Advice for a sandbox campaign

[Ice]

Hello everybody, today I am asking for your old-timey grognard wisdom about setting up a sandbox campaign.

My current ongoing campaign has some very good, committed players. They are super fun to play with, willing to experiment, and they show up for every session. I’d like to spend a bit of time laying out a sandbox campaign for them to explore. Thus far, we’ve just been jumping from module to module with a bit of gardenpathing between.

They just finished an adventure where they were trapped on a sub-plane (Fate’s Fell Hand). At the end of our last session, their reward was teleporting to anywhere in the multiverse. They chose to go back to a town where they had killed the local ruler, Hirot from Doom of Savage Kings. We ended the session with them stepping into the magic portal.

After the session was over, I asked them what their plans were and they told me they want to rule the town and spread the influence of the cult that they founded. Their cult is dedicated to Xul the Unclean, Master of the Void, Ruler of Germs and Lord of Exploding Corpses.

My current plan to is to draw up a detailed 7 hex map (with Hirot in the middle hex), and fill it with couple of other villages, a castle that belongs to some asshole, and a few unusual locations. I'll then hide some shit on there for them to find.

Beyond that, I am just going to come up with a rumor table, put a small amount of detail into the fort that they will inherit, and write up a couple of notable NPCs on notecards.

Since they are a germ cult, I think a good reoccurring adversary would be an order of paladins dedicated to sterility. Germophobe dickheads showing up and burning everything seeming fitting. I'll probablyjust write a couple of paragraphs of history on these guys and then reference it at appropriate times.

As for working in other content, I bought the module The Barbarian King (credit to @Melan for a wonderful adventure) and it is matches the mood of fantasy we’ve been doing so I am going to use that too. I also have a few other DCC modules that I might drop in there, but I am not committed any of them.

The only other resources I have are a carousing table and the 1978 Ref Ready Sheets from Judge’s Guild.


If you were in my shoes, what would you do? What resources would you use? How would you make the map? Would you have an encounter table? How would you deal with a calendar and the passage of time? How would you make spreading a cult interesting? Are there anything critical details I’ve overlooked?


Anything from short pointers to lengthy pontification is welcomed.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Hello everybody, today I am asking for your old-timey grognard wisdom about setting up a sandbox campaign.

My current ongoing campaign has some very good, committed players. They are super fun to play with, willing to experiment, and they show up for every session. I’d like to spend a bit of time laying out a sandbox campaign for them to explore. Thus far, we’ve just been jumping from module to module with a bit of gardenpathing between.

They just finished an adventure where they were trapped on a sub-plane (Fate’s Fell Hand). At the end of our last session, their reward was teleporting to anywhere in the multiverse. They chose to go back to a town where they had killed the local ruler, Hirot from Doom of Savage Kings. We ended the session with them stepping into the magic portal.

After the session was over, I asked them what their plans were and they told me they want to rule the town and spread the influence of the cult that they founded. Their cult is dedicated to Xul the Unclean, Master of the Void, Ruler of Germs and Lord of Exploding Corpses.

My current plan to is to draw up a detailed 7 hex map (with Hirot in the middle hex), and fill it with couple of other villages, a castle that belongs to some asshole, and a few unusual locations. I'll then hide some shit on there for them to find.

Beyond that, I am just going to come up with a rumor table, put a small amount of detail into the fort that they will inherit, and write up a couple of notable NPCs on notecards.

Since they are a germ cult, I think a good reoccurring adversary would be an order of paladins dedicated to sterility. Germophobe dickheads showing up and burning everything seeming fitting. I'll probablyjust write a couple of paragraphs of history on these guys and then reference it at appropriate times.

As for working in other content, I bought the module The Barbarian King (credit to @Melan for a wonderful adventure) and it is matches the mood of fantasy we’ve been doing so I am going to use that too. I also have a few other DCC modules that I might drop in there, but I am not committed any of them.

The only other resources I have are a carousing table and the 1978 Ref Ready Sheets from Judge’s Guild.


If you were in my shoes, what would you do? What resources would you use? How would you make the map? Would you have an encounter table? How would you deal with a calendar and the passage of time? How would you make spreading a cult interesting? Are there anything critical details I’ve overlooked?


Anything from short pointers to lengthy pontification is welcomed.

Ice

Sounds like you've done your homework. Have you asked if any player wants to keep a log or historical record of events? In time, you might consult that record for their view and use that to inform your design going forward. How they write the "history" can shape the campaign.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

If you were in my shoes, what would you do? What resources would you use? How would you make the map? Would you have an encounter table? How would you deal with a calendar and the passage of time? How would you make spreading a cult interesting? Are there anything critical details I’ve overlooked?

