Anti-Heroquest....or Evilquest if you will..........

[chaoticprime]

chaoticprime - I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with most of what you've said...it is a little too
"lofty philosophical" for me. I do agree that evil would, most times, want to stamp out chaos.
Realize in most roleplaying games, Law is the Opposite and Chaos, mainly drawing on the original
rpg D&D, which set down that idea. (actually, the original D&D was only law and chaos...they didn't
introduce good and evil until later, if I remember correctly.)

I think one of the ideas behind using Law vs Chaos is, it is much easier to understand than outright
philosophy, which is the direction you go with, apparently. Nothing wrong with that...it just isn't all
that accessible for all players (myself included...never do well in deep philosophical discussions on chaos
vs law vs good vs evil).


Now, to the point at hand, I personally think a bad-guy game would be neat every so often, especially if it
is possible to keep it in with the story line. Maybe the heroes irritate the bad guys enough that they make
an attack at them, and in comes the bad guy game. The game master runs the actual heroes, and some extra
soldiers, archers, and such, and the players play the bad guy game master characters as their own characters
for a game or two.

I think it would be a great idea to allow the players to run the monsters sometimes...this is a fairly well-known
game titled "reverse dungeon". The game master makes his four characters, and the players together run the
quests for a bit. I honestly think the heroes would have a hard time beating this kind of game, as four players
running all the different monsters would lead to a whole lot tougher monsters to fight.

No, you didn't remember correctly. The original D&D only had Good. You could not play as Evil. Lawful and Chaotic were not introduced until AD&D, and even then you still could not play as Evil. Everyone still did, though.

Also, mine was not my own philosophy, that was the actual mythology of the Warhammer universe that HeroQuest takes place in. Though, still, Chaos and Cosmos are opposites, not Chaos and Law. RPG's do a lot of similar things, like making up words such as chainmail or longsword. They're still wrong, and those things did not, and never will, actually exist.

How hard is it to grasp the idea that a cosmos is an ordered universe, and chaos is a universe without order? That's literally why those two words exist.

[Sjeng]

oh come now. Wikipedia has loads of info on chainmail, or mail as it's listed there:

The earliest finds of European pattern mail are from the 3rd century BC from Horný Jatov, Slovakia, and a Celtic chieftain's burial located in Ciumeşti, Romania.[1] Its invention is commonly credited to the Celts,[2] but there are examples of Etruscan pattern mail predating from at least the 4th century BC.[3][4][5] Mail may have been inspired by the much earlier scale armour.

Same with Longsword.
They existed allright.

[chaoticprime]

oh come now. Wikipedia has loads of info on chainmail, or mail as it's listed there:

The earliest finds of European pattern mail are from the 3rd century BC from Horný Jatov, Slovakia, and a Celtic chieftain's burial located in Ciumeşti, Romania.[1] Its invention is commonly credited to the Celts,[2] but there are examples of Etruscan pattern mail predating from at least the 4th century BC.[3][4][5] Mail may have been inspired by the much earlier scale armour.

Same with Longsword.
They existed allright.

The objects called chainmail and longsword existed, but were not called such. Those are both modern terms...

Here's a better explanation:

