D&D 5E How would you conduct an evil campaign?

TallIan said:

A good party needs a common goal as much as an evil one. The difference between good and evil comes in when that goal becomes weaker than personal goals. A good party would just say, "so long, its been great." An evil party could also do that, but could also think along the lines of, "He knows me too well." or "What he wants conflicts with what I want." and that's when problems start.

Click to expand...

That's when the fun starts, says I.

MechaPilot said:

One of the very first things you need to do with prospective players for an evil-PC campaign is to evaluate how suitable they are. Are your players mature enough to not have their characters constantly lie to, cheat, steal, attack, or otherwise backstab other PCs just because "But, I'm evil. It's what I do."

Click to expand...

Much better to instead evaluate the players to make sure they're mature enough to be able to - when the lying, cheating, stealing and backstabbing really get going - keep it in character and keep their characters' feelings separate from their own. Pass this evaluation and you're gold!

Because what's the point of an evil campaign (or any well-rounded campaign, for that matter) without a little lying, cheating, stealing and backstabbing thrown in just for kicks?

Lan-"to repeat: as a player I'm quite happily CN-aligned"-efan

I've run an evil campaign before.

I did as an episodic game, kind of like a Shadowrun-esque, where each member of the party were members of a big city's Assassin's guild. The premise is that the assassin's guild has different parts (to reflect each class type) and they put teams together to do specific jobs.

Between jobs each person had their own things that they would do, so their own evil interests and hobbies to pursue. One was a mole in the city watch and had a protection racket he was running, another did serial murder (a la Dexter, methodical planned, etc.), so on and so forth. There was definitely PVP that happened and new characters were brought in through the game!

Another option is the way of the wicked adventure path from Fire Mountain Games

It's harder to keep a cohesive group together in an evil game, especially if it's not a LE group.

As others have mentioned, if "evil" means rape, torture porn, or role-playing other acts of depravity, that's a hard stop for me. No thanks.

Other than that, the players can be morally gray and you can run it as a normal campaign.

Now, depending on how dark the "gray" is, it will require the players to be all on board. One person'a morally gray is unite different than another. Group motivation is key.

Morally gray is basically every Shadowrun campaign. By its vey nature you are operating outside of the law. But occasionally you are presented with a choice that forces you to make a hard decision on the morality scale. Fun times.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

I would not treat it as cartoon evil more gritty and dark. Rather than have things like corpses, blood and guts that type of thing would be hidden from general view. Think Stalin/Hitler.

It could also just be cruel like the Romans not bwa ha ha evil.

GlassJaw said:

As others have mentioned, if "evil" means rape, torture porn, or role-playing other acts of depravity, that's a hard stop for me. No thanks.

Other than that, the players can be morally gray and you can run it as a normal campaign.

Now, depending on how dark the "gray" is, it will require the players to be all on board. One person'a morally gray is unite different than another. Group motivation is key.

Morally gray is basically every Shadowrun campaign. By its vey nature you are operating outside of the law. But occasionally you are presented with a choice that forces you to make a hard decision on the morality scale. Fun times.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

Click to expand...

We often play good characters. Rarely have we made it a point to open orphanages or soup kitchens. They're good acts but we are usually doing other things that are more fun to play out.

Likewise when we have played evilcharacters we conquered and stole things. Maybe some of them were bad enough to torture rape or whatever but we are not compelled to focus on or participate in that any more than our good characters have to distribute bread to the hungry.

Why does everyone think that an evil campaign must be so constrained by yucky stuff when good campaigns are not likewise constrained?

Just adventure for your own gain. Don't sacrifice yourself to save peasants and use any means necessary to accomplish your goals. Don't wallow in wickedness that makes you feel ill as a player "because that's what my character would do."

Similarly, why must it always be pvp? Players can agree that their characters have a pact and make some reason they have an advantage as a group--common enemy, survival, a contract/charter.

Do all mercenary companies suddenly kill each other for a little more gold? People should not feel so constrained!

Warpiglet said:

Why does everyone think that an evil campaign must be so constrained by yucky stuff when good campaigns are not likewise constrained?

Click to expand...

Because people aren't offended if someone helps a little old lady across the street or rescues a cat in a tree. The same can't be said for various evil acts that have been mentioned in this thread.

Descriptions of those acts, even if imaginary in an RPG, can make people feel uncomfortable and may hit close to home. The social contract amongst everyone at the table is more important in an "evil" campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

One good way is to change the mindset. Evil characters usually don't view themselves as evil. Common goals like tragedy and revenge could be the bonding agent between them. Don't just play the evil band of evil guys doing evil. Instead they might have an outlook of "it's us against the world and no one will stand in our way". Evil for evil sake won't make a good campaign. Revenge. Killing the five people that killed a player's father in cold blood after killing the innocent guards and every male relative in their Lord's realm. Then taking every bit of wealth they could. They even killed mom and the dog.

GlassJaw said:

Because people aren't offended if someone helps a little old lady across the street or rescues a cat in a tree. The same can't be said for various evil acts that have been mentioned in this thread.

Descriptions of those acts, even if imaginary in an RPG, can make people feel uncomfortable and may hit close to home. The social contract amongst everyone at the table is more important in an "evil" campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

You miss the point: yes of course evil stuff can stand out more. I am saying you do not have to play out certain things at all.

There are many unsavory and ruthless people in the world. How many are serial killers? Thankfully few! Why do people feel compelled to play every evil character as one of them? Not every good character is a mother Theresa sort!

I don't play "evil" campaigns, per say. I play in campaigns as monster races, I play as morally grey intrigue and questionable actions games, I play in games where you have to commit necessary evils to survive. I sometimes play very selfish characters.

D&D evil is very cartoonish, evil for evil's sake is very boring.

I ran an evil campaign that went quite well.

All the PCs were tied to an expedition to Chult by a minor noble who had gotten himself into trouble back home. He hired anyone he could, including the PCs and several NPCs.

So they all travel to Chult to reclaim these dwarven mines abandoned long ago, and to reclaim and restore a nearby keep. Their goal is to become rich, and they worked towars that goal in a very similar way to how a typical Good party might. But they ran afoul of other groups in the area, a local human tribe, a yuan-ti cult, a clan of azers that wanted the mines themselves, and the drow that currently held the mines.

Not all of these rival groups were evil. So how the PCs dealt with them became a big part of things. No one just automatically decided to work with the humans and the azers, the way a Good party might. They came up with lots of different approaches to situations. They would take these to their patron, the noble, and he would decide on te best course of action.

To help unify the PCs, I gave them rivals within their own expedition. A group of NPCs who disagreed with the PCs and who I gave rhe PCs strong reasons to dislike.

It really worked well. They had goals, they had to decide the best way to deal with all kinds of issues and other groups in the area, they had a boss they had to listen to and that they had to influence, and a group of enemies to oppose.

It really wasn't all that different than a more standard campaign in most ways, except that each of us approached things from a slightly different mindset. And that was enough to make it different.