Everything seems well in hand - looks like this isn't your first rodeo. To address your specific questions (from my perspective - since apparently I need to state that):

If I were in your shoes, I'd say there wasn't much left for me to do. I'm the type to use Photoshop and develop some next-level maps, but you can certainly get away without them (they mostly get used as handouts; players love handouts). So to answer your two subsequent questions about resources and maps - I guess I'd say I use Photoshop to do the hex map by building on a base layer with a blank hex overlay (so landforms are vaguely aligned to the hex grid without being just a bunch of straight-up colored-in hexes). That being said, as before, this is purely icing on the cake and by no means a necessity to running a sandbox - a map can be as easy as a list on paper or squares with words in them.

Encounter table: hybridize it - have an encounter table with specifics relating to the ecology of the biome, but also has a list of pre-generated encounters that have more specific details (especially with regards to memorable NPCs). You can run the pre-gen encounters in sequence and roll on the encounter table when you need to. You should separate your pre-gen encounters into beneficial ones, detrimental ones, and ones that have a pay-off if handled well. I use a system whereby my players roll a % die when travelling, which dictates how fortuitous their day is. A higher percentage means better day - less hostile encounters, and usually some kind of beneficial pre-gen situation; lower percentage means more encounters rolled on random table, and also one of the unfortunate pre-gen encounters. Middle one's get a single random encounter roll and one of the pay-off pre-gen encounters.

Passage of time: I use tally marks, just knocking off ticks for days passed. There's not much usual reason to track the passage of time unless there's a deadline, or if there's some kind of schedule that needs to be kept. If so, you can print out some blank calendar pages from MS Word and throw them into a DM binder and just track days like you would in real life. Not something worth fretting over IMO.

Spreading the cult: signs of their influence are a big one. This is a disease cult? The biggest sign or influence is the spread of disease! Also news of efforts made to increase the spread of germs (Sanatorium attacked! Doctors missing! Nauseating gas of unknown origin rolling over slums!). As they grow in strength, even the sanitary paladins are becoming afflicted. New strains of disease resisting magic! Infected mobs spark chaos! The Mayor is coughing non-stop! Similarly they can set up cult cells (heh, germ pun), and maybe have to deal with the logistics of going against a coordinated foe (like relocating their operations, putting down captured cultists before they can reveal cult secrets, recovering exotic virus strains before they get wiped out, etc.). Develop little side-quests revolving around spreading the influence of the cult (like "infect the new sheriff with the mind-control virus") or around stopping the cult's enemies ("ambush the caravan of antibiotics coming into town along the north road"). Honestly, there's a lot to build on from your idea and it sounds like it'd be a really fun game!

On the whole though, barring any sort of creativity drought, I'd say you're already in a really good place for your game. You've got all the fundamentals covered - the rest is creative dressing to make the campaign extra fun for your players.

 

[squeen]

I agree with gandalf_scion, you sounds like you are on the right path.

But, Since you asked... I'll recall some of my personal journey and tell you how things got rolling for me about six years ago. Have some patience, and I will get to your point eventually.

I picked up the mantle of DM and started our home campaign in exactly the same way as you---stringing a few modules together. In my case it was B2 (with it's small area map and Keep as home base) and then T1 and then Pods Caverns. I imagined it would go on this way indefinitely---me riffing off the material in the modules, filling out a map to connect them, and finding ways to insert and interconnected more pre-made adventures. (Lareth the Beautiful escaped from from the Moathouse climax, headed South out of Hommlet and then a few days East along the borderlands trade route---briefly staying at the Keep on his way to assume control of the Temple inside the Caves. The party---unknowingly in pursuit---was indignant to find that a dungeon villain had violated their safe-haven (aren't they suppose to wait patiently behind doors, coming alive only after the PCs open them?). They chased him into the Caves for another showdown only to find themselves outclassed and he wipes the floor with them. Later, reinforcements arrive. Lareth flees again. The party, for a multitude of reasons, chases him further North and East off the map. etc.)

This was a inflection point for me. Like you now, I had gotten my feet under me a bit as a DM and felt I was ready to try my hand at something bigger. This bizarre and addictive process of creativity had awoke in my brain and it was taunting me: "Can you handle it?". This is the magic moment. You only get to be a new DM (of the Greater D&D?) once. Once you've built a campaign world, you will be loath to leave it. Very few repeat this process---and like so many other things in life---the first time is special.

Here's a venerable quote from the section of the 1e DMG entitled "The Campaign", which---other than main-streaming the word milieu through over-use---speaks precisely to the point at hand:

Unlike most games, AD&D is an ongoing collection of episode adventures, each of which constitutes a session of play. You, as the Dungeon Master, are about to embark on a new career, that of universe maker. You will order the universe and direct the activities in each game, becoming one of the elite group of campaign referees referred to as DMs in the vernacular of AD&D. What lies ahead will require the use of all of your skill, put a strain on your imagination, bring your creativity to the fore, test your patience, and exhaust your free time. Being a DM is no matter to be taken lightly!