The English-language terminology used in the classification of swords is imprecise, and has varied widely over
time, with terms such as "broadsword", "long sword", "short-sword", and "two-handed sword" being used to describe
weapons with no particular relation to one another. However in modern times many of these have been given
specific meanings (although sometimes quite arbitrarily). Some of these terms originate contemporary with the
weapon they refer to, others are modern or early modern terms used by antiquarians, curators, and modern-day sword
enthusiasts for historical swords.
Terminology was further complicated by terms introduced (i.e. "hand-and-a-half sword", "single-handed sword",
"Pappenheimer",
[1][2]
"Walloon sword", "Sinclair Sabre", "Mortuary sword","spada da lato", "town sword", etc.) or
misinterpreted (i.e. bastard sword,
[3]
broadsword,
[4][5]
rapier,
[6]
estoc, flamberge, etc.) in the 19th century by
antiquarians, and in 20th century pop culture (sword and sorcery, role playing games, video games, etc.); and by
various Western martial arts associations (HEMAC, EHCG, KDF, ARMA, etc.) in the 21st century whose general
misinterpretation of the term "long sword" used by George Silver and Joseph Swetnam (where it is wrongly equated
to the German Schwert), and adding new terms to the mix such as "great sword", "zweihänder" (instead of
Bidenhänder), and "cut-and-thrust sword
[7]
". These Western martial arts associations then reconstructed the German
term for having both hands on the hilt known as langes Schwert into "longsword",
[8]
and the spada da lato, a term
that was coined by Italian curators, into "side-sword". Furthermore, there is a disregard for the use of the broadsword
term
[9]
by these associations. All these newly introduced or redefined sword terms are far from being historical
especially in the English sense of the classification of swords and only add to the confusion of the matter.
The most well known systematic typology of blade types of the European medieval sword is the Oakeshott typology
(although this is a modern classification and not a medieval one, and has many overlaps). Elizabethans used
descriptive terms such as "short", "bastard", and "long" which emphasized the length of the blade, and "two-handed"
for any sword that could be wielded as such.

[bruenor]

[TMU]

The objects called chainmail and longsword existed, but were not called such. Those are both modern terms...

No offence, but who cares?! It doesn't matter to the gaming no matter what they are called.

Sorry Bruenor...

[bruenor]

S'ok TMU at least you aimed to disrupt the arguement

[torilen]

Basic D&D - Basic, Expert, Master, Companion, etc. - There are two alignments...Lawful and Chaotic.

The way it is explained in most rpg's is that Lawful means you follow laws and rules, either man's or religions.
Chaotic means you care nothing for laws and rules, and use them only to further your own purpose, or break
them when it serves your purpose.

As far as good or evil...good means you look out for others, care more for others than perhaps even yourself.
You would try to do "good" things. Evil would mean you want to hurt others and cause dissension among others.
You would want others to argue and distrust one another, breaking up relationships.

So, I think the question would be, how evil do you want your players to be? Do you want them simply going against the
"good guys" - the empire and those who follow the laws of the land? Or do you want them going around killing innocents,
destroying as much as they possibly can before they are stopped. Do want simply rebel nobles type evil, or necromancers
summoning undead and demons evil?

[Daedalus]

I've recently been playing a Sir Ragnar Quest in the Play by Post forum. The Heroes are all Men-at-arms/Mercenaries with bumped stats. I think this same idea could be applied to an Evil Quest just using monsters from the game.

a greenskin party:

A Orc Warlord
An Orc Shaman (WoM Orc spells)
An Orc Crossbowman
A Goblin Scout (attack, defend, and disarm traps as the Scout)

other options:

A Fimir Champion
A Chaos Warrior
A Chaos Sorcerer (equipment restrictions and Chaos spells)

There's enough weapon variation within the Orc figures to distinguish them in a party of Anti-heroes, but maybe it would be a good idea to swap in the other monsters for greater variety. I think White shields would be needed for defense to reflect thier anti-heroic stature. It also would be a good idea to allow them Hero actions and abilities, such as opening doors, using potions and artifacts, and searching for traps, secret doors, and treasure.

[torilen]

not to seem rude, but I figured it was just assumed that anti-heroes would act just
as heroes when it comes to any actions and abilities allowed during the game.

I think a game master would need to be careful to ensure that the anti-heroes are
balanced well. For example, putting a goblin, an orc, a fimir, and a chaos warrior
together as a party just would not work, unless the goblin and the orc were beefed
up quite a bit.
I know it would cut down on the options a bit, but perhaps using all of the same type
of monster with a couple using varied weapons, and one using spells...that could work
pretty well, I think.

[TMU]

Well, neither originals heroes are balanced (barb AD 3 DD 2, wiz AD 1 DD 2), so I see no problem putting together Fimir and goblin for example. (fimir AD 3 DD 3, goblin AD 2 DD 1) I would tho switch goblind AD & DD.