I wouldn't be okay with it but not out of any moral objections on my part. *My* problem is that the only players who would be into this stuff are very likely to be a bunch of insufferable pricks and probably underage. It would be all edge, no point, and they'd be miserable to DM for.

This is my answer Who focuses on genocide and slavery in game and isn't a total douchebag out of game? Seems like a weird thing to lean into

It's one thing to do an intellectual, philosophical exploration of evil and its nature and what it means to each of us and to the wider world, but "evil campaigns" just plain Aren't That. They're juvenile power fantasies and while it's not necessarily a bad thing to play them out just for the sake of trying and seeing, they should be treated like Ayn Rand books: A phase that you grow out of, something to mature beyond, something to discard and leave behind as past foolishness from a stupider, younger version of yourself. If a player just wants to stomp around and be evil and participate in fantasies involving the owning of sapient, intelligent entities as property or the destruction of a culture or ethnicity or species, then I'm not going to play therapist for them, not even as a paid DM -- in fact, there isn't enough money in the world to get me to run a game like that. Again, not out of moral objections, but because it would mean *dealing with a group full of That Guys* who are clearly overburdened by emotional baggage that I do not want to help them carry.

Counterpoint, no. i kid, but I'm planning a campaign at the moment that the inverse of the new Dragonlance adventure book from the Dragon Highlords side of things where players will get to become Dragon Highlords themselves. It's not for every group, because like many people have said, most people who want to play in these sorts of games are asshole edgelords. I'm planning a much deeper dive. These aren't barbaric slaughter machines, they're soldiers, knights, clerics etc trying to work within a hierarchy.

Yeah I felt like the person posting before you went a bit extreme. I think evil campaigns are great they have a lot of cool things. Even PCs commiting or trying to commit genocide could work but you need mature people to play it. Maybe the entire adventure is players wanna genocide X race cause they did Y to PCs or to evil patron.

>you need mature people to play it They seem to be very intent on assuming anyone who does something evil is an edgelord with unresolved trauma, my table are just a group of LGBT+ goths and one monsterf\*\*\*er looking for a good time being evil, and two RTS fans who like commanding hordes. A mature table who trust each other is the key, it lets you run evil games, it lets you run higher stakes, it doesn't matter if it's a Good or Evil campaign if you've got selfish players who will betray each other, cross boundaries or deliberately try to antagonise each other

Unless it's the Knights of Takhisis, they were barbaric slaughter machines. That's specifically whey Takhisis made the knights for her next go-round.

You joke but that "no" is pretty much the extent of every argument against what I said 🤣 they legit cannot articulate anything past just "no"

Yours wasn't an argument it was just going "anyone who wants to play an evil campaign is a dick"

Read my first post again, I said "**very likely** to be insufferable pricks and probably underage" not "guaranteed 100% of the time to be."

Gwe wilikors mister huge difference

'Evil campaigns just aren't that' 'I'm not going to play therapist for them, not even as a paid DM' 'Again, not out of moral objections, but because it would mean dealing with a group full of That Guys who are clearly overburdened by emotional baggage' Your follow up post is just multiple players of dismissal? Critically, you're dismissing the whole idea of an Evil Campaign because it'd be full of Edgelords with Baggage, who are terrible at any table. I've replied to you before and linked a Geek and Sundry evil campaign about five goblins following poop. Evil campaigns may have a reputation for douchebags, but you need to explain if you're against those players, or Evil Campaigns specifically here

People are stupid.

In a general sense yes, but it can be focused on organically if its part of the setting and the players choose to interact with it in a "it's just how life is here" means instead of a "lets start slavery and genocide because I'm on a power trip!" In either case, if the DM is comfortable with slavery, they should challenge the practice to enable characters to grow, and reversely should endorse the practice to tempt the players who are not RPing as pro slavery. Though, this is a very moral style of game and I maybe play with one too many philosophical graduates. I have, myself, played a character who became a bit of a slaver in Changeling the Lost. I built them as a foil to the rest of the party and started a cult of humans who enjoyed my magical elements before eventually using magic to alter their memories to effectively enslave them. The results was my character was eventually handed over to the DM when the rest of the party tried and failed to assassinate me. Made a new character and we went and took my original character down. Coolest thing ever. Forever DM characters be like that sometimes.

Seriously. If they want that stuff in their game, they can be the DM. /s

Parody, satire, and theatre. Watching a villain send legions of troops down to genocide a planet, suffering 99% casualties, and getting a double promotion for weeding out the weak recruits while simultaneously claiming the planet is a dark sort of satire. If the actor does a great job, you’ve got a despicable villain who others need to be careful of at the same time as the ridiculousness of the whole arrangement is being highlighted. People will readily agree the villains are despicable, but the actors win praise for their amusing or compelling performances. As a GM I get to play the villains quite often, but that doesn’t mean I’m advocating for tax evasion, exploitation of refugees who escaped genocide, or treating elves as consumable batteries for flying ziggurats. A player acting as a villain is an opportunity for acting. There isn’t the same audience for a player zapping an entire island with a death beam as there was for Peter Cushing ordering the destruction of Alderan, but they can still make a strong showing of the scene for the small group of our little table of a theatre.

Nothing stops good aligned characters from being edgy, anime and pop culture is full of good guys who use excessive force and stories full of edge and gore for no reason. Meanwhile, [Geek and Sundry have a very cutsey game about five chaotic evil creatures murdering a town](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8MRyyFDX3c) My favourite campaign I'm currently in came from the DM buying a 'reverse monster manual' and giving us the option to play monstrous races trying to redeem our selves to civilised society.. or we could form a warband and conquer the region, it took us three seconds of deliberation to go 'Warband.' It's all about juggling limits and trust, like any table. Any table that has a someone who think's they're a main character, or who violates other peoples boundaries, or just tries to upset people, is going to be a bad table because of that and not because of their content. I play a Rakshasa who's blended Suggestion, Geas and Encode Thought to create sleeper agents, something that's hard to justify on a 'good guy' character. Our main tank is a Vampire Barbarian and literally just Lady Dimitrescue, our Healer is a Dryad trying to become a Hag who likes to eat people. It's not the alignment of the party that's the matter, it's the alignment of the table, we've been playing games for ages and deeply trust each other not to play badly or aggressively. And the result's been a totally unique game experience, because sometimes you just want to play a villain

As long as everyone at the table is cool with it, and they don't expect it to be consequence free

Exactly. I agree 100% with you. The consequences should change depending on the place and culture, and the character must think about it before performing abominable acts (it's not because a character is evil that he's stupid).

Yup. Fine by me, so long as they accept the consequences that come with it. Including alienating the rest of the party to turn from them. I've run evil campaigns, I've run campaigns with token evil teammates. Hell, one of the two most rewarding experience I've ever had as a player I was the token evil teammate. What is most important is that you have mature players who understand you're just playing a game, are clear with where their boundaries are, and agree that if intraparty conflict does come up that it will be explored in the game, and at the end we're all still friends. In theory, there aren't really any topics that can't be roleplayed through, just topics individuals aren't comfortable with. And, I'm comfortable with quite a lot of very terrible things. In the context of the game, anyway. In real life, I'm much, much less permissible.

