One obvious idea for an unusual campaign with a strong theme is to play evil vs. good, with the PCs taking the roles of villains and the GM running the heroic forces trying to oppose them. The game-mechanical benefits for a different feel are obvious: PCs are suddenly fighting creatures classically defined as good and allying themselves with those normally reserved as antagonists. This sort of campaign allows the GM to access a whole range of foes the players may never have fought against. Additionally, plotting such a game seems straightforward: if the PCs are the bad guys, they need little incentive to steal, raid, and kill — they are, after all, evil.
Evil campaigns have numerous pitfalls, however; so many, actually, that most players and GMs consider them a universally bad idea. A number of GM’s guides and articles have looked at the main arguments for and against evil characters in roleplaying game campaigns. The most common conclusions are that evil PCs should be avoided altogether, or that evil characters can work for one-shot or short-run scenarios but cannot be integrated into long running campaigns without creating ill will and player strife.
If players are interested in exploring the heroic fantasy genre, heroes and heroic actions should be at the heart of roleplaying games. Certainly, there are a number of heroic games on the market, and their popularity suggests a fair number of gamers agree with this idea. Yet a number of games are not as obviously designed around a heroic ideal. In fact, books dealing with some of the least heroic creatures, vampires, seem most popular. Obviously, many vampire games are based on long-term campaigns filled with PCs that could safely be described as evil without resulting in endless player conflict. The reason evil PCs don’t regularly disrupt the darker games in which they are common is that all the players expect other PCs to be evil. With that level of acceptance of evil within a game, a character dedicated to wiping out all foulness everywhere might actually be more disruptive and likely to result in hard feelings.
Like so many problems in long-term roleplaying game campaigns, the main problem with evil characters in heroic settings seems to be one of clashing expectations. If most of the players want a game that revolves around noble characters and heroic actions, a single player who prefers grim intrigue and treachery even among his allies will be unhappy, make the other players unhappy, or both. A good GM can avoid many of these problems by outlining what he’s looking for in his game in advance and have players go over their desires as well. Not everyone may be able to agree on how they want the game to run, but if the issue has been discussed, the chances of the game running smoothly are much higher.
Even the question of evil characters may sometimes be resolved in this way. Most players who enjoy heroic games don’t want to deal with another player stealing from them or slipping poison into their drinks. Yet not every evil character is a thief or a murderer, and not every player who prefers them is looking to do his companions wrong. Some players want to be free to treat NPCs harshly, but assume their character is still human enough to have the PCs be his friends or smart enough to realize the usefulness a group that will defend you. Often, the evil anti-heroes so popular in fantasy fiction fit this second category, with loyalties and codes of conduct no less rigid than their good counterparts.
Of course, some players really do want their characters to be blackhearts who will happily kill, maim, or enslave their fellows if it gains them even a minor momentary advantage. Characters of this kind are more like sociopaths than anti-heroes and should rightly be banned from any game not specifically designed to accommodate them. Yet their evil does not so much make them undesirable as characters, rather it’s their lack of consideration to other party members and PCs. In many ways, a tremendously narrow-minded crusader for good who insists on everyone obeying his gods and following his moral code is just as disruptive to long-term group play, and should also be disallowed if he causes problems among the players.
In a healthy, long-running roleplaying game campaign, no one player tries to have fun with his character at the expense of other players — even if his character is evil.
The second main concern for running evil games is how to handle acts of evil and player discomfort with describing unpleasant acts. While some of this can come up in any campaign, some of it also must be handled through campaign goals. Evil characters need not be vile. They can just be greedy or unprincipled, and no more willing to resort to torture than the good guys. A single evil character can actually be a realistic ally, an individual who lacks the morals of his fellow, but otherwise agrees with their goals.
Evil campaigns are sufficiently uncomfortable for many players that you should carefully discuss your plans for one before doing any other work on it. Since most roleplaying game supplements are geared towards good characters, you actually set out to do a lot of work to run such a game. If even one player is unhappy with the idea, giving up the idea for something more traditional is best. Even if all players seem comfortable initially, your job is to make sure they don’t become too uncomfortable during the course of the campaign. If anyone thinks an evil character or game has gone too far, it’s time to reconsider running it. If you just want access to traditionally good-aligned creatures to use as foes, try setting up a world with corrupting influences that can change good creatures to evil, providing him with black unicorns and fallen angles to use as villains against good or neutral PCs.
No comments:
Post a Comment