Your campaign requires the above from you, and participation by your players. To belabor an old saw, Rome wasn't built in a day. You are probably just learning, so take small steps at first. The milieu for initial adventures should be kept to a size commensurate with the needs of campaign participants - your available time as compared with the demands of the players. This will typically result in your giving them a brief background, placing them in a settlement, and stating that they should prepare themselves to find and explore the dungeon/ruin they know is nearby. As background you inform them that they are from some nearby place where they were apprentices learning their respective professions, that they met by chance in an inn or tavern and resolved to journey together to seek their fortunes in the dangerous environment, and that, beyond the knowledge common to the area (speech, alignments, races, and the like), they know nothing of the world, Placing these new participants in a small settlement means that you need do only minimal work describing the place and its inhabitants. Likewise, as player characters are inexperienced, a single dungeon or ruins map will suffice to begin play.

After a few episodes of play, you and your campaign participants will be ready for expansion of the milieu. The territory around the settlement - likely the "home" city or town of the adventurers, other nearby habitations, wilderness areas, and whatever else you determine is right for the area - should be sketch-mapped, and places likely to become settings for play actually done in detail. At this time it is probable that you will have to have a large scale map of the whole continent or sub-continent involved, some rough outlines of the political divisions of the place, notes on predominant terrain features, indications of the distribution of creature types, and some plans as to what conflicts are likely to occur. In short, you will have to create the social and ecological parameters of a good part of a make-believe world. The more painstakingly this is done, the more "real" this creation will become.

The added emphasis (bold text) is mine. I think it hits two essential points

• DMing a campaign is a huge time-commitment---fortunately it is a labor of love. You will probably find yourself forever more secretly wishing you had a few days (weeks, months, years) to yourself to work on "the world"
• Start small and work outward from the places of current party action. Let the picture paint itself. I think its a huge mistake to try and add too much detail to the grand and over-arching Big Picture. Attempts to do this usually come off as a mile-wide/inch-deep rehashed movie or book plots with no real spark. The landscape is just too vast. You (shouldn't!) have any idea what will catch the party's interests and where they will go (beyond the next session or two). You just lay down the bait---often to watch them walk aimlessly past your marvelous mental creations. Also, we human-beings just aren't smart enough to create an interesting world full-blown from our minds out of vacuum. The devil is in the details---as is the flavor, horror, and beauty. Ride the creative wave! As Matt Finch says, "Imagine the hell out of it!" The human mind likes to interconnect things and add meaning out of chaos---don't force it and the "bigger picture" will just emerge (surprising even you).

(continued next post)

 

[squeen]

(continued from above)

Gary's world was Greyhawk. I don't think he ever really had another. It was ridiculously vast, and proved ultimately to be untranslatable-able to print. The campaign-world is really inseparable from the DM who makes it. We get glimpses set down in writing---and they can inspire our own efforts---but it's never quite all there without the beating heart of its author. It's the central paradox of D&D---it's Gordian Knot. Given some rules as guidelines, how to inspire the artistry necessary to complete the equation?

T1/Hommlet is what hooked me. It showed "The Way", so to speak (also Finch's Swords & Wizardry, but that's another story). While B2 was all about Function and Action, T1 was something quite different. It just Was. It had the ambiance and clues that being a part of a larger world (Gary's Greyhawk campaign) affords that, by comparison, made B2 feel flat and lackluster---the Borderlands was chosen as a intro-adventure's setting precisely because of its isolation. T1 was "lived in" and open-ended. It wasn't clear who all these NPC characters were, what they had done and/or why you might want to interact with them. The Village of Hommlet existed as a locale in a larger story (perhaps to be told in T2-4/The Temple...but I'll say "not really", it was just a glimpse at Greyhawk/Oerth and Gary's own vibrant and ever-expanding campaign world). It was akin to one of the way-points in your sandbox the party will visit---except fully fleshed out and documented like you'll only wish you'll have time to do.

I became fascinated by Joseph Bloch's archelogical musing on Gary's original intent for the connections between T1, The Giant/Drow series, and the Elder Elemental God (see also here). You see, I still thought I was going to build a campaign around connecting modules together and wanted to get "it right" (not in the way that Metzner had botched it---neat, tidy, self-contained---like a putting a cork in a bottle and cutting off all the air). You see, I hadn't had my "mystic eye" fully opened yet---I wasn't quite willing to take on the full responsibility of world-builder/DM. I was still in first-gear.

