Exemplars of Evil (3.5) - Villains for Your Campaign Every memorable adventure needs a great villain. You know the type: corrupt, reviled.

• Exemplars Of Evil
• Exemplars Of Evil D&d 3.5 Pdf
• Exemplars Of Evil D D 3.5 Pdf

GC, This is just an extension of what they've been doing with MM's for awhile now. They're no more than suggested ways to incorporate the character/monsters/concept into the two 'official' campaign settings. Unless it actually appears in a setting's product line, it might be a little unwise to consider such entries cannon. Also, remember that with the advent of 3E there is a lot less cross setting travel. I always got the impression they preferred campaigns have little to no connectivity, a proposition I'm not very thrilled with and happily ignored. So in a sense, there could be one such villain for FR and EB, or even none at all.

Depends on you. Given that the same people are working on 4E it is very likely you will be seeing more such entries in the future. Forgive me if I missed sarcasm in your post. Long night with crazy cats + only 1 cup of cofee = less than alert FP.

Happy holidays, and merry game sessions! They're trying to make it useful for just about any campaign. I mean, it's a book of quick villains; I wouldn't expect pulitzer prize material.

If you're too busy to actually make the guy from scratch, complete with stats, you could easily just grab one and go to town. Ideally, you take inspiration from the little blurb and then expand on it. Or steal the stats and come up your own motivation. I honestly don't think it's worth ragging on the book too hard; it's a book of villains, nothing more and nothing less and I wouldn't be too concerned with whether or not they can all exist everywhere. It's not like they've got whole novels written about them in each campaign setting. Grimcleaver: Kyuss DOES (did) exist in every setting, at least in the manner you're upset about. The AoWAP contained conversion notes (well, the PDF Overload did) about how to set the game up in Faerun and Eberron, though it semi-officially written for Greyhawk, and it was also understood that the AP could be plugged into any homebrew as well.

The assumption is, I suppose, a true universal canon exists for each setting independent of any others; but each gaming group takes this core canon and adds to it, like putting flesh on bones, making their own unique canon of how this or that happened in their setting. So what if someone ran AoW in Greyhawk? In your consistency, it was in Faerun. As far as that consistency is concerned, no other person's games/consistencies exist (unless you so choose them to), and thus are irrelevant.

As was said before, these don't exist in each setting simultaneously (unless you choose them to); the intent is simply that you use them for whatever setting you prefer. Other than Eberron, which launched under their watch, WotC hasn't put very much emphasis on true setting development in 3.x. Thus, they have nothing to tie any of this content to. But I don't think that's a bad thing. If I read a FR supplement and really liked something, I would pirate it for my games. I don't feel compelled to keep everything setting specific, particularly basic plot lines and story elements (mechanics, gear, and monsters I'm pickier about).

I don't want my ability to use something I think is cool limited by some sort of phobia about getting your Greyhawk in my Faerun (not that I, personally, run either, but you get the idea). Speaking of that, do you use a homebrew or an established setting?

If you don't use a homebrew, have you ever in the past, and what did you think about it? I can see where you're coming from a lot more if you prefer/exclusively use established settings over homebrews. I do homebews, and always have (my attempts to run FR always felt constrained). Thus, I'm free (even obligated) to make my own canon, and am always looking for something worthy of stealing and adopting into my setting. James Keegan: STOP IT! Stop changing your avatars! They just get creepier and creepier.

What type of sicko are you?! What game are you playing at, constantly morphing your image so grotesquely?! Grimcleaver wrote: I've always been a whiner. I hate the whole Pseudo-Greyhawk mess (dubbed AdHawk by a friend of mine) that WotC came up with with 3rd edition for reasons that were often obscure and hard to pin down for people.

Now they've finally pushed it too far. Hopefully this will get people understanding where I've always been coming from. I'm with Grimcleaver. I get more excited and inspired by villains with well-developed backgrounds who fit well into an existing setting (and history), even when it's not necessarily compatible with my campaign. Once that enthusiasm is there, I'll adapt as necessary. Purely generic characters/items/whatever don't inspire me.

To each their own:). Grim, I just overnighted your new dice bag with embroidered swastica, so you should have it by Xmas. But seriously, I think you and about ten thousand other gamers are taking this canon thing too seriously. Just because WotC gives ideas for putting villain X into every setting, it doesn't mean they actually expect every DM to use that villain the same way in every game they run. Not that it would matter anyway unless you're playing some kind of plane-hopping game. Actually I'm planning a Planescape game and it might make an interesting plot to pit the players against the same villain on different worlds. On second thought, I'd never do that.because SCREW CANON, WHATEVER IT IS!

Forgottenprince wrote: This is just an extension of what they've been doing with MM's for awhile now. They're no more than suggested ways to incorporate the character/monsters/concept into the two 'official' campaign settings. Unless it actually appears in a setting's product line, it might be a little unwise to consider such entries cannon. The thing is, you take this principle-telling me how X monster fits into each setting, and I really love it. Dragons, for example, should be different and have different niches in Pathfinder or Dragonlance or Faerun. I like the idea. The same creatures exist in different settings, so the more different spin you can put on them the more they seem to fit.

