn well be glorious... The best part about doing Sith is the possibility of redemption, or even the possibility of forging a new path with the Force. It's been done - even among the Sith (though they're usually hunted down and killed for it. But hey! that's part of the fun!)

Quote from: Skarg;830820Being a simulationist, detail-oriented GM, I made a map of the fortress, the prison for keeping blood slaves, and started detailing the blood slave population... when I was confronted by how horrible the lives of the blood slaves would be.  It showed clearly how horrible the consequences of the idea were, and the abomination rose up and destroyed the desire to play that situation, before I could go any farther with the setup. And I stopped.

The most chilling RPG product I've ever seen is GURPS Banestorm: Abydos, which for those who haven't seen it takes a city permeated with necromancy, slavery and a high degree of callousness to some logical conclusions.  It's the only RPG book that ever, IMHO, justifies its front page content warning.  It's a brilliant work, and at times a sickening one.

When I GM I barely bother with alignment. Then again, I barely bother with D&D as a GM.... most games don't have alignment systems.

As a player I've only played in one 'Evil' campaign, which was Drow specific. It degenerated very quickly into Chaotic-stupid, and the GM eventually whacked the party, I think deliberately.  Then again, I think his take on 'evil parties' was part of the problem.

I don't have a problem, conceptually, with an 'all sith' party. Hell, I've seen world building 'team evil' from the Starwars MMORPG that works just fine.

I think an important lesson can be learned here for non-evil campaigns.  Villains should be rather more complex than 'slaughter the innkeeper and rape his daughter because... tuesday' in most cases.  If chaotic stupid parties are dumb and boring, than chaotic stupid bad guys are just as dumb and boring. That shit doesn't get out of the 'local bandit/thug' level.

Quote from: Spike;831842I think an important lesson can be learned here for non-evil campaigns.  Villains should be rather more complex than 'slaughter the innkeeper and rape his daughter because... tuesday' in most cases.  If chaotic stupid parties are dumb and boring, than chaotic stupid bad guys are just as dumb and boring. That shit doesn't get out of the 'local bandit/thug' level.

Exactly right.

It's the same lesson to learn about Good on Crusade/Jihad. Paladins reduced to evil radars smiting everything, down to impure thoughts in the playground, are as dumb. If the game revolves around how big your virtual combat penis is, then everything will be fucked over as a matter of course.

The challenge? Make the setting real, cohesive, functional. ROFLStomp dumb combat bunnies through overwhelming numbers until they know that shit don't fly. Setting means something, your character sheet not so much.

Why would that behavior be tolerated in any society that can feed itself through the next spate of harsh seasonal weather? Alignment doesn't even factor in that level of dysfunction. It's an issue of player interpretation: violence hammer smites all problem nails. It's a GM's job to change that paradigm.

a lot of people seem to forget that the reason drow society works is because lolth makes it work. She carefuly watches the drow and whenever somebody gets to powerful she kills them and she is always doing other subtle things to keep things running.

Quote from: tuypo1;832165a lot of people seem to forget that the reason drow society works is because lolth makes it work. She carefuly watches the drow and whenever somebody gets to powerful she kills them and she is always doing other subtle things to keep things running.

The presumption of thousands of years of this kind of behavior would almost demand Neutral/Lawful evil to dominate as a cultural alignment. Being Chaotic Evil is doable - but it would attract unnecessary attention. No one in Drow society (RAW) is unaware or above the scrutiny of Lolth. And for that reason alone - they would be forced to establish as much order as possible to retain their position without moving so fast that Lolth would destroy them. Order is necessary. Brute force can exist - surely, but it's a quick way to a knife in the back or a trip to the Demonweb Pits if you're "too good" at it.

At least that's how I see it.

pretty much yeah

edit: although i think most drow dont know what happens when you get to strong but i could be wrong

Lots of hot air here (in my post, I mean), because I like both topics (alignment & evil campaigns).

I've never run or played in an evil campaign, but I've thought a bit about it. I think it probably comes down to having a smart, socially well-adjusted group. People who don't have a decent handle on human nature* and morality would probably make a hash of it (Chaotic Stupid). I think one way to get into the right frame of mind would be to get players to buy into the idea that they're playing characters much like they'd normally play, except much more willing to get dirt on them, and much less willing to do good for its own sake.