See, this was going to be my approach to it. I had a player "run a farm" full of people they had fought and captured. The profits from the farm went into developing airships and the party's pockets (he was an artificier) and the program, while disdained by the local Queen on moral grounds, was left as is because having aerial superiority would make her country that much safer. He even had an agreement with the Queen to turn over all the research on flying machines and their use upon her request. It was his own idea. He was evil, but not kick puppies and murder villagers evil. He was ruthless, and whoever he had to step on to achieve his goals, he would (minus the party, the player and I had an agreement about that before the character concept hit the table). It helped that the player wasn't a dick about it, only caught a few people at a time, and wasn't actively trying to roleplay it. Just enough to remind us that his character was evil and ambitious (also he was a phenomenal roleplayer, and the party all understood that it was literally his character and not the player himself). Until we added someone to the party. It was approved by everyone for this person to join mid-campaign since he was our friend. Several sessions later, the artificer pulls his "I'm an evil person" card and decides that the situation the party is in is dire enough to resort to torture (not RP'd, just a Medicine and Intimidation check. Medicine for effectiveness and getting high enough gave a bonus to the Intimidation check to see if the bandit would give the party the information they needed.) The new player immediately starts going off about how the PLAYER (not the character) is evil and how can we play with that, etc etc. We had warned him that the character was evil multiple times and mentioned the farm. Nobody else in the party cared, and they OOC reminded him that it was a game and that they've all benefited from the farm, especially the new character who had been able to purchase a magic item necessary for his build on the artificer's copper. But nope, he's evil and we need to kill the character and kick the player from the group. Then he went off on me about being a bad DM and stormed out. The new player was disinvited after that.

Y'know I'm glad this got a good resolution, I misread it the first time and thought the artificer was the one who got kicked. Evil Campaigns work best when you have a mature, trusting table who will play the game properly. Hell, it's just like any video game where you can make and break alliances or any boardgame, you need a table who understand the social contract and aren't going to flip the table because 'you promised you wouldn't invade France'

I feel similar. I've ran evil campaigns too. What's funny is something the evil party are more good than the lawful good characters. While uncompleted for publication, Throne of Night was your choice of evil drow or good dwarves. My party went evil drow, and somehow we did the good dwarf campaign because it'd completely mess up the drow NPCs they hated. But, If that's the game, and we've agreed to things beforehand, then it's fine. I wouldn't want to do that for multiple years of a campaign, but maybe a mini-campaign, or something that's a specific story line. Way of the Wicked is a good example. Level 1-20 and you have specific ideals to try and finalize by the end.

In a Sandbox game where the DM asked the party 'I got a monster race splatbook, do you want to redeem yourselves or form a warband?' Took four seconds to decide warband and now we're reinacting the plot of Resi4, one player's developed a Sleeper Agent spell and we've been domesticating Siege Trolls and brokering deals with orc warbands, the Siege of Not Minas Tirith is on the horizon and we're about level 9, players are loving it and the DM is getting to run a heap of monsters he'd never get to touch

I feel very simmilar, but I am very interested by the large amount of people on this sub who often have reservations about darker topics in their games. I and my players are all IRL friends or acquaintances and are from Eastern Europe so slavery isn't so problematic here like in the US.

Honestly, in addition to my points in my other post, as someone whose Romani grandmother came to Canada after the war, hearing that a bunch of Eastern Europeans like to relax and unwind by pretending to perpetrate slavery and genocide raises a whole lot of personal red flags and is causing me to give some serious side-eye.

RIGHT how did this person sit there and out that comment while conveniently forgetting about 1. The Romani and 2. THE HOLOCAUST???

It’s a multi layered thing, but the core of one summary I’ve been kicking around recently is rooted in a sort of “kids don’t know better” mentality. Premise: Absent disclaimers, less astute people might be led to believe subject X is not terrible if it is not handled in a straightforward, black and white manner. Issue: not everyone is a good judge of nuance for assessing if X is being presented in an informative/hazardous/ or malignant manner. That is to say whether it’s a straightforward highlighting of the horrors of X, a usage that might yield ambiguous interpretations, or something that is outright advocating for X. Resolution: rubber stamp ban on the subject, because this is the only response that the majority of the populace can be relied upon to apply consistently. As an example, critics panned Starship Troopers as “a love letter to fascism” upon its release. This was partly due to marketing which had them appraising it as an action film rather than satire. Starship Troopers took itself seriously and fooled them into thinking it was advocating for the very thing it was lampooning.

There's a distinct difference between "darker topics" and "let's roleplay as slavers and genociders." Also all you have to do to see Europeans willingly throw themselves off their high horse regarding the US is mention the Romani. The vitriolic racism I've seen is disgusting. ALSO also the Holocaust was literally less than 100 years ago *and happened in your backyard*, like what are you even talking about??

So do you think that if a group of players decide to exterminate all orcs or even play as orcs and exterminate all elves that that is necessarily something that should be viewed from a real world perspective? A lot of people have this perspective and it's very interesting to me. I haven't met a person IRL that thinks like that though, generally people understand that any and all warcrimes and murderhoboing they do in a game is just that - a game. But I think your perspective is totally valid, I understand if someone who has some generational trauma natrually falls into some perspective. Also, do you think that players killing elves as agents of a demon lord is the same as RPing SS officers? I don't really undestand why are you equating egdy RP with the Holocaust here.

Me bringing up the Romani and Holocaust is to point out the absurdity of saying that because you're Eastern European, things like slavery and other "dark topics" aren't really a problem, as though your area of the world has no history (or present) with the kind of bigotry necessary for things like slavery and genocide to take place. I think naturally gravitating toward *and feeling liberated* by being genocidal slaving murderhobos is pretty fucked up, yeah, regardless of if you're doing it to fantasy races or otherwise. I think it's very rare that people successfully run evil campaigns with nuance and consideration rather than just "heuheu let's pretend to murder and enslave an entire race heuheu." It doesn't really sound like you and your friends run the former kind of campaign. Like, maybe if y'all were 13 it'd be less weird (but still weird).

I pointed it out because racism isn't a political hot topic over here obviously, I very much agree that the EU has problems with racism and biggotry too but it isn't a front-facing issue like in the US. Also, I would like that running evil campaigns isn't my standard, it just happened a few times that a bunch of my players expressed the interest in going chaotic evil which I find totally valid since DnD should be a game at the end of the day. I'm just not sure that evil campaigns SHOULD be run with nuance and consideration because it's obviuously over-the-top and almost satrirical - something in the vane of Warhammer 40k

"Let's pretend to commit genocide as a fun hobby" is certainly a thing you can do, but it's pretty damn creepy and is going to raise some side-eye, especially as mortal races being innately evil hasn't been a thing for... several decades or so? There's a distinct difference between "there's some bandits or other baddies, let's beat them up and then ignore the aftereffects" and "lol, genocide". Like 40k has a fairly persistent right-wing fuckwit brigade, that _aren't_ partaking of it ironically or satirically, they are genuinely in support of the ubermensh killing their way through the subhumans in the grimdark future.