I usually take all that stuff as canon, and am skiddish using a monster in a setting where they chose not to make the little blurb nowadays (though Warforged in Faerun just got the green light after the Grand History of the Realms). Tequila Sunrise wrote: Grim, I just overnighted your new dice bag with embroidered swastica, so you should have it by Xmas. Y'know if it wasn't so darn un-PC.(maybe a patch that says 'NO SOUP FOR YOU!' ) But seriously, I think you and about ten thousand other gamers are taking this canon thing too seriously.

Just because WotC gives ideas for putting villain X into every setting, it doesn't mean they actually expect every DM to use that villain the same way in every game they run. Not that it would matter anyway unless you're playing some kind of plane-hopping game. Actually I'm planning a Planescape game and it might make an interesting plot to pit the players against the same villain on different worlds. On second thought, I'd never do that.because SCREW CANON, WHATEVER IT IS! Well not unless my players played in different settings regularly and, say heard that the same exact location and politics were to exist in each. No danger of that in Eberron, but I have concurrent Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms games going all the time.

Besides it bothers me enough, I would probably take them at their word and port all of these carbon copy badguys into my various games just to bring it up and rub a big fat lemon in the wound. This stuff is freaking lazy. Saern wrote: Grimcleaver: Kyuss DOES (did) exist in every setting, at least in the manner you're upset about. The AoWAP contained conversion notes (well, the PDF Overload did) about how to set the game up in Faerun and Eberron, though it semi-officially written for Greyhawk, and it was also understood that the AP could be plugged into any homebrew as well. The assumption is, I suppose, a true universal canon exists for each setting independent of any others; but each gaming group takes this core canon and adds to it, like putting flesh on bones, making their own unique canon of how this or that happened in their setting. So what if someone ran AoW in Greyhawk?

In your consistency, it was in Faerun. As far as that consistency is concerned, no other person's games/consistencies exist (unless you so choose them to), and thus are irrelevant. As was said before, these don't exist in each setting simultaneously (unless you choose them to); the intent is simply that you use them for whatever setting you prefer. Other than Eberron, which launched under their watch, WotC hasn't put very much emphasis on true setting development in 3.x.

Thus, they have nothing to tie any of this content to. That is exactly what bothers me. I consider it a little tasteless to have the exact same events unfolding in all the different settings. I consider the histories sacrosanct and as far as I'm concerned Age of Worms (and every other Dungeon adventure path) happened in Greyhawk. I figured this was just the end all be all that would make even the most jaded adapter throw up his hands and understand my pain.

Unfortunately no-you guys are hardy folk. Saern wrote: Speaking of that, do you use a homebrew or an established setting? If you don't use a homebrew, have you ever in the past, and what did you think about it? I can see where you're coming from a lot more if you prefer/exclusively use established settings over homebrews. I do homebews, and always have (my attempts to run FR always felt constrained). Thus, I'm free (even obligated) to make my own canon, and am always looking for something worthy of stealing and adopting into my setting.

I do both, but there's a pure joy in dropping players into a fingerlicking good established setting. Currently we've got a Greyhawk game, a Sundered Empire game (which I guess is a Greyhawk game-just a different part), a Planescape game (which I guess is a Greyhawk game-just a different part), and a Pathfinder game. I've got a Dark Sun game that'd be fun to go back to and a Faerun game that got rave reviews.

Allen Stewart wrote: Guys, I think that they have to make most of these villains generic enough to 'plug-n-play' in any campaign setting, or they risk people (like myself) not purchasing the book. Many players & DM's have particular settings that they play in, and if some/many of the included villains are 'hard-wired' into another (specific) campaign setting, you're reducing the likelihood that I'll purchase the book. Or you do what they've been famously doing for years now and write 'Dragons of Faerun' rather than 'Dragons of Wherever You Want'. I guess the 'plug-n-play' has been my biggest problem with third edition. Fortunately it's much more an organic part of the next one.

When that finally rolls around it should (hope-hope-hope) fix a ton of the things that bother me. I'm still having trouble getting my head around this. If WOTC or PAizo publishes something and makes even the tiniest reference to it happening, then it has to happen in your game? I don't get it. It's not lazy at all, it's trying to provide the maximum benefit to all purchasers. Do you use the Isle of Dread on Oerth (Greyhawk)?.

Because that's from the Known World (Mystara) originally. Sorry that was a bit 'off' but this is a game of individual imagination. I freely ignore, rip off and steal canon like no-one's business. A lot of canon for the published worlds is great, and some of it is very silly indeed.

