Goodman Games

What about a DCC for an evil party? Lay off the poor orcs, kobolds, and goblins...let the elves and dwarves catch some hell for a change.

I've always been wary of adventures for evil parties, but hey, if we ever run out of other ideas I'll add it to the list!

I've never understood the interest in playing the villain. I worked with a fellow who gamed that way. His tales of what they did gave me the willies.

That's one DCC I'd not be interested in purchasing.

I'd say I was more interested in seeing what kind of dungeon would be populated with more good aligned than say the typical evil fare type creatures. Doesn't HAVE to be an evil party I guess. Maybe a good group needs an item that's in the possession of lawful type creatures.

I personally don't mind the odd evil party; it certainly keeps players on their toes when they have to worry about one another.

I'm not really sure where the concern comes from when people talk about playing evil characters.

I mean, actors play villians all the time in movies, etc.

...and dm's do it every game.

So, that sayd, I'll be dming Mysteries of the Drow soon, and will be requiring the players to make up appropriate characters of a rival Drow House.

Should be fun!

It's the aims of the group that gets creepy to me.

You are right, actors play villians as does the DM. Evil is the foil that makes for a good story. It is something to overcome, not help along.

No one wants Darth Vader or Adolf Hitler to win at the end of the day. You do want the PCs to win in the end (at least most of the time).

Wait a minute... theres GOOD parties!?

I don't know how good the PCs I game with are (hey, I'll jump head first down the pit...), but at least they all have (mostly) good alignments.

"Evil" games can be fun if they don't dwell on juvenile power-fantasies born out of some perceived inadequacy and rise above cartoon-level villainy.
I like my "evil" games to look at the other side or morality.
A few months ago my Long Island group and I wrapped up a fantastic "evil" game that lasted for just over a year.
Broken men (and women) choosing salvation, damnation, or something in between made for an intense game colored by paranoia and betrayal. It was hard to play the game, but that character, flawed as he was, was one of my all-time favorites.

A good way to go for evil campaigns is to make the characters into anti-heroes: doing seemingly good deeds but for the wrong reasons.

They want to kick a current tyrant off the throne to claim it for themselves, they want to slay a menacing dragon to spend his hoard on building an army, they wish to claim a powerful evil artifact, etc.

You don't necessarily need to fight dwarves and elves (though some might certainly show up), but having evil characters fighting evil characters can be a fun experience. You get that "bad@$$" personality going, where fighting the devil means being one yourself.

What I find more interesting is heroes who do seemingly bad deed for the right reasons. Usually for a greater good, but it demonizes them in the public eye.

But then in general I'm not into evil PCs. As a DM and writer, I enjoy writing a villain. But for me it's hard to see the fun in being one.

Sometimes you just want to dirty your hands a little.

I agree with Mike on this one. I have several evil PCs that have made for some very memorable moments with our long standing group of five years. It seems to me that the longer your group has been together, the more entertaining it can be to play new types of characters. It helps to keep some things fresh. And being a DM, I like actually getting to develop "villians" fully and I do this by making them a PC like any other character, having them adventure with the rest of the PCs, and then eventually becoming the BBEG in one of the campaigns we have going on. I get to hand raise them this way and it really makes things interesting.

Not to mention, sometimes, I love being evil.

i think it would be really interesting to run an evil pc who doesn't just do seemingly good things for the wrong reasons, but seems to be on the right side of ethics for the wrong reasons. like, in DnD, you have nobles, kings, knights, serfdom etc. -- all things that seem ethically unacceptable by nowadays standards, but that can still represent good individuals in their own cultures. since a lot of DnD alignment is based off of classic notions of heroism, the chaotic evil anarchist who hates slavery and serfdom because he personally is too prideful to bow to any other man. but this is probably a little off-topic considering it how the thread has gone. take it as a, uh, idea for a pregen if you run an evil module.

This is being posted as a reply to another thread, one that I didn't want to hijack. So I'm posting it here and linking back. Excuse the rant:

In Defense of "Evil" D&D,
a.k.a. Cyberpunk D&D

Heh. To be clear, I would never run an evil campaign for young adults or children. Nope, never, no how.