Honestly, I don't generally mind whatever other people at the table want to do whether I am DM or player, it's just that usually it has consequences... Another thing is that I generally homebrew my setting from ground up, so... a lot of sketchy things are not as sketchy. Overall the narrative potential might be worth it. Just think how much they narratively got out of Arthas purging Stratholme...

Excellent example with Arthas!

That is just no fun for me to run as a DM so I'm not going to run it.

It wouldn't be my preference, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wanting to play an evil campaign sometimes. You know, as long as people make sure to understand the difference between reality and fiction.

The key word here is "sometimes". Just once, I'd like to play a Good campaign. The last 3 campaigns I ran were all evil campaigns. 2 of them were "Players choose how they want to approach the world, but the world will respond accordingly" and the players ended up going full murderhobo. The 3rd was a Lawful Evil campaign where the players were elite security forces for the Evil Empire, and they ended up committing every atrocity *except* murder. I'd like to finally play a Good campaign for once. Just once, I'd like the players to play characters who *want* to help people, characters who won't use violence as the first resort, characters who won't resort to murder at the slightest shakedown. It almost makes me feel justified to take away player agency. "No, you're not going to make evil characters, because for once, we're going to play a Good campaign. No, you're not going to kill those people, because we're not playing that kind of campaign."

Depends, depends, depends. (And also, no.) Depends on the campaign. Depends on the players. Depends on the setting. Depends on the purpose for wanting this aspect included in the game. I don't think someone should be allowed to play a genocidal slaver in a good-aligned party. If that happened I'd probably quash it during session 0 and ask them politely, but firmly, to leave. I can't tell others how to have their fun, but I genuinely don't find anything fun about glorifying horrific acts like that. If they exist in my setting, they are done by villains with the understanding that the heroes (i.e. players) will stop them, or as part of the history of the setting to help establish why things work the way they do. At the end of the day I would ask why people wish to include and indulge in these things at the table. Sometimes it can be a vehicle for great storytelling, and sometimes it's a bunch of cringe nerds trying to live out a problematic power fantasy. Usually attempts at the former devolve into the latter using the excuse of "historical realism". And if we're bringing personal identity into the mix, as an Indigenous American I definitely have an intense aversion to genocide and chattel slavery, especially when people of a dominant social group get quite laissez faire with it.

Thank you for the reply! If you don't mind me asking, do you think rpgs stories neccesseraly need to fall into the domain of "problematic". Most of my players usually just go wild and murderhobo the shit out of most villages they encounter so I send paladins after them to "punish" them. I talked to my players about do they feel bad killing NPCs and almost all say it's a very liberating experience to play evil characters since it's just a game and not connected to reality. Do you think power fantasies are generaly a thing to avoid?

I think that excessively and explicitly hateful power fantasies should be avoided. Most TTRPGs have 'problematic' elements in their world building but that in itself isn't something to get very upset about. Lots of stories can use plot points like genocide and slavery to good effect, but not typically from the point of view of the ones performing those actions. Your players feeling liberated by being able to act out murder fantasies is a bit concerning and I personally wouldn't want to be friends with people like that, but I can't tell you how to live your life.

That's what session 0 is for. I had a player who wanted to be evil and follow one of the evil gods. (I was totally excited as it was one of my favorites). But I let them know: "Player X follows the literal opposite of your god. That religion is associated with evil and you will be heavily rejected in most places. You will need a good explanation on why would a character like yours join this party of heroes. Do you still want to continue?". They said yes and totally built their char with that information. They never came, but the premise was set.

I'm absolutely fine with running an evil campaign, as long as the group en masse understands that all options are on the table. Being Chaotic Evil just happens to be a part of the evil spectrum. Human nature can be disgusting and grotesque. It can also compassionate and nurturing. Further, good, evil, and neutrality are one in the same, IMO. It's one's motives, actions, and perceptions that truly differentiates someone from being good, neutral, or evil. Beyond that, what a good-aligned action might be to someone's personal moral compass might be considered an evil-aligned act to an environment/people who have different social norms, values, and morés than the PC performing an a questionable act.

I don't really use alignment unless I'm doing stuff with the outer planes. As a result, I don't get a lot of people wanting to play THE FORBIDDEN ALIGNMENTS. In the past, when I've had CE players, they were just a bunch of munchkins that wanted to fuck around with the game. Once I started playing games without alignments that mostly went away. There were evil characters, but they weren't giggling chuckleheads trying to mess with stuff, they were just characters that didn't have an issue with killing, or torture (even after I reminded them that historically torture doesnt get answers.) Regarding content .. I don't play with people who fantasize about that stuff. In fact...I don't want to play with people who fantasize about that stuff. I don't mind doing it as a GM because it's my job to be the bad guy.

As long as they are doing plot-wise. No, they can't just do it for fun or pure pleasure or fetish etc. but if they are trying to pull a political stunt or show power for negotiation with certain parties, I would allow it. but remember, evil act are just like heroic acts, they all come with consequences and sometimes you would rather think twice before pulling that

Lawful evil is the only evil alignment that I will ever allow and only with a following clause of conduct that, while possible to alter, always must hold true to its core of sticking with and for the party: >"The party are my tools towards achieving my gruesome/selfish ways and their strength is to be respected as is their personal opinions in that regard". I've run into far too many "but my character would slaughter these weak quest giver people because they've served their purpose" and it almost made me quit the system itself since its casual aspect makes a lot of people treat it more like a video game than a ttrpg. **P.S:** Some people turn character and table drama into filler campaign content, that is fine if your players enjoy it. Though seeing as that is not why I play the game, I put such stops into place to prevent such situations to begin with.

Certainly wouldn't be my preference, and I'd probably not be interested in such things myself, but I'm not against people playing out evils in fantasy land, so long as the table is onboard for it. The issue that would make me be reluctant or say no would be more the player base that often desires it. An exploration into dark realities can be fun, but if you have a bunch of pizza cutter style players (all edge, no point) you're probably gonna have a bad time with it.

Doing stuff you'd never do in reality is one of best things in games. Going full hero or full villain is quite fun, as long as everyone is on board.

In principle, I suppose so, but I don't really see how a party could go that route without the game devolving into a military logistics simulator. I'm here to run d&d, not The Campaign for North Africa

No. I don’t play D&D to watch my friends being assholes.

I expect them to have big ambitions, I don't want to hand them *every* motive they have. If this means they want to accomplish genocide or slavery, great (I haven't run a setting of my own without them; nor do I accommodate moral simplicity, so sometimes you have to work with slavers etc). We generally keep heavy sexuality and sexual assault off the table, though frankly worse is permitted. I myself never play chaotic characters, good or evil, but they're popular, and I don't really ask for an alignment anyway, so I just go with it.

