Comments on: What alignment is your GM?

By: Evil Machinations » Blog Archive » Evil Does Not Equal Stupid: 8 Tips for Playing Evil Characters

Fri, 14 May 2010 22:21:06 +0000

[...] What alignment is your GM? (moebiusadventures.com) [...]

By: Fitz

Fitz — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:08:26 +0000

@forged – You are absolutely right about conflict and other devices used to heighten the emotional connection of the players to the game. I’m always looking for that hook, that thing to connect me more to my characters and keep me in the moment and enjoy the journey. Some of it comes from the player and some comes from the GM. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

Evil is as evil does, to paraphrase Mr. Gump. But I don’t think your GMing style is evil. Vindictive maybe at times… But not evil.

By: forged

forged — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:38:07 +0000

I think in our hearts, most GMs start out to run a fair and balanced campaign. Some do that following the rules more closely than others because it is the common element for the game.

Due to the nature of the fact that you are trying to tell an awesome story with your players, the players’ characters have to overcome conflict to truly tell stories worth remembering.

After all, when was the last time you read a story where there was no conflict in it?

Conflict and devices used by the GM to heighten the emotion of the moment (of which random dice rolling can be sometimes be effective) can come off as evil … but that usually isn’t the goal.

Granted I’m the same guy who had the bright idea of trying to corrupt a player character from good actions. I also starting a different campaign by having the players wake up to find that everyone else in the inn died during the night. (Which some day I’ll get around to posting about. I promise.)

Come to think of it those are only some of my most recent ideas to cause trouble.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:08:55 +0000

@yongkyosunim – Awesome summary of your GM style. Thanks for sharing!

By: yongkyosunim

yongkyosunim — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:56:28 +0000

I’m not an evil GM. I’m a real rules stickler though so I would say that I’m definitely Lawful. I don’t ban anything for the sake of “balance” or because like others, too lazy to run things like a lot of spells or high level campaigns.

I don’t go for the kill and the players know their risk/reward. For example, they know that the next adventure they are going on is a very tough one, but they chose it. I don’t consider TPKs fun to run unless the players do it to themselves or there is a run of bad luck on the dice.

However, I don’t believe in “everyone gets a prize for trying” so there is a lot of challenge. Again with the other adventure if the players know that they are going to take on a really tough adventure, the reward is there, but they know the risk is a lot higher.

So in the end, I would say I’m Lawful Neutral.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:37:30 +0000

@Anarkeith – Evil is in the eye of the beholder… Pick an eye… I always liked the Disintegrating Ray.

By: Anarkeith

Anarkeith — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:08:37 +0000

I had to chuckle as I read this, which is probably proof that I’m an evil GM. I think of myself as Neutral. But I know I’ve rolled the dice just to freak out the party, and I’ve thrown the occasional unwinnable encounter at them to see if they’d run away. They most often do, with lots of grumbling about unhittable enemies. C’mon, y’all! It’s not Disneyland. You don’t get a sign in front of each encounter saying, “You must be 5th level to participate in this fight.”

Players are whiny and deserve what they get. Evil it is then. Heh.

By: Fitz

Fitz — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:58:19 +0000

@Wimwick – Awesome. I’ll have to check out your humorous slant.

By: Wimwick

Wimwick — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:49:41 +0000

I'm a lawful evil DM, I enforce the rules or my rulings with an iron fist (they can be debated later). I also kill PCs when able, though I won't go out of my way to do it. I think of it as providing more of a challenge. Overall a great look at alignment as it pertains to DMs. We ran a similiar article a while back that took more of a humours approach.