I tried making a region map (borrowed from World of Greyhawk) that had the Keep east of Hommlet in the Gnarly Forest. Into that I tried insertng a mountain region for a tiny seed for a mega-dungeon I had started in 1984, during my previous go at DMing. As much as I tried to make it work---with the Temple of Elemental Evil as a foci---nothing would stick. My muse lay elsewhere. Surprisingly, half a decade later, the story of Lars the Fallen (who some called Lareth and dead now for us many real calendar years) still reverberates in current play.

Despite my intentions to the contrary, the PCs never again directly interacted with a purchased product. Oh, I still buy stuff (per Bryce's suggestions, of couse) and sprinkle them in the landscape---but the world's story beckons, and the players are locked onto its scent. It also grow a little bit harder to make generic things fit without them feeling out-of-place. And besides, you become addicted to the creation process. To see others walk in your dreams (and transform them) may be one of the pinnacle experiences of human existence. Pre-made adventures are useful as diversionary one-off's, or just a means to study and perfect your craft. I occasionally consider using them (especially when I'm time-pressed), but the campaign has a will of its own and my players force me to ad lib in lieu of preparation.

Starting a campaign is a bit like starting a campfire. The initial bit, when you are trying to get something (more than just paper scraps) to catch, can be tenuous and frustrating. At some point the thing just takes off, consuming fuel like crazy, and you start to wonder if it's getting out of your control. Later it settles into a nice slow-burn of yule-logs that you can stoke into a frenzy whenever you are so inclined.

Last few set of comments: I was planning on starting a topic here called "Me and the DMG" where I recounted my mixed relationship with the 1e DMG, and invited other to do the same. In a nutshell, when I bought it as a player (1980?), I didn't really know what to make of it. I understood the need for the combat tables, and I lusted after the treasure listing---but all the rest seemed a weird jumble of rando bits. That's because it WAS just a jumble of rando bits! Gygax was trying to speak to other DMs about all the tricks and tips he had picked up over the years---while playing 0e D&D mind you, not 1e/AD&D! I think it was his hubris/greed/economics/etc. that casued to him push too hard to codify his "house rules". Anyway, years later---as a free-flying DM---the tome made much more sense. When I need some guidance on running my first underwater adventures, I was thankful for what that little-section-that-seemed-so-obscure-all-those-years-ago now provided. The essence of the book finally became clear. A D&D campaign can go in wacky directions---sometimes even a creative DM needs a bit of help: phone a friend...what did Gary do? He did that?!? Hmmm...maybe I'll steal a few bits and file of the serial numbers.

Finally, my best effort at the perfunctory "words of wisdom"

• react to the players actions---it's their world as much (or more) than yours
• don't fall in love with your creations (Let the cool villains die. Drop stuff that's not working. Also: revise, Revise, REVISE!)
• throw a ton of hooks at the party---all elements of the world should be clamoring for their attention. Let the party build up a backlog of "things they want to do". It's more like real life that way. Things don't line up nicely single-file. They may complain about 'being overwhelmed', but I think it fuels their desires to keep playing.
• make sure there are plenty of friendly/mundane things---maybe even more than than there are dangerous/exotic things. It's like a palette-cleaning bit of cheese at a wine-tasting. Every hireling can't betray them.
• Maps, maps, and more maps.
• the players will not (usually) get as far in a session as you anticipated (you've got more time!)
• be patience when cool things you've made are seemingly ignored---they will be back! (They pay more attention to the little sandbox-details that you likely will give them credit.)
• revisiting locations it awesome---they just grow in detail and depth each time
• have a good, classy villain. Every Sherlock needs a Moriarty. (Gygax had Obmi the dwarf). Interesting NPCs help bring the world to life.
• Low level (3rd-6th) play is the sweet spot---prolong it!. It's because at higher levels the demands on YOU as DM grow exponentially. Limitations are the channels the world-torrent surges against. It creates conflicts---heightens drama.
• want to influence the party's travel-path? Just put a road or river down. Best "railroad" ever invented.
• Don't be afraid to let things get silly. The world is the straightman, but players and DM remember most fondly those moments when things go cattywampus. Hilarity, Wonder, and Terror are spices for the dish you are serving. Use them all (but not at the same time).
• What may be cliche for a DM can easily seem new for players. It's all in the small details of how it gets presented.
• Keep as much as you can hidden. Transparency shatters the illusions you are trying to conjure. Don't let them look behind the curtain! "How would you know?" may be the most useful DM phrase ever uttered.
• Did I mention maps? (Well then...more maps!) I'm paritial to hand-drawn and then scanned for digital touch-up.
• write it all down---you will forget!

With regards to your players and their plans for 'spreading a germ cult'. It sounds like you've given them either too little to do, or too much advocacy. In my experience, players wanting to play evil charcaters is usually not a good sign. Highly unstable. They should instead be hanging on by the seat of their pants a bit more! The elements of the world should be working hard to either derail most of their "clever little plans" or roll over them like a bug---just like life. This is D&D, not The-Land-of-Do-As-You-Please! Risk and reward is the only satisfying recipe I know. Bad actors should come to bad ends. Remember, the model is that players start as literal nobodies and then struggle to gain a toe-hold in the larger world. (Struggle being the key word.) Seriously.