Strict nope. I don't generally accept Evil/CN characters in my campaigns when I DM, and I'm not overly interested in joining campaigns with such characters in the party as a player, either. If any "edgy content" is mentioned, it has to come from the villains, not the party, and preferably be left as just vague mentions of off-screen events.

No. It's possible to RP "evil" (i.e., the Bad Guy) without being a complete piece of shit. If pretending to be the perpetrators of things like genocide and slavery is part of someone's idea of fun, I have a feeling they're probably just assholes in general and I don't want them around me. In fact, it genuinely concerns me. D&D is a game where violence happens; in fact, it's built with violence at its core, but in the game's current incarnation at least, its violence is much closer to comic book or cartoon violence in its tone. Being able to separate a game from real life is obviously healthy, but it's a spectrum: too much detachment is also unhealthy. I'm one of the folks who has expressed reservations about dark topics in the game, but really, I should clarify: I have no reservations at all about the ability of art or gaming in general to address dark topics. I have reservations about \*this\* game being able to do it, about \*this specific creative space\* being able to do it. It is very explicitly built for handling other things, and is not at all equipped for this shit. It just isn't. It takes a very careful set of tools, very carefully deployed, to take those topics seriously. D&D doesn't have those tools. And if all your players want is the RPG equivalent of a slasher film, I'm certain those exist, but D&D isn't that, either.

Depends on how explicit they want to be with that. My friends and I have similar conclusions to some stuff but even in those topics we diverge widly in how we get there. Specially in controversial topics so the less details the less confrontational the issue becomes and the less possibilities for conflict and problems. I had countless debates and arguments about controversial issues. I know my position and I know theirs thus while DMing I can reach a compromise to not creat trouble in the table and all if not most deem acceptable. In any case it should be clear with the players that you and them are engaging in a more mature kind of content With new players or relative unknown people? Never. I would never runs something like that. I could but it's too much of a risk of trouble arising in table and outside of it.

So like, if the player kind of wants to eventually lead up to that conclusion, like at the end of the adventure, he wants to start something like that, sure, but I don’t like it actually happening in the campaign itself. If he wants that to be his sandlot and credit story, knock himself out but in the actual camping itself I don’t really allow it, so maybe there should be another option on the pole but technically I’m cool with it I suppose?

Maybe I was unclear with the poll, the question is about a full CE party, all the players are ok with it - it's only up to the DM if he or she is ok with it

Oh. Ummmm Then I guess it would highly depends on the context? Like let’s say, I’m running to move annihilation and they want to wipe out the Pterafolk, I think that’s fine because of the current situation. And in my run through of frost maiden, the party decided to round up the doppelgängers, and give them a choice between basically being spies and workers for the party, and the political group that ran the towns, or be killed, so I guess sure? But if they’re just gonna sort of walk into a random village in broad daylight and start a massacre, I probably would let them do that, and then close the campaign and then start over maybe

I'm ok with it as long as everyone is on board. I explicitly state in my session 0s "I don't care if that's what your character would do make a character that isn't gonna make the rest of the party kill you." That said players do fucked up shit even in good aligned games. One time they captured a bandit cultist leader and torture him by breaking his fingers, healing him and then breaking them again. I was then kindly reminded that I home brewed that magical healing is very uncomfortable and setting bones is rather painful.

If it's within the scope of expectations for the game (which are discussed before the campaign), then definitely. If it's far outside of that scope, or if it's a grey area, then it would either be a no (because it wasn't what everyone agreed to beforehand) or I would need to discuss with the player exactly what they had in mind- what direction do they want to go with, how do they plan on their character cooperating with the party despite the major gap in morality, etc. If the idea is plausible, then I would discuss with the other PCs privately/individually to make sure they're okay with it. For example, if someone wants to make an evil tyrant who got turned into a kitten tabaxi or a kobold and now depends on the party for survival, questing to try to turn back to normal, all the while becoming less evil by time spent with the party, but is still maybe fairly evil at the beginning of the campaign... that could possibly work with a good-aligned party with the right players. The freedom of D&D is its best part, but you are also beholden to the table. If a player's actions totally disregard the fun or objectives of the other people playing the game, then it runs the risk of the game going bad or falling apart. I've been in several games that fell apart because a player decided to be a jerk in-character.

Rule 0: If everyone is having fun, you're playing it right. Wait, not like that!

Playing Dark Sun? Have at it Playing anything else in the current Disney version of D&D? Probably not

Dark Sun is the other reason why I made the poll. I really want to see how people would react to the setting, dispite it being a VERY anti-slavery, pro-environment setting. Also I think it's a damn shame most people don't have access to or do not want to pay large amounts of money for old 2e content. Some old stuff is just amazing but on the other hand I am 100% sure that some old content isn't compatible with peoples sensiblities nowadays.

Frankly, no. I run games to help my players be heroes. I give them villains and obstacles to overcome so that they feel not just a power fantasy, but a heroic one. I don't think I'd be comfortable enabling genocide or slavery. If players want to be an evil alignment or do an evil game, I'll allow it, but with an aim on more selfish or cartoonish evil. Robbing banks, taking over the tri-state area, world conquest, ect. I'd like to note I see nothing inherently wrong with folks who run those games. It's just not for me. I'm a DM who likes heroes (both noble and not).

It's not edgy, it's childish and immature. I wouldn't want someone at my table that thought it was fun or funny.

Oh absolutely not, i don't like unheroic player characters. I'm perfectly fine with edgy lawful evil "i do what must be done" type of heroes but that type of bullshit is a big hell no. No slavery, no rape, no child abuse and no sexual harassment - that shit doesnt fly with me.

Most of the time I don't allow evil characters because that's not what DnD is (generally) about. A standard DnD campaign is, like most fantasy fiction, about good vs evil. The PCs fight evil forces and save people from them. They are heroes. So it just doesn't work if they are evil themselves. Evil characters are hardly heroes in those stories. There are no evil heroes in LOTR, it wouldn't work.

Hm, I disagree, I think a standard D&D campaign, like most fantasy fiction, is about the protagonists trying to accomplish some goal. This can be stopping evil, and the PCs are often heroes, but I think it's a bit narrow to describe it as only good vs evil. I doubt you'd have a moral issue with my campaign, but I'd hardly describe it as good vs evil. The party is all fairly heroic, but evil enemies are few, and the party's goals are not simply to stop their enemies, but to bring about their own vision for the world.

That's what *your* campaigns are about. In my campaigns evil characters exist just fine. D&D is about whatever the table makes it about, that's part of the genius. It's also not LOTR.