But when a group of adult players get a burr under their saddle, who am I to dictate how their game should be played? The crux (in my games) is that no matter how grim, nasty, evil the PCs claim to be, the REAL bad guys can always still Out Bad them.

A paladin warring against devils and demons knows who his enemies are.

A blackguard allying with devils and demons never really knows who is going to stab him in the back next. He has to fight the good guys AND the bad guys. Heh.

PCs that believe that they are going to get the upper hand against the almighty evil are just being foolish or stupid.



This may be my R.Talsorian Cyberpunk influence. But in the end, is it ever really *that* different? To wit:

Normal D&D: Good Guys use violence to beat Bad Guys.

Abnormal D&D: Bad Guys (players) use violence to beat the Real Bad Guys.

And after all ... many GM enjoy playing evil characters all the time. Does that make us bad people?

Never mind. Don't answer that.

In the end, I prefer good guys kicking the butt out of bad guys (it happens so rarely in reality) but if the players get that hankering, and they can play as responsible adults, I'm not going to railroad them in to my game.

Again sorry for the rant.

I love the storytelling potential of a group of anti-heroes, out to slay some terrible evil not out of straightforward righteousness or honor, but rather for revenge, out of personal ambition (or revenge), or simply to prove only they deserve the title of ultimate bad@$$.

Hasn't anyone every played Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain?

I'll never understand the desire to play the bad guys for any reason.

Sorry guys, it's as simple as that. Regardless of the mix of the players the above is a true statement for me.

Not much of a response, but I've been home from work with my asthma getting worse. I'm suprised I'm even able to put sentences together.

I'll try to explain when I can type & breath at the say time.

Sorry to hear about the asthma, Jedi.

In the lull, I was wondering if you guys think there is any point in a distinction between Evil (as presented in the WotC's book of Vile Deeds) and Evil Lite (my version of the Cyberpunk ethos).

I ask this because much of the material presented in Vile Deeds doesn't appeal to me. PCs slaughtering villages of peasants? Okay. Sure you can, but what's interesting about it?

I feel (and please feel welcome to disagree) that the "Evil Lite" games I've run in the past have crucial differences, in that – ala the Dragonlance credo – "Evil will eat itself" serves to turn the Evil PCs against the much eviler NPCs. In Evil Lite, the forces of darkness are not a monolithic front, but rather a hundred wicked forces, each striving to get a hand up on the other. (Thank goodness for Chaotic Evil.)

In this way, PCs actually spend *more* time contesting with devils and demons than they might have if they were good-aligned. There is always someone out to betray you, and when PCs lay claim to the practice of Evil, there is no one you can really trust. You actually cut yourself off from the support system that Lawful Good folks enjoy.

Going to the temple toget healed means owing that nasty priest a big favor; and will your wicked god really allow your corrupt soul to be raised or will you spend the next thousand years as a dretch? These are real questions that need to be asked when a PC jumps on the evil train.

Recall all those movies where the henchmen of the Bad Guy get killed by the Bad Guy simply because he is in a foul mood? From levels 1 to 10 (or further, if you bring demi-powers into your game), evil PCs are those henchmen.

But some players like trying to survive in that setting. (Hence my players enjoying Cyberpunk 2020.)

When I wrote DCC# 28 (Into the Wilds), I made sure to include this social element. PCs spend a little time in town (ala the Keep on the Borderlands of old D&D fame). At the end of the module there is a dramatic finale just outside the keep. After 5 rounds the authorities come running to shut the fight down and sort the good from the bad and the ugly.

If the PCs have behaved like rational, good-aligned folks in town, the authorities are willing to hear them out. If they've behaved like sociopaths (terrorizing the citizens, robbing from all the shops, treatening the rulers, etc ... you know the type), the authorities promptly toss their third-level butts in the dungeon and listen to what the Bad Guy has to say.

In this, I tried to write an adventure with a living, breathing, thinking NPC cast. The PCs earn their own rewards, and if they choose to behave poorly, it is the world that punishes them, not the GM.