All-in-all you and your players are in for a wonderful roller-coaster ride.
Kiss all your free-time "good-bye"...(you lucky dog)!

 

[Beoric]

I was planning on starting a topic here called "Me and the DMG" where I recounted my mixed relationship with the 1e DMG, and invited other to do the same.

I would totally post to this. Also, to anything regarding T1.

@OP: I think the goal of all your prep in making a sandbox is not actually to use the stuff you prepared (your players will almost never cooperate), but to give yourself enough of a feel for your sandbox that you can adlib as necessary. Random generators being the exception only because they directly contribute to adlibbing.

Also, you can’t make a recurring villain in advance. Your recurring villain is whichever one happens to survive. The only exception to this is a hands-off villain who the players are aware is pulling the strings, but who they never meet. Few villains survive first contact with the party.

 

[squeen]

Also, you can’t make a recurring villain in advance. Your recurring villain is whichever one happens to survive. The only exception to this is a hands-off villain who the players are aware is pulling the strings, but who they never meet. Few villains survive first contact with the party.

Rodger that. I would also add that if you want a potential foil for the adventure's:
(a) Make them clever---not raging, blood-thirsty lunatics---case in point: Marvel's Thanos was always coldly rational.
and
(b) Remember to let them RUN when the cause it lost, or sooner in the face of over-whelming force.

 

[Ice]

thanks for the advice everyone. I ran my first session of this on Sunday and it went fairly well, and I think it will get more interesting as they pick up steam. They, of course, didn't do what I had expected them to do, and they actually had one of the characters get knighted by the king of the town, rather than just killing him. Also, after a particularly comical roll on the carousing table (for the celebration of the knighting), that same (female) character ended up fucking the king's wife. Carousing tables are the best.

I cannot recommend the use of carousing tables enough.

 

[Ice]

With regards to your players and their plans for 'spreading a germ cult'. It sounds like you've given them either too little to do, or too much advocacy. In my experience, players wanting to play evil charcaters is usually not a good sign. Highly unstable. They should instead be hanging on by the seat of their pants a bit more! The elements of the world should be working hard to either derail most of their "clever little plans" or roll over them like a bug---just like life. This is D&D, not The-Land-of-Do-As-You-Please! Risk and reward is the only satisfying recipe I know. Bad actors should come to bad ends. Remember, the model is that players start as literal nobodies and then struggle to gain a toe-hold in the larger world. (Struggle being the key word.) Seriously.

This is one piece of advice that I would actually like to debate and expand upon.

I personally find DnD much more interesting when the morality isn't so straight forward. Rather than shades of black and white, it's holds my attention better when the shades are blue and brown.

Just like in real life, few people are truly good or evil, most people are just responding to the circumstances in front of them with the knowledge they have in the best way that they can. In this last session, my players did more 'good' things than I was expecting them to do, including befriending everyone in town, non-violently saving a woman from a crazed priest, and agreeing to help the king out. However, they still established a temple devoted to a germ god that they worship by blowing up dead bodies with magic, which is definitely weird, if not outright evil. For me, the unexpected can be the most fun part of DnD.

With that said, in one of the most memorable campaigns I ever played, we were outrageously evil. The best part is that the campaign was absolutely not intended to go that way. It was one of my good friend's first time DMing. It started out with some boring dwarf paladin hiring us get rid of some intruders in his sacred family tomb. That hook didn't last long, and we just kidnapped that guy, murdered his the rest of his family and went full on bulls-on-parade in the family tomb, trashing everything, all while the dwarf paladin watched, bound and gagged. We were able to catch the DM totally off-guard because he allowed us to use a specific book from 3e with which we could make ridiculously overpowered characters compared to what he was expecting. In most cases, we could just one-shot his NPCs, or overwhelm them with a hoard of undead. He was a good DM though, so he ran with it. As the sessions progressed, he challenged us in funny and creative ways, allowing us to be completely evil and depraved along the way. We continued to try to surprise him, though. One of my favorite sessions was going through a dungeon that was supposed to be full of combat entirely by role-playing and abusing the 3e skill system (one player was particularly good at abusing the Bardic Knowledge ability, as I recall).

I think that the real problem is players who try to undermine other players. Players who go intentionally against the flow of what the rest of the group is doing are very annoying, especially when they are abrasive about it. Also, players who frequently have disagreements with other players over in-game actions are the worst. I have only dealt with a few people like this as a player or a DM but they are certainly out there, and I can see why you would think an evil characer is an unstable player, but it doesn't always have to be that way. The good news is that this kind of shit happens much less in my 30s than it did in my teens, as everyone is more relaxed now.