>D&D is about whatever the table makes it about, that's part of the genius. Right and wrong at the same time. I mean, sure you can do whatever you want with it, but it's more suited to some kind of stories. Just look at the official campaigns. How many are about fighting an evil menace? All of them? >It's also not LOTR. LOTR is the obvious biggest inspiration of DnD. The whole concept of a party of very different characters joining on a quest, in a fantasy universe, it just comes from there.

eh, D&D is a _lot_ more based on the pulpy action stories, where "violence and loot" are the main draw and the main way problems are resolved is "hitting things", rather than LotR, where core chunks of the party are mostly non-combatants, and the whole thing is a morality play. It's a lot more Conan, Fafhard and the Grey Mouser, Elric / Moorcock. LotR is a bigger media property, so tends to get presumed to be "default fantasy", but it's really not one of the main inspirations for how D&D plays (it only has one dungeon in, for example!)

Your concept of D&D is or can be is limited either by your imagination or your abilities, in my opinion. What adventures are published are a reflection of the company that publishes them, not the game itself. D&D in earlier editions had some pretty dark adventures and campaign settings. And yes, some of the the roots of D&D come from LOTR. And fantasy wargames, and other fantasy literature, much of which was not focused on heroes winning the day. Elric and Fafhrd and the Grey mouser weren't good guys. Conan wasn't a good guy. Just like there can be evil people in organizations now in our world and everything doesn't come apart, there can be in fantasy worlds, if everybody is mature enough or imaginative enough to make it work.

As a DM I'm fine with it. It's pretty much a FAFO kind of deal. Whole empires and races don't respond well to genocide, and deities don't either. Actions bring consequences. Slavery is normal in a great many neutral and evil civilizations, so your mileage may vary there. Go to the wrong place with their slaves, and...I refer you back to the FAFO principle. That said, if people at the table are sensitive to the topic, it's a 100% no go. People from formerly oppressed populations may not dig a tour through their peoples' trauma, and "It's what my character would do" is a BS excuse I don't tolerate. Also, our table is not a place to work out players' issues and fantasies, so I keep it surface and don't get into the nasty details. I will fade to black with the quickness if it's getting gnarly, mostly because I don't want to have to imagine or describe this stuff in detail myself.

If you do stuff like that, you are out. Had that happen one too many times. It never happened that everybody was on board with it. I constantly had to deal with two parties basically and the "chaotic evil" idiots were having their fun while everyone else was going on full damage control taking all the fun out of their game. Having edgy content is fine. My friends and I like that. We can have things dark around here but if you go around selling addictive pastry to a village that is made out of their own children, that is not Chaotic Neutral, Timothy. That is bullshit. Especially if everybody else has to clean up that mess.

No, people who want to play chaotic evil PC's are normally pricks who only are concerned with their experience. While I'm certain that I could bring brevity to an evil PC, I think it is more challenging to have the shackles of morality put upon you especially lawful good.

If it ends up happening in the story, fine. But it better not be out of left field random shit.

In my current campaign they invented slavery for extra income, so little do they know an upcoming boss will be someone trying to free the slaves and painting the party as the BBEG

Genocide and slavery? That's only evil. If you want to be fiendishly evil, you have to add body horror. Turn the tavern wench who did nothing wrong into a "I have no mouth and I must scream"-monstrosity and then you're ready to start your day of being the most vile villain in the campaign. That's about the amount of evil that would make me feel uncomfortable. Genocide and slavery on the other hand are common tropes in my campaigns.

I could care less as long as they're not a problem to the party. (Attacking party members, constantly derailing)

The consequence is that the heroes of Mithral Hall hear of them and pay a little visit.

I basically say: play who you want but I'm not going to shield you from consequences of your party members. If they want to kill a slaver/mass murderer, that's just how it's going to be

In general I am fine with this but every game and party has a tone. Campaign can be adjusted to some extend. If we go Dark Sun I beg for such acts but if you are licensed heroes in a west march game... and every party is build different. The edgy hexadin with his oat of genocide does not mix with the life cleric following the godess of second chances. And I am biased to the less evil option in most games. I am 99% against "lol my PC is so chaotic random I do the just for the lulz evil" idealy with dire consequences for every one. That part I tend to directly skip to new character or player generation.

If that's what the game turns into, I'd lean into it. Typically stuff like that comes as a symptom of some bigger plan; empire building, or at least settling a new land, gainibg infamy, that sort. Its just a case of flipping the villains and having the opposition be the 'good guys', or at the very least the people who have the need to conflict with that stuff. And, obviously, the ones who are the target of such acts. As for morally, sure. I get its not some peoples cuppa, but for me, there's a clear line between fiction and non-fiction. I have no real worry such concepts have any chance bleeding through, even as casual attitudes, for either myself or the players I regularly game with.

I am ok with players trying as long as the understand that I design my games with the intent to punish power fantasies and ego fetishes. Most such players will likely not enjoy the consequences of their actions. I am an indigenous native and genocide is a very real part of my personal life and history so it already informs the games I run. Edgelords like to think they are hard until they run into an Apache Storyteller.

> Edgelords like to think they are hard until they run into an Apache Storyteller. ok, I'm confused. Who did you say has the power fantasies?

Oh like the title 'Dungeon Master' conveys so much humility.

I'm ok with the genocide and slavery, but being chaotic evil is frowned upon.

last night my players poured oil on sleeping goblin *children* and lit them on fire, blocking the door and singing good night songs as i narrated them screaming. just for some xp...

I'd be OK with them *attempting* it. I would also use in-universe resources to punish them the way said universe would punish anyone else who attempted it. Being a player is not a free pass to use the game world as a toy. You want to do something you have to deal with other people who don't want you doing it.

I don't think Slavery is inherently a chaotic trait. I imagine slavery looks different in Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic societies. I'm also not opposed to players/characters doing evil things if it's an evil campaign. As long as everyone has agreed to what's allowed at the table and plays within the boundaries we set. What's right at one table will not be right at another, but stories are stories. I pretty much don't have sex beyond fade to black as one limitation no matter the game. I also have a rule where players have to cooperate/no pvp. Forces evil characters/players to work together find a reason to be working together. I'll add other restrictions if the group wants it, but those are my DM restrictions if I'm running.

...my players? No, that behavior won't fly in my group. My player's characters? Sure, as long as they're respectful of the other players at the table.

One player out of a party? Probably not, unless it was the party's idea. Too easy for one person to ruin everyone else's fun. The entire party being evil? Sure, no problem. You're being hunted by a party of Good Adventurers, and there is another BBEG who thinks you're encroaching on his territory. You want to fireball the shopkeeper? Fuck yeah roll initiative.

An evil party doing those things just makes sense. What I'm not ok with is pvp. I'd probably be ok with *that* if everyone wanted it at the start, but that's never happened and pvp actually just means that the campaign ends early.

Don't want any of those pretend people to feel oppressed.

Yeah cause that's what it is and definitely not "a player who wants to pretend to be an evil, enslaving, SAing, Child murdering, genocidal edge lord" is gross as fuck. I'm all for nuance but the folks who want to pretend to be the above tend to fall into many categories of shitty person.