(*rule #1: almost nobody thinks of himself as evil (though many evil people might very well recognize themselves as someone "the ignorant masses" would consider evil))

That said, I had an idea for an evil campaign that would play a lot like a normal campaign, but with a twist; the PCs are evil, but they pose as heroes. And they do a good enough job of it to get by, but with hijinks. They're in it strictly for the money, fame, glory, and women, but they make sure to smile for the cameras. Sometimes they have to scramble to maintain the illusion for the masses. Sort of like Marvel Comics' Thunderbolts if they'd been straight villains, not villains with hearts of gold, or Dark Avengers, but with more unit cohesion, instead of barely-under-wraps. When you think about it, a disciplined evil party after gold, glory, and power could look a hell of a lot like a traditional D&D adventuring party. Except they're much more likely to cut deals with or work for the BBEGs than a traditional party typically is.

QuoteIn that particular instance, Laura wanted to keep running her goody-two-shoes elf, and the premise I had to concoct was her hiring the AEG to help rescue her sister, who'd been kidnapped by slavers and sold to the barbarians of the interior, with enough nasty details slipping out to have steam coming out of her elf's ears and suspend any qualms she had about the group torturing people for information or exacting sickening revenge.

Sort of like Jolt or whatever her name was, the naive, good-hearted newbie in T-Bolts, who didn't know the rest of the "heroes" were just faking it.

Another is the obvious "don't hate the player, hate the game" schtick; everybody's evil. An underdark campaign where the PCs are Drow fighting other evil, underdark races. Or "we're not that bad," like how people (leftists) still think the Soviets weren't as bad as the Nazis, using whatever bullshit rationalizations and self-deceptions people (leftists) use.

QuoteOne problem with running an evil campaign (one where the PCs are the stereotypical villain types) is things devolving into what I call "petty evil". Evil characters are viewed as not having to put up with those namby-pamby things like manners, and go in expecting to be able to kill the innkeeper, rape his donkey and ride off on his daughter.

I see what you did there.

This is what I meant by intelligent & well-adjusted players, or rather, the lack thereof (Chaotic Stupid Clause). If they can't understand that evil != stupid (on the contrary, stupid + evil = executed/imprisoned), they're probably going not going to be able to make an evil campaign work. This is similar to my problems with a lot of people's interpretation of alignment. IMO, alignment is what you are in the dark, i.e., when no one's watching.

IMO:

Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic characters will all obey law/tradition/convention when there are negative consequences for failing to do so (often even slightly negative ones, like loss of reputation). Lawful characters will tend to do so in the dark, as well. In the dark, Neutral characters will be on middle ground. Chaotic characters will tend to do precisely as they please in the dark (they are not compelled or even necessarily likely to thwart the law, however; but the more chaotic they are, the more thoroughly they just don't care about law/tradition/convention).

Good, Neutral, and Evil characters will tend to behave as if they are good (or maybe neutral, in the case of evil characters) with the lights on. Good characters will continue doing so with the lights off. Neutral characters will occupy a middle ground. Evil characters will tend to not give a flip about morality once the lights go out.

I think maybe part of the problem is that humans, by nature, tend to be much closer to neutral on the good-neutral-evil axis, but think of themselves as good. They tend to narrow the definition of evil a lot, because they don't want to think of a lot of people as evil (Judging! That's bad!), or even neutral, especially themselves (then there are the people and cultures who are much quicker to judge, and label everything The Great Satan). So, they tend to think of evil in terms of the exceptions: serial killers, murderous dictators, torture experts, etc. They tend to perceive neutral more as good, good as very good, and evil as neutral, with extreme evil standing in for evil. Me, I think the guy who spreads lies for a living (journalists, anyone?) is evil, if not strongly so. The grifter as evil. The guy who dumps toxic waste and knowingly drives the rate of birth defects up by 1% as evil. The record company guy who routinely swindles his acts as evil. Etc. Not just Stalin, but Bernie Madoff, too. Can anyone really imagine Bernie Madoff sacrificing innocents to the blood god? Shooting an innkeeper for the hell of it?

(Apropos of nothing, but someone mentioned the Sith, which reminds me of Vader. He's supposed to be this BBEG, right? But I can't help but notice that throughout the trilogy, he spends most of his time killing Imperials. It's like he's on a mission to destroy the upper ranks of the Imperial officer corps, all by himself. He kills no innocent civilians, AFAIR, just Imperials, the odd rebel pilot or crewman, and Obi-Wan. Worst thing he ever did was a) not do good (like stopping Tarkin from destroying Alderaan), and b) be in the room, off camera, while Leia was being chemically interrogated. In D&D terms, he seems a lot like what most players think of as lawful neutral with evil tendencies.)

QuoteAll things sentient and effective are organized. Remember that. Even chaos has its own form of order, it's just one not immediately apparent.