All in all, being evil in DnD is great and you should try it sometime. As I said, I prefer more of a blue and brown morality, but if we are dipping into the realm of good and evil in DnD, I pretty much always go evil.

 

[EOTB]

I agree with both of what Squeen and yourself wrote. Evil players should expect more opposition because not only is good chasing them but evil also eats its own. It's a path where, when things cut to the quick, there are no friends only tools or tool-users.

I also think many DMs have little practical concept of the neutral alignments. Actions are "good" or "evil". When asked to define a neutral action they get stuck, and many portray neutrals as somehow doing as many good things as bad things, and this is why they are neutral - which is why they consider neutral "gray".

I think neutral is red, not black or white. It is its own thing. (Blue or brown work just as well; I'm simply used to calling it red.)

Consider the bandit in the 1E monster manual: they steal, kill you if you resist, kidnap/imprison people for money, and keep "camp followers" and slaves. Most DMs will reflexively consider these acts evil. No, D&D is telling you these acts are neutral. Evil is something even worse. To set the comparison, D&D helpfully provides a sub-set of bandits called brigands, who're chaotic evil. What is the difference between these two? Brigands love blood and death even more than money and convenience. They keep fewer important prisoners for ransom and even more slaves, and love combat so much they gain bonuses to morale - they're bloodthirsty. Bandits want the easy life in all forms and will extract it from unwilling passers-by, but so long as you are willing to give them whatever they want they're not interested in your life. Should they somehow all become fabulously rich none of them likely would prefer to muck around out in the wild holding anyone up.

The Gord novels are no great literature, but the profound gulf between selfish neutral parasites and true AD&D evil was well-portrayed in them, I thought. Gord the neutral thief is actively indifferent to the fate of those he doesn't care about. Reading them greatly impacted my DMing though they have little to recommend them as other than a sort of campaign journal, or commentary from the maker on how he envisioned his rules working as world-building.

To tie this back into sandbox, most of the players who tell me they want to play evil characters really just want to play neutral characters. They want direct expediency and lots of flexibility in dealing with obstacles as opposed to a DM threatening them with alignment change if they're unwilling to go along with inconvenience that a high-minded person accepts. I'm absolutely OK with this, as "good" the way most DMs run it is incoherent anyway, where whatever is necessary to the game is hand-waived - good people wouldn't rob tombs.

As for the disease-spreading, it would depend entirely on the deity's alignment and ethos. Disease is part of life, and death, and it's not inconceivable that a god of disease sees its function as herd-culling out the weak so that the strong survive. But this cult sounds nihilistic, so to find the dividing line I'd likely present a scenario where the disease-spreading was weakening the power and other benefits derived from ruling the town - what is the party's true north star? Power and money, or exploding corpses? If they rein themselves in, they're neutral but still have to face paladins and such who're opposed to the very idea. But since they're not pure evil the paladins may go in a direction of "buying them out" and expulsion, perhaps from a position of strength if the players lose their chess match, instead of an inquisition to the death. If they don't care about anything but bloated bodies then war to the knife.

 

[squeen]

This is one piece of advice that I would actually like to debate and expand upon.

I personally find DnD much more interesting when the morality isn't so straight forward. Rather than shades of black and white, it's holds my attention better when the shades are blue and brown.
...
All in all, being evil in DnD is great and you should try it sometime. As I said, I prefer more of a blue and brown morality, but if we are dipping into the realm of good and evil in DnD, I pretty much always go evil.

I thought about leaving out this bit of criticism, since I don't really know what's going on at your table. Sorry if it offended.

First off, I run a fairly PG-rated campaign. I play with my (now adult) kids, so its a necessity. (I also think D&D can teach some good life-lessons about coping with stressful situations...but enough about that.)

I spent some moments early on as a DM trying to put myself in the mindset of the creatures in the world in order to create quasi-logical situations. As EOTB correctly points out, most "bad-actors" are actually neutrals---just acting from a perspective of unmitigated self-interest. (Situational Ethics, etc.) They are pretty easy to role-play. Others are expressions of darker elemental forces---they are inscrutable and also fairly easy to imagine. The last category, intelligent evil, is a bit tougher.

When my players tried to befriend a goblin-guide, I tried to make it clear that culturally this was not possible---as EOTB stated "evil also eats its own" and "there are no friends only tools or tool-users". Goblins have no friends. Betrayal to gain advantage is expected. Torturing the weak for fun is a-okay. They do not value any life beyond their own. Seeing others "play nicely" with each other makes them want to smash it. The desire to destroy and consume is limited only by ability. The norm for evil-races is as a potential mass-murdered.