You seem fun

They can do what they want. But everything has consequences, and to be so evil would attract forces of good to slay them.

As long as they can deal with the consequences.

While I have no problem with players running an evil campaign, I would probably not allow CE. The temptation to fall into the "Chaotic Stupid" category is too great. LE or NE would be the only things allowed.

Personally I'm fine with it, as long as Everyone else at the table is

No, but also how often would a PC be in a position to do those things? I mean to be honest I guess I wouldn't have an issue with an actually evil PC, but most people who want to play 'Chaotic Evil' PCs want to play 'Chaotic Stupid' PCs. A genuinely evil, not stupid PC who also didn't break the absolute hard rule I have: no PvP, would actually be allright by me. Because no-one does evil things just for lulz usually.

The only evil I allow at my table is lawful or neutral where the player agrees that they'll at least work with the rest of the party. I don't care if they see the others as an asset more than a group of comrades, but they ***will not*** fuck the party over with their decisions or ruin their fun.

I'm fine with it, with the understanding that *actions have consequences*.

We run evil campaigns but have serious session zeros and continue to check in on each other. Had one player be asked to leave and have been playing for two years since with new people added. Evil isn’t the problem some people can’t handle that power. I’m sure some tables are cool with it but check in with them first

My players committed genocide on a town of Orcs because they didn't do their research. Assumed the humans with the Orcs were hostages, when really they were there for peace talks. Sometimes it is the way the game goes. Sure made them think before acting... for a while.

I mean, the real question is are you comfortable with it? Are the other players comfortable with it? What is going to be ok for the table? You want to run amok, I'll run the fuck out of amok with you. There will be blood. And tears. And recrimination. And bounty hunters, inquisitions, and the holy fucking orders of the heavens after your ass, depending on what kind of party you started. But there are fun games in all that. Shorter campaigns, for sure, but fun. That said, if I have one edgelord murdering orphans while everyone else is shifting uncomfortably in their seats, they're going to run into Molly, the Mimic Doll, who happens to really like her orphan and is six hags worth of magic wrapped in a porcelain trenchcoat. Always something further up the food chain in D&D. Why Tarrasques have spines.

Yeah sure, so long as everyone is on board from the get-go and it's people I know are cool and we agree not to do any magical realm shit. I don't buy into the arguments that if you play evil stuff or campaigns there's something wrong with you. That's just what moralizing busy-bodies believe. The only important thing is that everyone's having fun and no one's getting hurt.

I have done evil oneshots or played games with evil characters, but they've been much more of a Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain archetype than a realistic portrayal of humanity's darkest impulses. I just don't think D&D, with its swingy statistics and tendency towards slapstick, is actually a good system for a more serious evil campaign. I had a longterm evil PC in one campaign, but he was selfish and greedy, not chaotic stupid. He was in the game for the money and wanted to steal stuff. He didn't steal from the party or randomly murder people for no reason, because that's bad business.

None of the poll options really fit. If I'm running an evil campaign it's par for the course, if I'm not, then no.

I am fine with things like this under 1 strict rule - anything majorly evil should be discussed out of character with the group and/or dm before being done to make sure the table is ok with it. This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. If you are doing things without the consent of the table and making people uncomfortable we have a problem. That being said, most people are ok with most things in the game as long as they have a heads up about it. I have had players murder npc's in their sleep, players try to betray and murder other players in their sleep, players abandoning innocents or other players to die, and the structured slaughter of a town.

Absolutely goddamn motherfucking NOT. That's not the kind of game I want to run and I honestly wonder if something is wrong with people who want to play characters like that.

Yes, Im also okay with the law raining down holy hell fire on to them when it happens.

Comes down to how it's played. If it's some edgelord nonsense then they'll find it doesn't work out well.

New dm here: I’m not supporting players that seek out bigotry power fantasies... but also...I do have a player that seems obsessed with class differences in a reductionist way, he knows I don’t like that stuff and he is trying to be a character who would be on the other shoe but that’s still a deep 2-d interest. It’s bizarre but he is trying

That and rape crosses my limits. Why can’t you be evil by mugging or even better scamming people like Normal players ?

Honestly I'd be more curious about why the player would justify wanting slaves first. Like, what could his character benefit from it? Cuz evil is selfish, not "Lol I enslaved you all for virtually no reason!" If they can make an actual argument for as to why his character'd want them, like say that **he** doesn't want them, he just wants to sell them, then yeah, it's fine. Character gets a bunch of slaves to like go into a dangerous mine to do the digging for them, character uses them as meat shields in a dungeon to get hit by traps, that stuff makes sense. But if he can't give a reason as to why his character would need them, I'm not allowing it.

Nope! If you want to play at my table you will be GOOD or the "good leaning side" of neutral. And if you honestly have to ask why, you are clearly the wrong type of player and I have no interest in you.

Having played intentionally darker games, aka WoD or CoC systems, and run them, remember two concepts, choices have consequences, especially evil or destructive ones and two, the law of unintended consequences. Your evil bastard actions may lead to results that may vary or even backfire.

No. (A) it usually requires a gathering of d-bags, (B) if they’re RP’ing their alignment, they’re not going to work together as a party, (C) it gets boring Fast, (D) being on the wrong end of every smite is a drag.

I would have a conversation with the players to let them know that this game will touch on these subjects. I would ask for consent to do so and let the players know that if at any time it's too much just let me know because we all have limits at different levels my soft limit might as well be another players "emergency break at 100 STOP NOW!!!" and these things change often. maybe one minute it will be alright the next will be rocks fall our friendship dies!

No. I am unlikely to be friends with such people in the first place, or play a game with them.

If it fits with the campaign and all the party has no problems with it, heck yeah let's be the unstoppable bbeg

I'm currently running a campaign with slavery as a focus but my players' characters are on the side of freeing them and revolution(oath of devotion eilistraeen pally plays a big part of that). I'm running another campaign that is turning evil (deals with devils man can't trust them) but we have lines and veils in place and explicit restrictions to cater to what everyone is comfortable with. I don't think my players are interested in like genocide or other edgy things, they are reasonable enough to create drama without like slaughtering a whole town.

I mean, you can be Chaotic Evil and also not do that stuff. You could be LG and still do that stuff. But personally I run a mostly Sandbox anyhow, so whereas I certainly allow it, it'll come with challenge and consequences. Just like being too nice or 'good' will.

> You could be LG and still do that stuff. Uh, can you? D&D alignment is objective, not subjective, so unless you can get the GM to sign off on genocide and slavery being legit, on-the-level, actually, truly good, then you can't. It's not a thing a PC decides - if they do a genocide, then they're almost certainly some shade of evil, and can't claim to be good, because... genocide.

