1. English

Awesome archvillains for any Dungeons & Dragons(R) campaign.The Exemplars of Evil supplement shows Dungeon Masters how to construct memorable campaign villains and presents nine ready-to-play villains of various levels that can be easily incorporated into any D&D campaign. Each villainous entry provides complete statistics for the villain (or villains), as well as Awesome archvillains for any Dungeons & Dragons(R) campaign.The Exemplars of Evil supplement shows Dungeon Masters how to construct memorable campaign villains and presents nine ready-to-play villains of various levels that can be easily incorporated into any D&D campaign. Each villainous entry provides complete statistics for the villain (or villains), as well as adventure seeds, campaign hooks, pregenerated minions, and a fully detailed lair.

Schwalb, a writer and award-winning game designer best known for his work on Dungeons & Dragons, got his start in 2002 and has never looked back. He has designed or developed almost two hundred gaming books in both print and digital formats for Wizards of the Coast, Green Ronin Publishing, Black Industries, Fantasy Flight Games, and several other companies. Some of his best-known Robert J. Schwalb, a writer and award-winning game designer best known for his work on Dungeons & Dragons, got his start in 2002 and has never looked back. He has designed or developed almost two hundred gaming books in both print and digital formats for Wizards of the Coast, Green Ronin Publishing, Black Industries, Fantasy Flight Games, and several other companies.

Some of his best-known books include the Dark Sun Campaign Setting, Player’s Handbook 3, A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying, Grimm, and Tome of Corruption. Look for Robert’s first novel in late 2011.What does Rob have to say?Fresh from my second go at college, all flushed and giddy for having graduated Magna cum Laude with special honors, I was ready to start writing fiction for a living. Reality didn’t waste any time intruding on my grandiose dream. The need for a steady job—beyond peddling liquor at the now closed Esquire Discount Liquors—became evident when the student loans clamored for repayment. Carpet, tile, and hardwood sales would be my future for a time. A friend ran a store in town and offered me a job.

My previous careers had been selling men’s clothes, fast food, and then extended warranties. Flooring was none of these things so I jumped at the chance.I was terrible.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. I had a degree in English and Philosophy. Flooring customers don’t quite get pre-Socratics humor. I stuck it out though and supplemented my income by selling liquor a few days a week. I got to chat up the regulars at the liquor store who happened by for their thrice-daily pints of Kessler/Skol/Wild Irish Rose. It seemed my fate was to join many other Philosophy majors and do nothing with my training.However, one night, I ran across Mongoose Publishing’s open call for book proposals. I thought about it for all of 3 seconds before working up my first pitch.

A little under a year later, my first book, The Quintessential Witch, hit the shelves. When I wrote the Witch, 3rd edition rules for Dungeons & Dragons were still new and fresh. The d20 system was gathering steam and gaming entered something of a renaissance as companies were created just to feed the insatiable appetite for all things D&D. There were probably more companies than there were writers and thus it proved a perfect time to break into the industry.Now I was no stranger to gaming.

My Dad introduced me to board games when I was very young with Wizard’s Quest by Avalon Hill. Then I discovered Conan, Dune, Gor, the Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and so on. My interest in fantasy kept growing so when my neighbor offered me Tracy and Laura Hickman’s Rahasia for a quarter, I happily paid. That little adventure changed my world forever.

English

I didn’t have the rules and had no idea what I was doing. I was hungry and figured out enough from the adventure to design my first roleplaying game. “Passages” became popular in my class for a week or two. We’d play during study hall or recess.My Dad noticed and when he went off to a publishing convention (he worked for a famous Bible publisher in Nashville), he talked with a TSR rep, who I imagine might have been Gary Gygax. My father told him that I was designing my own games, so the TSR fellow, in a deft and generous move, gave him a stack of books and adventures. I had everything but the rules of the game.

Luckily, a trip to the bookstore and meeting my soon-to-be Dungeon Master Landon, put the Red Box in my hands and my first character in my imagination. Creating the character was far less interesting than talking about comics, yet when we broke out the dice the next week and played the first game, I was hooked for life.This all happened at a time when conspiracy theories about Satanism gripped the nation. Certain members of my family bought into the hype and thought my soul was in peril.

So I stepped into a much wider world of RPGs. I played everything I could. Top Secret, DC Superheroes, Gamma World.

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 hate this.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.Yeah. 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'.Eh. 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.So. 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). 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. 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. 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.