Forked Thread: What are the no-goes for you? - Evil campaigns

[Hussar]

Forked from: That thread on No Goes

Originally Posted by thedungeondelver

(major snippage)

- No evil PCs. Yes, like someone else said, I know there's plenty of people who've HEARD of games where evil PCs worked. I've never seen it. Typically it becomes a deathmatch that never leaves the city or inn or it's a bunch of nutcakes working out their weird and hateful fetishes through D&D. So. No thanks.

I'm near the end of an evil campaign at the moment and it ran pretty darn well actually. But, there are a few things I felt that I had to do in the first place to make it work.

The absolute most important thing, IMO, to make an evil campaign work is the PC's backgrounds. This is MUCH more important than in a good group. You truly, truly need a background from the PC's that meshes with each other. They must have a reason to be together. That, right there, heads off most of the problems before they start.

What I did was have the players create their backgrounds as a group. No one got to go off and do up a background on their own. And, as part of that background, every PC had to have meaningful links to at least two other PC's. Either shared experiences, shared goals or even familial links. Whatever. It just had to be stuff that actually meant something to the PC's.

Sure, they're evil, but, they work together because they aren't stupid. They know that their goals tend to be along the same line and they are much better off working together than on their own.

The second thing was I just meta-gamed it. I flat out stated that the campaign was PVE, to use a MMORPGism. In a player vs environment system, you aren't allowed to gank your fellow players, except in some very specific, mutually agreed circumstances. I tossed the problem into their laps. They had to come up with reasons as to why they weren't screwing each other over that made sense to them.

And it's worked very, very well. They are definitely an evil group. No question about that at all. But, they do work together reasonably well as well. Either they just ignore each other when one does something that might annoy another PC, or they come up with methods as to how the issue can be dealt with without drawing weapons.

Kinda like a mafia family. I keep hearing the Sopranos theme song during play.

So, I would say that it is absolutely possible to play an evil group. I would also say that it can be a very interesting change from regular play (although, I think my players are getting a bit tired of it to be honest - one player said that he was rather happy the campaign was coming to a conclusion, he was tired of being an every session. ) But, yeah, it can be done. I would say that it's more challenging than a regular campaign in some ways. Certainly not better, but, also certainly different.

[Carpe DM]

I agree. My thoughts on an evil campaign here.

[Mort]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Forked from: That thread on No Goes
So, I would say that it is absolutely possible to play an evil group. I would also say that it can be a very interesting change from regular play (although, I think my players are getting a bit tired of it to be honest - one player said that he was rather happy the campaign was coming to a conclusion, he was tired of being an every session. ) But, yeah, it can be done. I would say that it's more challenging than a regular campaign in some ways. Certainly not better, but, also certainly different.

If I were to run an "evil" campaign I'd do it pretty much how you outlined yours. In other words, eliminate the biggest problem evil campaigns cause - massive inter party conflict causing problems between players. My group would likely take to it well, though like yours I bet they'd get tired of it somewhat quickly (I doubt I could run a multi-year arc like most other campaigns).

[Hobo]

I've had great luck with evil campaigns, to the point where I actually prefer them.

Of course, I play with people who are mature. Most of the problems I hear about with evil campaigns are what I would consider immaturity. To be honest with you, "evil" is often a label applied retroactively, not something we plan on. I just get rid of alignment altogether, and I end up with some PCs that would fairly be called evil.

That doesn't make them unplayable, and I struggle with the idea that "Oh, I'm evil! I must kill the other PCs now." No, that's not what that means.

[maddman75]

I'm playing in an oWoD game, which is very much an 'evil' game. I mean we're all vampires. My character in particular, a southern rock musician, has his Humanity down to 3. Which means that humans are just playthings to him, he honestly couldn't care less if one dies, even at his hands.

What is important to him is the main thing - having a good time, and his friends. He dislikes most of the other vampires in the city, but has a few that he can count on. We don't try to kill each other or what have you. Not that there's no conflict - the prince was recently assassinated and a new one rose. One PC was in the prince's clan and my PC was good friends with them. Other PCs have been brought into the fold. So there's a division, but we still watch out for each other.

I think that's the important part. Just because you're an evil group doesn't mean you're not a group.

[Doug McCrae]

It's worked for my current group, not so well for groups I've been in previously. I think the key factors were:

1) PCs work together as a team. They are loyal to the group, to the other PCs. One could argue that they are evil to the world, but good to one another.
2) No one is a raving psychopath, Evil kind of evil. The PCs are bad dudes but they are still sympathetic. Like the Punisher or Elektra, not the Red Skull.
3) We'd become a bit more mature, allowing us to avoid PvP.

[Crothian]

Of course it can work with the right people and the right DM. It can also not work like any other style for some people.