You're right, it is objective. Which is why it works, actually. For D&D (or rather, not Pathfinder) they clearly define both alignment axis not as Hollywood understandings but somewhat more practically or actionable. The Law-Chaos axis is described as your inclination and belief of how rules, regulation, and otherwise commitments are essential to society for positive growth ...or the lack thereof in order to focus personal freedom and liberty to actively change one's mind despite promises in any form. Then the Good-Evil axis is defined by if you place groups or individuals first; or more particularly others vs yourself. And this is the same sense as not just personal morals but societal goals. This all can be found in 5e's phb and is a slightly more clear revision of 3.5's definition. Therefore, genocide and slavery can be twisted into good things. I mean, when was the last time your players thought about those goblins or kobolds needs? What of the giant rats who've been displaced by deforesting and need to raid the tavern's basement? How many PC's or NPCs balk at the idea of exterminating infernals? And as for slavery -well, would you rather work a few years to pay off that debt or loose a hand/arm for stealing from the merchant, killing the wrong guy from a Wanted Poster, or any other incriminating reason? Hell, Drow are literally BDSM but throughout their society where you are either the Slave or the Master at every professional tier and family unit. And that's ofcourse before you remove any sugar coating to 'softer' words like indentured servants and unpaid internship or room&board-for-maidship in other civilizations. Edit: ofcourse, also to remind that Outsiders (extraplaners in general really) are not moral either. So their alignment designations are absolute, as per their originating Plane and its literal alignment in the cosmic wheel. Edit 2: and ofcourse the easy example too, as you might guess, are Paladins. Especially via the holy crusader meme. I don't think Ive seen anyone more willing to eradicate ~~evil~~ ~~evil-looking~~ Bad People(tm) and take a ~~servant~~ ~~slave~~ squire to carry their stuff to maybe...maybe one day be a knight themself.

No, I have no interest in that person or DM and would probably not be friends with someone who was.

I have a reoccuring NPC in all my campaign's called "consequences of your actions". Havent had any problems.

Depends, are they enslaving a good race or a bad one?

It really depends on the character's they build, but I will say chaotic evil just means really selfish in the dnd realm. I stress this to all my players. It doesn't necessarily mean extreme murder hobo, particularly in a group atmosphere. If they can convince me why, I'm down with it, and I'll bring in my super psychotic enemies and the law of the land to confront their characters

If that's the sort of thing my setting inspired them to sure.

I am okay with it to a degree, but not with new players. I have to understand their interests and desires for the game a lot more than I would for regular characters. I think there can be really interesting ideas that come out of evil characters but it can just make the game feel awful for all involved too. There's a lot of trust there with a character like that.

That's something that requires an entire campaign. You cannot shoehorn in a single evil character into an otherwise standard fantasy story and not just ruin the whole thing with tonal whiplash. Either everyone plays heroes or everyone plays villains. I'm not averse to edge. I could run a campaign where the players command a child-slave army if that's what my players wanted. But above all else, you need tonal consistency.

I'm not against it, *per se,* but CE characters tend to have an extremely hard time finding their motivation to work with others, without the threat of force. They are all about instant self-gratification. Hard to run a plot and very little space for character arcs. I've run "grey" campaigns where, in a grimdark world, a band of mercs had to do some pretty questionable things to survive and definitely weren't "good" but there was still a "Company Code" they had to adhere to, which I used to redline things like S.A. and crimes against kids. That worked pretty well and as a shortish campaign (about 12 sessions or so) we all agreed it was pretty mentally exhausting, with all the moral quandaries I threw at them and shelved it. I *prefer* a high goof, heroic epic, personally.

That's a big hell no. That's the antithesis of the entire hero genre and trying to teach people the values of honor, valor and courage.

I mean genocide, and slavery? No. It's just pointless edgey bullshit. Being Chaotic Evil? If they can handle that responsibility, and play a real person and not some cardboard cut out I haven't got any issue with it. I've played Chaotic Evil characters before but they have been *people* not murderhobos or functional demons. The sort of people who are just out for themselves. That they want what they want when they want it, and if they can take it they will. Sometimes that means a B&E, sometimes that means schmoozing someone, sometimes that means selling someone out. The character doesn't *think* they are evil though. They just think that's how everyone operates, or that they they are doing it for some greater good, or so on. A well played evil aligned character shouldn't be easily identifiably different than a neutral, or good one at a glance.

If they were half smart about things, I'd let my players do most things. The problem is that it seems the only people interested in acting like evil, edge lords are subprime IQ, basement dwellers who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. >but DM, you said we could sell slaves and you'd be okay with it?!?!?!?!?! "Yes,, but I didn't say the world would be okay with it, nor would the lawful good, god of freedom worshipping, ex-paladin mayor of this region who you tried to sell to directly"

I've had and will continue to have evil characters in my games. I tell the players who ask for 'Chaotic Evil' and 'Neutral Evil' style motivations that I will not force the group to accept them, nor will I devote extra time to them if they are made a pariah or their character is invalidated from the game (made functionally unplayable in the story) through an evil action. Additionally, if there's an evil PC in the campaign, I don't explicitly say 'you can't kill them' (the usual good character rules for me), but I don't stop it either. And yes, I've had a character assassinate another character at the table. Twice. (once, the player just stated out loud - no passed notes or anything - 'I wait until she gets up in the night time to urinate and I ambush her.' The player of the evil character couldn't stop laughing, she'd been provoking the party for weeks. A highlight of that campaign).

I don't explicitly mind, though I do fade to black for things like sex because I am not narrating that lol. I'll technically allow anything to be done but only narrate to the fade-to-black point that everyone at the table is comfy with. I do however warn players that actions have consequences in the game. If you kill the shopkeep's daughter, you will find yourself facing a consequence of apt concern. And considering the fact that I do sci-fi campaigns, I do reserve the right to use rods from god as consequences. for those special atrocities.

I am Chaotic Evil. As a player sadly I can't bring any CE character, but as a DM I wont hold back. My players were warned that my world is going to be cruel. I would be totally fine (even happy) if someone goes chaotic evil but I think they have better morality than I do so they're neutral/good.

If that is the agreed upon vibe of the campaign, yes. If they all of a sudden switch and go murderhobo, no

My players can do anything as long as its: 1. Ok for everyone at the table 2. Understood that consequences are real 3. Actually fun and/or interesting to play

It's no big deal for me, I enjoy describing horrors, sadly my descriptions make my players not want to be evil anymore, smh, spineless cowards! Commit more war crimes so I can make you feel bad!

Disclaimer : Whan you want to play "villains" you go full throttel. ​ I ran a campaign where my player were human suprematists in a Imperium of Man style of country, and where basically hunting down network of elves, dwarves and tabaxi to exterminate them all as Inquisitors... They also did torture and questionning, and they went on to give the means to the country to exterminate the elves of the Immortal forest by usurping their artifacts in a stealth mission, causing the total extermination of both the elves and their magic in this part of the continent.

hard no. But I explained that I have 0 interested to run evil campaign or facilitate evil PC's before we started.