When it came time to handle chaotic evil NPC's---human ones (in this case Lareth from T1). I started to try and think about what he would want/do, but I had to stop. It became clear immediately things would quickly get obscene---so, for me, he had to stay a movie villain. Most of the truly bad acts have to happen "off camera", implied but not discussed.

With regards to PC playing evil characters. I think that when Robilar (out of boredom?) turned evil in Gygax's home campaign, thing started to unravel. I also offer up as evidence this post on Blue Bard as to why his players stay lawful.

Also, I've moved from AD&D (1e) as my baseline towards Swords & Wizardry (0e)---so the dividing line is Law vs. Chaos in the campaign. It's a bit cleaner in my mind than Good vs. Evil: Law is communal self-sacrifice, Chaos is always just selfish consumption.

All this is skirting the issue a bit because my criticism of what your players were doing was not really about the "be evil and start a cult", it was more a suspicion that they chose to play evil characters because playing good (or neutral) characters seemed boring to them. They were thrill seeking. If that is indeed the case, then my advise to you (DM to DM) was to ramp up the urgency in the world. Shake up their complacency and sense of control. In the examples you site, both from your current campaign, and your youthful experience, I see a common thread---the players had too much agency. What I am suggesting to you is that there is a "another D&D", and it is a white-knuckle roll-coaster ride where the players are generally weak and the world is strong. It's not a game of wish-fulfillment, but very fulfilling none the less.

 

[squeen]

I also think many DMs have little practical concept of the neutral alignments. Actions are "good" or "evil". When asked to define a neutral action they get stuck, and many portray neutrals as somehow doing as many good things as bad things, and this is why they are neutral - which is why they consider neutral "gray".

I just want to also respond to this directly. In the original Star Wars film, Han Solo starts off neutral, and ends up "good". This is one of the minor conflicts of the movie.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

For what it's worth, I've never liked the idea of an alignment system in D&D. Mechanically it's aimless, just a residual from the days of Appendix N add-ins about swords that "can only be wielded by one of virtue true" or whatever. I've always viewed something like that as a mechanic that can be hashed out by a DM, and not by whatever it says on a character sheet. It's also a woefully inconsistent system - there are few steadfast rules about breaching alignment, or expectations, or grey areas. Everything is too nebulous.

I say let players do what they're going to do, and let them suffer consequences of those actions by virtue of a plausible reaction from the world/NPC community. It shouldn't have to say Neutral on a character sheet for a player to turn down a person in need, or to not murder a bunch of baby orcs. What happens, happens. Maybe the "sword of virtue true" doesn't allow itself to be claimed by the baby-killer, but I want the choice by the sword to reflect player actions, not a declaration on a page.

My 2cents anyways.

 

[squeen]

@DangerousPuhson : How about alignment as a descriptor for NPCs/monsters?

 

[EOTB]

For what it's worth, I've never liked the idea of an alignment system in D&D. Mechanically it's aimless, just a residual from the days of Appendix N add-ins about swords that "can only be wielded by one of virtue true" or whatever.

I lean into it, but my campaigns are about the cosmic conflict overshadowing everything, where the prime plane is the proxy battle for the edge between evenly-matched foes. It's one of the reasons why I'm not all that fond of other takes on D&D where it's impact is lessened. I'm glad they're there for people who prefer otherwise, though.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

@DangerousPuhson : How about alignment as a descriptor for NPCs/monsters?

You just pigeonhole encounters that way. I make the monsters or NPCs act reasonably/realistically for what they are (wild animals are wild, corrupt cops are shifty, evil wizards are egomaniacal, etc.) - it's not like my players are going to see a little "chaotic neutral" thing tacked next to the words "giant rhinoceros" and say "hey DP, that rhino sure is acting calm for something that's supposed to be chaotic neutral..."

 

[Slick]

I'm with DP on this, I've never run Alignment by the book. It always seemed really flat, unrealistic, and generally useless compared to the more important relationships a character has with the world. A good analogy in the realm of video games is Fallout 3 vs. Fallout: New Vegas. The former has a clunky "karma" system in which certain actions are either evil or good, and your character slides back and forth along that linear spectrum, with predictable, "Hey you, you're a bad guy!" consequences that result from it. In NV, universal karma is replaced with reputation among the various different factions around the game world, and certain actions that will make you vilified by the people of one town can increase your rep with a faction antagonistic to them (The parallels to the OSR ideal of "faction-based play" are obvious).

The people that the characters choose to associate with or rally against should tell you everything you need to know about their morality, which is why I like having strongly opinionated factions, and usually tag appropriate people/creatures with a couple faction alignments instead of CE/LG/CN/etc. However, looking at the way the worlds of Greyhawk, etc. were set up (and taking quirks like "alignment languages" into account) I understand that some people like to set up black-and-white morality as factions in and of themselves: the forces of good, the forces of evil, etc. I imagine that's how EOTB does it.