Those who defy organization, even the loose and in-fighting ones, gets the horns. There's a reason for the idea "honor among thieves." There's an acceptable and unacceptable way of doing things; to belong you must accept such received taboos.

This is why I play alignment as an internal thing - i.e., what you are in the dark.

QuoteMafia movies and shows like the sopranos give a good model of how an evil party might function. I've taken a lot from that kind of gaming when parties end up evil in my fantasy or historical settings. Basically if they want to torment an Innkeeper, fine, but there ought to be a good reason for it (like they are shaking the inn down), or that kind of behavior is likely to catch up with them eventually if they're just randomly going around causing mayhem.

This. Evil people are just regular folks in most senses, they just are willing to go much further, and do more harm, to achieve their goals. They aren't necessarily turned on by hurting people (that's sadism), and don't generally commit crimes strictly for the fun of it. They don't have to be compelled to do evil, just willing.

It's also a good idea to remember that most fantasy RPGs take place in an era far removed from our own, with its very long arm of the law. In short arm of the law settings, justice tends to be swift and terrible. They catch you, and they string you up, for pretty much anything resembling a felony. If not, they maim, beat, torture, or exile you. Very few people (the rich ones, or their loved ones or cherished servants) are worth the cost of imprisonment. In other words, people should be more careful to avoid the appearance of impropriety in such a setting, than they are in our world.

QuoteThis is precisely the reason I always called bullshit on the Drow being called Chaotic Evil as their racial alignment. It made no sense to have the civilization they had.

The Drow work well with my concept of chaotic alignment; they have a dense, urban civilization, so the lights are usually on for them, so they usually act like everyone else, and obey law and custom. But, turn out the lights, and they are quick to do what they please. Ancient Rome, on the other hand, offers a decent approximation of Lawful Evil, in many cases. E.g., slavery's fine, forcing captives to fight to the death for the mob's amusement is fine, raping and pillaging alien cultures is fine, but by the same token, Romans had a strong sense of honor, and weren't the types to just throw the law and convention out the window when the lights went out. On the contrary, I see them as tending to be sticklers, even in the dark.

QuoteThat's funny. I am exactly the same way... which is why I don't use alignment. Alignment to me is "meta" - characters don't go around with signs on their heads saying LE, or CG or whatever. Actions and intent speak for themselves in my games. But yeah I see where you're coming from.

I use alignment, but it's descriptive (DM fiat), not proscriptive; PC acts a certain way, DM adjusts alignment to reflect PC's behavior over time. Players don't get to choose the alignment assigned, only their behavior.

QuoteI am going to answer this RPG tidbit of setting with an observation I received from one of my history class textbooks and then relay it to a video game experience. Humanities major, we are allowed to work discordant magic (also known as "interdisciplinary studies" ):

Good post, definitely food for thought.

QuoteI don't run alignment as an always rigidly on, stark contrast, trip alarm or booby trap — that's shallow to me.

Very true.

QuoteParis, the largest European city at the same time, was merely 80k. (This was as per my MesoAmerican college textbooks as of 1999. New info may have surfaced. Yes, I ran the gamut of college classes).

Right around the time of the Black Plague, by any chance?

QuoteInteresting point. I don't think I'd classify the Aztecs as Chaotic Evil though for the very same reasons I don't think of Drow as Chaotic Evil. For me - Chaotic Evil means constant strife in order to establish a pecking order that only lasts as long as the current King of the Hill can keep their spot. That precludes an awful lot of organization and rules required to maintain large populaces under the direct control of someone.

Sounds like you're a bit caught up with extremes, at least in comparison to my interpretation. For me, chaotic evil starts closer to neutral evil/true neutral than that. Which is not to say that I couldn't see the Drow or the Aztecs as NE or LE, mind you. Again, for me it's the "what you are in the dark" thing. And it's descriptive, not proscriptive; chaotics don't "live by chaos," or anything like that. They just don't give a damn for convention when the lights are out.

QuoteIn that vien, is a society with laws always a lawful one?

That's another way of getting toward what I'm getting at; my answer is a resounding "no." All societies have laws, traditions, conventions, something. Doesn't make them lawful, in my book.

QuoteEvil Campaigns *generally* are hard for GM's to either run or players to play, simply because most people aren't *eeevvvil* to the degree that it can sustain the "fun-factor" for prolonged periods of time without a real goal.

That's why I like my idea for an evil campaign, above; the PCs generally behave like your typical, "good" adventuring party, except, they're actually complete bastards at heart.

QuoteI played a tentacle blob mutant villain and it was a blast. We saved a school bus full of kids from the aliens and before the kids could thank us, I ate one of them. But hey, we saved the other 29! I was just taking my cut!