Grimcleaver wrote: Well not unless my players played in different settings regularly and, say heard that the same exact location and politics were to exist in each. No danger of that in Eberron, but I have concurrent Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms games going all the time. Besides it bothers me enough, I would probably take them at their word and port all of these carbon copy badguys into my various games just to bring it up and rub a big fat lemon in the wound. This stuff is freaking lazy. Well maybe I've just been unfortunate in the number of games I've played in, which is entirely possible, but I've never played in two games where the DMs used similar material. If I had a DM that used the same villain in two games, I'd have faith that they would be doing it for some kind of purpose (other than to rub the lemon in the wound).

Exemplars Of Evil

Or if they really were just mindlessly following 'canon' I might use my ooc knowledge to my advantage or just quit. Either way, it's a matter of DMing skill and judgment not designer laziness. If I were playing under two separate DMs who happened to be using the same villain, so what? That's the downside of playing so popular an rpg as D&D; increased risk of overlap. The simple solution of course being the same solution as having ooc knowledge of any other game info; use it, ignore it or quit the game.

After all you can't reasonably expect that two games run by two different DMs to run on the same continuity. Frankly it bothers me a lot more that the same, and often very specific and unique, monsters appear in almost every d&d game than the slight possibility of playing in two games with the same villain bothers me. Tequila Sunrise wrote: Frankly it bothers me a lot more that the same, and often very specific and unique, monsters appear in almost every d&d game than the slight possibility of playing in two games with the same villain bothers me. Total agreement. The monsters found in a setting are one of the things that make it unique (case in point: I love Pathfinder goblins, but I don't use them copy-and-paste in my homebrews because they belong in Pathfinder though I must admit taking some influence from Paizo's excellent work). But if I see a good idea for a villain, his minions, territory, or evil scheme, and it's not inseparable from a setting's canon (most aren't; even Kyuss isn't inherently), I have no qualms thinking 'Oh, cool! I am so stealing that for myself!'

Back to the main issue of discussion, what if it were worded only slightly differently (or one's interpretation of existing wording was slightly different). Rather than 'Villain X exists in world A, B, and C,' what if it were, 'If you choose to say Villain X is from world A, here are some customizations to make.

If you choose to say Villain X is from world B, here are some customizations to make. If you choose to say Villain X is from world C, here are some customizations to make.'

Thus, Villain X does only exist in one world- as far as you're concerned (this is actually what the current model says). You just get to choose which one. It would be stupid, from a marketing perspective, to say 'Villain X only exists in world A' if, in fact, Villain X doesn't inherently play a significant enough role in world A to be inseparable from world A's canon. Anyone who wanted to rip it off would anyway, and they'd just loose certain potential buyers who would be turned off because they don't use Faerun or Greyhawk or whatever. An alternative is that WotC makes the book much larger (and more expensive) and covers villains from each world individually and separately, but that still hoses homebrewers, unless they go back and throw some generics in there as well, and it would probably make people question paying the increased price for a dubious increase in utility. Frankly, the book sounds crappy to me anyway.

I'm not going to buy it, regardless of what setting(s) they do or don't mention. But, again, the designers are not saying 'Villain X exists everywhere.' They are saying 'Villain X exists in the world of your choice.' Villain X is not tied irreversably to any specific setting because Villain X is comprised of things found in all settings (I'm assuming). I also feel safe in assuming the designers assume that you, the DM, don't think that just because a book, not tied to any real setting, gives some suggestions about possible villains, that those villains then do and must exist in all the known worlds simultaneously.

Exemplars Of Evil D&d 3.5 Pdf

Saern wrote: Back to the main issue of discussion, what if it were worded only slightly differently (or one's interpretation of existing wording was slightly different). Rather than 'Villain X exists in world A, B, and C,' what if it were, 'If you choose to say Villain X is from world A, here are some customizations to make. If you choose to say Villain X is from world B, here are some customizations to make. If you choose to say Villain X is from world C, here are some customizations to make.' Back to the main issue of discussion, what if it were worded only slightly differently (or one's interpretation of existing wording was slightly different). Rather than 'Villain X exists in world A, B, and C,' what if it were, 'If you choose to say Villain X is from world A, here are some customizations to make.

Exemplars Of Evil D D 3.5 Pdf

If you choose to say Villain X is from world B, here are some customizations to make. If you choose to say Villain X is from world C, here are some customizations to make.' The problem is bigger than the example though. The problem is that they've already set up such flimsy barriers between settings that it's hard to know what goes where, and ultimately that the designers and many of the players just don't care. What will ultimately fix my problem for me is 4e, and frankly I can't wait! There will be a nice base campaign setting where all the contents of the main books live, and campaign specific books for all the other settings-kept nice and tidy, and most importantly separate.

Hooking every core book into Greyhawk was a bad design move from the start. Starting fresh and rebooting everything will give me the chance to just let go of a lot of clunky, lazy stuff that was done with the old 'setting' (if you can really call it that) and start fresh too. Fiddling with nomenclature might downgrade it from rip-my-hair-out irritating to sadly-shurg-my-shoulders apathy inducing. ©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc.

Under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.

41 – 1.52.25908.314.25908 (2018-01-31 15:32).