It seemed to work in playtesting, but I'd love to hear what JediOre thinks about it. The real test is whether he'd be willing to run the module in the group with the 11-year old.

Edit: I fully respect any GM who is says "No evil PCs in my game, I'm here to tell stories about heroes vanquishing good." But I'd also never condemn a player who wanted to play a Raistlin (if the other players are willing).

Heh. In retrospect I think I'm "harder" on my evil PCs than my good ones. (I can run a pretty fierce 'punk campaign.) But that's cool. That's the game they chose to play.

Harley raises some good points, but there is more to being evil than being evil-evil. There are anti-heroes, generally evil folk who do good deeds for admittedly selfish or even evil reasons.

A party of anti-heroes could be a charismatic evil character, along with several loyal followers, and a few mercenary types who don't care who they follow as long as they get paid. In this essence, the charismatic evil character is striving to build a power base of some kind, and that could include overthrowing a current monarch or claiming an artifact currently in the control of some established evil power. Using his Charisma, the evil leader can even appear to be quite valiant in the eyes of lessers, and his efforts, incidentally benefiting such people, raise him higher in their eyes (good anti-heroes always use this to their advantage.

I refer everyone once again to Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain. The game deals with a haughty nobleman turned into a vampire, and sent to claim vengeance on a corrupted kabal of powerful mages. While he himself desires only vengance, and does good in carving it out for himself, he is also inadvertantly saving the realms. Of course, in the end, things aren't always as they seem. He is evi, after all.

I also think a distinction should be made for Neutral to Neutral good characters with an OCCASIONAL evil tendency. That was for JediOre's benefit (my dm. hehe). Seriously, the good cop/bad cop scenario. I'm not against a bit of torture of evil NPC's to extract information. I would never play an evil character, and neither would anyone in our group. But we make no bones about the fact that we are NOT Paladins. We adventure for one reason...wealth. We don't need glory, parties, or holidays named after us. We don't need the credit, we're a cash kind of party. For anyone who has seen the series Firefly, picture a cross between Malcolm Reynolds and Jayne.

That's awesome. That needs to be on a crest somewhere.

The "Wizards of the Coast" seal. Ba-ZING!

Sorry for the late response.

Okay, let me define what I mean by "good guy." It ranges from the Luke Skywalker/Lone Ranger type (like I like) to the Dirty Harry/Spaghetti Western no-name cowboy. Clint Eastwood's characters are most likely Neutral with Good tendencies.

PCs wanting to game with such a character (like Ragnar1965) are fine with me. John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn character is also fine. Han Solo prior to his joining the Rebels in Star Wars was out for himself (and Chewie). I just don't want the protagonists being evil for evil's sake. Mercenary is okay, I'd not want to play a PC that way, but it's okay to DM such a party.

Games where the PCs are vampires/werewolves/drow/sadistic beings will not fly with me. Elric of Melniboné would be just over the line for me. I might even go for a PC like Moorcock's anti-hero if it were one player and one DM, but never in a group.

Harley, as to your question about an upcoming DCC. I own both modules you've written and highly recommend them to anyone who likes adventures! DCC #17 is one of the most exciting modules I've read in years. The setting and the antagonists are well thought out. I'm so sad they have to be called "folk" instead of "men" but WotC's political correctness rule the D&D landscape. The early encounter sets the tone for the remander of the module. Well done! DCC 12.5 is another wonderful adventure. I'd run either in a heartbeat. As I haven't read your upcoming module I'll simply say you seem to be someone I'd enjoy gaming with. Most likely I'll enjoy your future works as much as I've enjoyed the two previous.

The only DCCs I'd not run with my current group, because of the 11-year old, is DCC 18 & 20.

Ah, Jedi. I think we are brothers, seperated at birth. If you're around at GenCon Indy, let me take you out for coffee or something.

My folks never 'fessed up, they said I didn't have a brother. (So that's where you went!)

Some day I'll get to GenCon, but not anytime soon.

I'd be honored to take you up on the invite. However, is lemonade okay? I hate coffee.