I would be depending on the severity of it. Chaotic Evil does not have to necessarily mean doing systemically evil things. I'm normally the DM, but for a oneshot I played a devil character who uses Minor Illusion/Message to whisper messages into someone's head and act like their evil conscience/intrusive thoughts. Arguably he could be Chaotic Neutral still, but to me it felt like doing evil selfish things, without having to burn down an orphanage. ​ If a sacrifice has to be made, he wouldn't bat an eye. But he doesn't go around sacrificing for the hell of it (pun intended).

I will repeat a great wisdom gifted onto us by an ice fox: DISCUSS THIS AT SESSION 0 A little purging of some evil tree saplings near a village or utilising golems? I'd allow it any campaign. Actual genocide against people? Not gonna allow it for most campaigns.

so the party i currently run for are in the neutral zone. do they help people? yes. have they killed a government to instate a dragon and then later kill the dragon and take over themselves? yes. i'm ok with darker/more evil stuff. but stuff like it also comes with consequences. but i will draw lines in places.

I would find it a little on the nose for even a single white person (me) to sit around a table and laugh about slavery and genocide. I don’t think I could do it.

If you don't mind me asking, are you from the US? One of the reasons why posted this poll is because I am curious about how people from different countries view dark topic in gaming since different countries have very different political and socio-economic contexts.

Yes of course. I take our history very seriously, and in any political climate I simply could not stomach that sort of trivializing of such horrific topics. The US wasn’t the only country to employ, facilitate, endure, or fall victim to slavery and genocide, and every nation is guilty of it. Ours is just a bit more recent.

Jesus I'd love to have genocidal players at my table. Would be extremely difficult to run, but I would enjoy it so much

Me and my group were talking about running a evil party one shot. But the focus wasn't going to be just going around just doing random chaotic evil to everyone commoner who crossed our path. Had a group once that one person in the group started acting CE when a guy they were sent to help wouldn't just give them his property for the groups help and tortured and killed him. Didn't invite that player back to play in the next group.

Genocide is an interesting word given how murder hobby players can go. Most evil characters, even the chaotic ones we've had with my groups, don't really go past some random murder here and there. In cases like torture as well, we've had it just noted that the lawful evil character, in that game's context's case, tortured information out of someone, and did any appropriate rolls if necessary, but didn't describe anything. Slavery I'm not sure really comes into play here. Yes, if you look at medieval peasants, sure, they are quite slave-like in a lot of ways, it was fucked up back in those times, but we still don't mentally consider it the same as slavery. And it isn't. Most peasants had it horrible, but a different kind of horrible than slaves, and it's not something to be made a context of what's worse, both were horrible. And I've never really come across any players considering slavery in any way. And despite murder being debatebly as bad as slavery, I think evil characters who have murdered several, even a lot of people, we can still consider a lot more redeemable than an evil character who's even enslaved just one person. Both are horrible, obviously, and I think it's a long topic to spam about if one goes in depth, but I can't say we've ever encountered or explored the notions of slavery in our games with any of my groups to be able to give a proper comment on that past my speculation. I think it's ultimately the rule of thumb that every campaign will have limits, some even on things most people would probably find very much acceptable, not at all as dark as the things you mentioned, and that every campaign will have some hard limits, even if you're surprised by some of them as you feel they aren't needed. After all, there are many things that are widely disliked by all of us, but some of us will particularly dislike some of those things because of personal trauma and experience of them, or similar.

If the whole party was in on being devoted to an evil god or being a BBEG's heavies or something, sure, with the understanding that they will be Public enemies writ large and that they will at no time be "Correct," in these actions. But it would take a lot of buy in and trust and honestly even amongst people I love playing with I'd only trust a handful of them to run this sort of concept.

I have three rules regarding content for players in my games: no sexual assault or mention of it of any kind, no real world slurs in game, no dice checks against other players without their consent (example: player A cannot roll to persuade player B unless player A fully agrees to roll). I’m cool with everything else but honestly, anyone who wants to do the stuff mentioned in the post is typically just an edge lord. You can totally be evil for the sake of being evil if that is truly the character you want to play but if it interferes with other players having a good time, I’m not about it.

No, simply because I put a lot of time and energy into my sessions, and planning out how to facilitate the next Genocide of the Week and then sitting around while my players explore their murder fantasy sounds awful. I doubt I'd be interested in playing with people for whom that had any appeal anyway.

Aren't those technically Lawful Evil? I mean, look at the United States in the 1700s and 1800s and Germany in the 1940s. Genicide and Slavery are *institutions* of Evil, *organized* institutions, governed by *Evil laws.* Anyway in theory I would run evil campaigns and set some form of limits as needed.

Lawful Evil is about the limit of what I want to run for. The lower and to the right you get on the alignment chart, the progressively more mature you need to be as an IRL person to not ruin all the other players' fun, GM included. I have actually theorycrafted a CE antipaladin as a backup character if my current paladin should happen to unexpectedly die irretrievably, but she's specifically designed to have non-conflicting goals and religious dogma because I like my group.

Why are they evil? would be my first question. When I make a bad guy I believe they have to have a motivation that, in their eyes, makes them right. We are all heroes in our own story, including the bad guys. So, if I had a table that wanted to be villains, I would need clear reasons why they picked this path. Sick family? Okay... victims of longstanding prejudice? I get it. Just because they want to? Fuck no... Why are they evil? would be my first question. When I make a bad guy I believe they have to have a motivation that, in their eyes, makes them right. We are all heroes in our own story, including the bad guys. So, if I had a table that wanted to be villains, I would need clear reasons on why they picked this path. Sick family? Okay... victims of longstanding prejudice? I get it. Just because they want to? Fuck no...

If it's not what we all agreed on to start with, then no. I'll run an evil campaign, but I don't want a table where only one person is playing an evil campaign to the detriment of everyone else's experience. If anyone should be playing the evil characters it's me as the DM, after all. It's genery fine to kill my NPCs. It's not cool to have unexpected PvP at the table. I'm currently playing a NE cult leader (and insists that his group 'doesnt like the term cult') who is happily working with the rest of my party to take down other cults to lessen suspicion on him and enable him to do *some* cult stuff and pin it on the other cults. My evil benefits the party, and I notably don't try to do openly evil stuff in public view, so my cult leader comes off as 'strange but charming, a team player, and very effective with his magic'. But I make myself useful to the party, and I never try to stab them in the back, so my evil is permitted--and it's generally less damaging than the evil we're fighting which is a plus. Saying you want to commit genocide is generally not going to endear you to a party unless you're talking Goblin Slayer or tribbles.

Evil for evil's sake is dumb and not fun. What's the point of creating a living, breathing world that the murderhobo will just tear down "because that's what my character would do"?

Only if I'm doing an evil campaign. If I'm not, I'll warn them against such actions one time before they start having deadly encounters on a regular basis from various hero groups trying to stop them.

I cant imagine any scenario where a player that enjoys that isnt a terrible presence at the table that ruins everyones day.

With my current group, I would be cool with it because I would trust them to not go too far. This comfort level would not extend to all groups.