My experiences have been mostly that they aren't all that different. People do the same thing in normal D&D just different motivation (kill things and take their stuff). Other times peopel want evil because they believe it gives them an excuse to do what ever they want with no reprucussions. There was one evil game I was in that we weren't actually evil. It said evil on the character sheets and we worked for an evil god but we didn't really do anything evil just the same old same old.

I like it when DM's say they want an evil campaign and we all agree on it. What worries me more is when a player suggests it because he's rarely thinking of the group.

[MichaelK]

I've run a lot of games in my day and few have been so much of an abysmal failure as the two 'evil' games I tried to run.

However from the ruins of that, I think I've drawn a number of valuable lessons and if I were to run another evil game, I'm sure it would turn out much better than either of those two.

For the moment though I'm preferring to run games that are heroic or at worst antiheroic or morally grey.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Crothian

My experiences have been mostly that they aren't all that different. People do the same thing in normal D&D just different motivation (kill things and take their stuff).

That's an interesting point. D&D's default mode of play - kill things and take their stuff - is an evil campaign. That it says 'good' on the PCs' alignment boxes is irrelevant, they ain't nice people.

[avin]

As a player, of the group is composed of mature experienced roleplayers, I'll join a evil campaign on a heartbeat.

As a GM, I have no much faith in ALL EVIL parties the same way I don't like te GOOD DOERS party. I have GMed for two guys who decided to crucify a soldier from a fortress they couldn't get in to force people go out and fight them. They weren't "evil" all the time, but the act they made was coherent with their "veteran of war - don't care to rules - if there's so money we're in" character.

Now, if they decide to start killing children on villages "just because" the game will became boring to me and I'll stop it next session, the same way I won't GM for some church guys who just decide to force their point of view in different cultures.

(Didn't expressed myself the way I'd express if this was a brazilian board...)

[gamerprinter]

Our group tried an evil campaign about 20 years ago, where two of the PCs played what I'd call Chaotic Stupid, in that they played evil characters wrong and caused party problems.

Why is it that each could DM an intelligent evil BBEG, yet when doing so as players, they all become stupid - didn't get it. So that campaign ended in fiasco.

Then last year, we tried it again. The players are more mature and with barely any preconceived rulings everything worked smoothly. We had a common enemy, common goals, worked well together and did basically evil things in the setting.

Something changed over those 20 years, don't know what exactly beyond maturation. But it worked fine this time.

I think the DM in charge made the difference - no control the first time, and thoughtful sharing the workload the second time. The key here is the DM and how the game is run - makes all the difference in the world.

GP

[Mallus]

I think the social contract is the most important thing when running an evil campaign. Agree what the boundaries are --ie no PvP, limited doubles-crossing-- and abide by them. I don't find skillfully interwoven backgrounds any more important in an evil campaign than in a good one. They're nice to have in either, but by no means a requirement.

At the end of the day, it isn't the characters who create the conflicts, it's the players. So why pretend the characters have any real part in it?

For the record, none of the characters in my 4e group consider themselves evil. I'm not sure many others in the setting share that view.

[outsider]

Teamwork really is the key. The players and their characters need to realise they will accomplish more as a group than they can individually. Groups like an assassin's guild, thieves guild, a pack of gnolls, and the like are extremely evil, but understand that teamwork benefits them all. They do, however, limit character design a bit too much. It can be hard to find a common goal for a mixed group of evil doers, but it's definitely possible.

[Clavis]

I started playing D&D in Northeastern NJ during the 80s, in a time and place when it was heavily associated with the Heavy Metal scene. Having parties comprised of Chaotic, Neutral, and Evil characters was the expected default style of play for most people I knew. It wasn't until recently that I met players who would play any kind of Good other than Chaotic Good. I can think of 1 player who ever played Lawful Good characters. Everybody else wanted to play hard-living semi-bandits who were completely in it for the money and power. Nobody wanted Tolkeinesque Good versus Evil storylines. At best, players would agree to be the bad guys who more-or-less accidentally wound up defeating the even-worse guys. And it wan't that they wouldn't role-play, it was just that players generally wanted to role-play the lives of quasi-criminals living by their own rules. It still strikes me as strange when I hear about games where players can't have evil characters. To this day when I design an adventure I never assume that the PCs are in any way heroic, but rather have perfectly mercenary reasons for getting involved.

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah, I think it can be done quite well. Generally speaking I think it just needs more guidelines, like my groups for evil campaigns have these:

• Keep everyone on the same page. If your playing cartoony evil, everyone is on that page. If your playing a more subtle, complicated evil, everyone is on that page. This helps reduce the chance of players going off into areas that are distasteful, harmful to the campaign, etc.
• Don't view evil campaigns as different method wise. There is still a story, sandbox, or whatever method you employ. The events that take place are simply different.
• Flesh out the characters. I think this is the best way to avoid any harm, is to make them actual fleshed out characters, the harm comes in when people just do one-dimensional evil characters.
• Related to above. Not everything need be evil all the time. Just like how good PCs may perform unsavoury tasks at times, evil may not always perform evil tasks or intend to cause as much harm or mayhem as possible.
• For the DM, build a cast of NPCs that relate to the PCs. This can be a way to monitor ones level of "evilness" and keep the PCs tied to what is happening. You may have a character that is neutral and above your PCs or someone despicable and below the level your PCs would go.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Mallus

At the end of the day, it isn't the characters who create the conflicts, it's the players. So why pretend the characters have any real part in it?