I still keep and modify the spells based on alignment though. Know Alignment or Detect Evil are more about determining the target's disposition towards you specifically, and Protection from Evil explicitly targets things like demons, devils, eldritch beings, etc. ("Evil" being a stand-in for things inimical to human civilization in general, it might be thematically closer to "Chaos" but whatever). Also, if a character seems to be acting out of line in one way or another, I won't hesitate to ask them why their character is doing that. Not that I would necessarily stop them if they didn't have a good reason, but at least it can help reign them in a bit and make them think about their actions. One of the fun parts of old-school play is player skill over character skill, but a downside of that is some players can forget that they're supposed to be playing a character.

 

[Beoric]

I use alignment as a descriptor, in combination with two personality traits; alignment is therefore always modified by/expressed through personality. “CE, immoral, gloomy” says something different to me than “CE, cynical, brave”, both of which I generated randomly.

The first seems like someone who cheats or steals when he can get away with it because life is shit anyway, the second is an anarchist who acts in his own self-interest because everybody else does, and he doesn’t give a crap what anybody thinks.

Those are similar, so let’s try a third: “CE, foolhardy, friendly” is superficially more pleasant than the other two, and the “chaotic” part is less selfish or anti-establishment and more reckless.

“CE, cynical, brave” has the guts to let his evil flag fly, and “CE, foolhardy, friendly” is too reckless to hide it, but “CE, immoral, gloomy” probably keeps it hidden.

As for this discussion of the nature or existence of good and evil, I see it as a continuum depending upon how much harm you are prepared to inflict (or how much you are prepared to sacrifice) in order to achieve a benefit.

It’s also relative. It’s easy to be good if it’s easy to be good; being good when it’s easy is actually pretty neutral; being a dick when it’s easy to be good is kind of evil. It’s also hard to be good when it’s hard to be good; being good when it is hard is definitely good; not being good when it’s hard to be good may be neutral or evil depending on how low you sink.

My work has me dealing a lot with the crappy things that people do, which they usually hide from the world. I’m probably more likely than most to classify someone as evil in RL; I think too often we think of someone as being basically good when all they are really doing is complying with social norms or biological imperatives, or because they are good to us; you don’t get a pass just because you love your children and look out for your friends and family, that is the least you are supposed to do.

My evil NPCs aren’t necessarily violent, and never think they are evil; an evil bartender is going to water down his drinks, not poison his customers (“It doesn’t really hurt anyone, and don’t I deserve to get ahead? They shouldn’t drink so much anyway, I’m doing them a favour.”). By contrast, a good NPC could do great violence if he genuinely thought it was for the greater good (and it might not be entirely clear that he is wrong). Paladins can make great antagonists for good-aligned parties.

As for evil campaigns, the group I played with in high school and university played a campaign like that once, which I didn’t partake in, although I did see the tail end of a couple of sessions. I gather it was pretty cartoony and escalated quickly but eventually collapsed when some of the players started feeling a bit ill about what their characters were doing.

I once ran a campaign where the players were determined to play reavers who raped and pillaged. That lasted less than a session, ending minutes after I described the reaction of one of the victims.

 

[squeen]

My evil NPCs aren’t necessarily violent, and never think they are evil; an evil bartender is going to water down his drinks, not poison his customers (“It doesn’t really hurt anyone, and don’t I deserve to get ahead? They shouldn’t drink so much anyway, I’m doing them a favour.”).

I would put your bartender who waters-down drinks in EOTB's neutral category (an easy rationalization to follow self-interest without directly inflicting harm). The lowest energy state for a human. as an adult-infant who never matured.

Doesn't evil imply some sort of hatred or contempt for others---a disdain for seeing others successful/happy/free---or at least a total disregard for the value of lives other than your own?

Crazy discussion.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

IMO, D&D "evil" and D&D "good" have always been stand-in terms for two others: selfishness, and selflessness. I find the hot-swap of terms fits with pretty much any other definition you can come up with, including the ones given by Beoric and EOTB thus far.

Being Evil is not about causing harm; it is about selfishness. Good can cause harm too, but they feel sympathy/empathy/remorse because they are inherently selfless. That's the line in the sand.

The bartender who waters down his drinks and the crazy mage who fireballs people in the street are acting solely in their own interests. For that reason, you could call them D&D evil. The latter is certainly more evil than the former, but they would both carry the Evil alignment tag if I were one to apply such things to my NPCs.

A paladin adheres to a moral code not for his own benefit, but because it benefits others (i.e. chivalry). He is at his core acting for the good of others. Similarly, a good cleric can slaughter a band of devil-worshipping cultists and still be good - he's inflicted harm, but he does it for the benefit of everyone else who stands to lose if a devil comes to power.