This.

I have trouble sympathizing with torturers and sadists. That's one of my main blocks to the Eeeevil campaign.

However I can enjoy playing or reading about / watching a good sympathetic or selfish villain / protagonist in some contexts. I have enjoyed this in semi-RPG strategy computer games such as Evil Genius and Illwinter's Dominions series (and Conquest of Elysium), where (in addition to non-evil types) you can lead undead armies which blight the land and eradicate life to generate more undead, or demon-summoning blood-slave-collecting soul-contracting types, or mind-controlling ancient undersea aliens, or a dragon king, or... I don't know that I'd want to roleplay those types at a more zoomed-in role-playing level though, except perhaps the tactical combats.

Whoever wrote "chaos has its own kind of order": bullshit, buy a dictionary and stop trying to be profound.

Quote from: tenbones;832195The presumption of thousands of years of this kind of behavior would almost demand Neutral/Lawful evil to dominate as a cultural alignment. Being Chaotic Evil is doable - but it would attract unnecessary attention. No one in Drow society (RAW) is unaware or above the scrutiny of Lolth. And for that reason alone - they would be forced to establish as much order as possible to retain their position without moving so fast that Lolth would destroy them. Order is necessary. Brute force can exist - surely, but it's a quick way to a knife in the back or a trip to the Demonweb Pits if you're "too good" at it.

At least that's how I see it.

   WotC seems to agree with you. Drow in the SRD are "usually Neutral Evil" and the statblocks for 4E drow in the MM1 and Underdark give an "Evil" alignment instead of "Chaotic Evil".

Quote from: Morlock;835419Sounds like you're a bit caught up with extremes, at least in comparison to my interpretation. For me, chaotic evil starts closer to neutral evil/true neutral than that. Which is not to say that I couldn't see the Drow or the Aztecs as NE or LE, mind you. Again, for me it's the "what you are in the dark" thing. And it's descriptive, not proscriptive; chaotics don't "live by chaos," or anything like that. They just don't give a damn for convention when the lights are out.

I think we have our targets placed in different places of the spectrum. To me when something is labeled as a GM I'm assuming this is the "typical". Normal. The Median. So if an entire race and culture is labeled something, I assume that's the median, with simple rule of all generalizations - there are always outliers.

So if the median of 1e Drow society is Chaotic Evil... as written... then it's Chaotic Evil. And what does that mean? Well that's for you the GM to decide. And of course as we've been discussing, there are lots of ways that you can rationalize it, the problem is Chaotic Evil as cultural alignment in D&D doesn't describe 1e/2e Drow culture at all. That individuals DO good/evil in any culture behind the scenes do not change the overall label directly attributed to the culture (but if you had enough of them, they would. And then the median of the alignment of that culture would likewise change). That's my problem with your assertion above.

"For me, chaotic evil starts closer to neutral evil/true neutral than that." Well if you do that - you're saying the culture is neutral evil/true neutral. Remember - we're talking about an entire culture. Not individuals. The notion being that Chaotic Evil IS/WAS the cultural alignment of Drow in 1e/2e.

Of course that's changed now. As I've mentioned for the same exact reasons you say, and I say - Chaotic Evil as a cultural alignment couldn't work as indicated. They would look like Orcish tribal society. Because if might makes right - no law will long stand up to that. That's the point of chaotic predilections.

Having said all this - I still stand by my current view that alignment as popularly used in D&D is unnecessary. I think it can be handled better especially if you want to give it some mechanical weight by other systems. I wouldn't even call Alignment in D&D a "system".

Quote from: Morlock;835419Lots of hot air here (in my post, I mean), because I like both topics (alignment & evil campaigns).

I've never run or played in an evil campaign, but I've thought a bit about it. I think it probably comes down to having a smart, socially well-adjusted group. People who don't have a decent handle on human nature* and morality would probably make a hash of it (Chaotic Stupid). I think one way to get into the right frame of mind would be to get players to buy into the idea that they're playing characters much like they'd normally play, except much more willing to get dirt on them, and much less willing to do good for its own sake.
[snip]
Another is the obvious "don't hate the player, hate the game" schtick; everybody's evil. An underdark campaign where the PCs are Drow fighting other evil, underdark races. Or "we're not that bad," like how people (leftists) still think the Soviets weren't as bad as the Nazis, using whatever bullshit rationalizations and self-deceptions people (leftists) use.

Historically speaking, Soviets vs. Nazis is a prime example of "smart" evil vs. Chaotic Stupid.

JG