So one can avoid responsibility I guess. The nature of roleplaying really strongly encourages passive-aggressive behaviour imo. It's not me being a jerk, it's my character! And that's doubly true of evil campaigns.

[kitsune9]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Forked from: That thread on No Goes



I'm near the end of an evil campaign at the moment and it ran pretty darn well actually. But, there are a few things I felt that I had to do in the first place to make it work.

The absolute most important thing, IMO, to make an evil campaign work is the PC's backgrounds. This is MUCH more important than in a good group. You truly, truly need a background from the PC's that meshes with each other. They must have a reason to be together. That, right there, heads off most of the problems before they start.

What I did was have the players create their backgrounds as a group. No one got to go off and do up a background on their own. And, as part of that background, every PC had to have meaningful links to at least two other PC's. Either shared experiences, shared goals or even familial links. Whatever. It just had to be stuff that actually meant something to the PC's.

Sure, they're evil, but, they work together because they aren't stupid. They know that their goals tend to be along the same line and they are much better off working together than on their own.

The second thing was I just meta-gamed it. I flat out stated that the campaign was PVE, to use a MMORPGism. In a player vs environment system, you aren't allowed to gank your fellow players, except in some very specific, mutually agreed circumstances. I tossed the problem into their laps. They had to come up with reasons as to why they weren't screwing each other over that made sense to them.

And it's worked very, very well. They are definitely an evil group. No question about that at all. But, they do work together reasonably well as well. Either they just ignore each other when one does something that might annoy another PC, or they come up with methods as to how the issue can be dealt with without drawing weapons.

Kinda like a mafia family. I keep hearing the Sopranos theme song during play.

So, I would say that it is absolutely possible to play an evil group. I would also say that it can be a very interesting change from regular play (although, I think my players are getting a bit tired of it to be honest - one player said that he was rather happy the campaign was coming to a conclusion, he was tired of being an every session. ) But, yeah, it can be done. I would say that it's more challenging than a regular campaign in some ways. Certainly not better, but, also certainly different.

You hit on a comment that made our evil adventure (we didn't play in a campaign) work and work really well--we metagamed it. We as players, knew we were playing LE, NE, and CE characters and that we would have to be working together somehow, so we rolled with the DM on the intro of bringing us together and blammo, we had a total blast.

I think that in order for an evil campaign to work, it takes an upfront "gentlemen's agreement" between the players to work with each other and do the aspect of Player vs. Environment as you mentioned. Then everyone can act like psychopaths against the villagers, fireball homes, kick puppies, etc., and have a good time in that the game won't break down at the very start with everyone getting knifed in the inn.

The other aspect though is that if you have players who work very well together heroicly, they should be able to pull off the same with evil characters, but if you have players who total jerks to each other when playing heroic campaigns, then I'd abandon any idea of giving them gasoline and matches.

[Bumbles]

Evil adds a complication to the game, that's difficult to manage. I respect people who choose to avoid that trouble.

Even most people who accept evil campaigns have things that are many examples of particularly "heinous" things that just cause too much trouble in the real world. I'll decline to give examples because I don't want to offend the mods by bringing any of them up.

If you have a problem with that, then please, ask a mod to give permission.

[cmrscorpio]

I have attempted to run an evil campaign several times. It has worked once. Or rather, it worked 3/4 of one time.

You all are right. It all hinges on the cooperation of the players to make it a successful campaign. More than any other campaign I've run, the ability to have fun depended on the player's conscious decision to bring a game that everyone can enjoy, and in one instance I consistently had 3 of my four 4 players work hard at doing that. The last player was your typical powergamer/I-only-play-rpgs-to-show-how-awesome-I-am player who made a chaotic stupid character whose sole interest was in causing havoc.

[Shemeska]

Evil games can be more complicated to run, but if you have mature players, and everyone realizes that evil characters like any others are complex critters, with their own goals, their own likes and dislikes, and that evil people can have friends and things they care about, things can work out.

Some of my favorite PCs in my past campaigns have been morally ambiguous, or downright evil, and in one case an actual fiend.

Remember to play a character with all their complexities and nuances, rather than playing an alignment. And unless you're playing an actual fiend, a normal evil PC isn't strictly bound to acting within that alignment always at all times, so explore their motivations, goals, feelings, etc within the campaign environment, etc.