An Evil party... Troublesome?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thanks for all the feedback. Well I have 3 players, of which one is a bit of a pain in the ass.
He is the most experienced one with D&D (also more then myself), and I expect him to play kind of backstabbing towards the other 2 lesser experienced players. That’s the way he thinks a evil character is suppose to be played. But I am hoping to have a fairly loyal party (toward each other), that is evil in its goals and ways in which they will obtain those.
An option maybe to integrate them into some sort of organized assassins guild. There they will be formed into a party and send on several missions, testing their ability to succeed. The better the missions are completed, the better their rewards will be. The most effective way for them to play will be by loyal teamwork. What do you guys think of something like this.

I think 1) you need to talk to the jackass player and let him know that you're trying to have four people have fun and not just him, 2) working for a scary employer (the Guildmaster of Assassins definitely qualifies) is a great way to keep folks on-task.

 

[Zachariah]

Wow feedback is going so fast my posting isn’t fast enough to keep track

I really liked what phindar said. Because now that I think of it, it’s very true. A safe haven for evil characters is very rare. And they may have hard excess to certain places: Guards from some mayor city may be able to use sense motive or detect evil like abilities. If that’s the case the party will have to work effectively in order to gain excess to some inner city places/objects. They will need to rely on each other. I will point this fact out to them, as a side note before starting the campaign. It might just help to get the desired gameplay.
And yeah, the opposing each other and a bit of tricking and backstabbing is of course fun to see and to play. That’s not the problem, I was just worried that at some point they might kill each other for some powerful item that one obtained. So I will probably insert some sort of house rule like you presented.

Thanks a lot

 

[JBowtie]

I've been going through my copy of AEG's Evil; they have a whole chapter on evil campaigns.

Really the easiest option is a mission structure like you mention; it helps cement and focus the team so they don't devolve into petty squabbling. You can combine this with a powerful boss to prevent all kinds of issues.

Another helpful option that works quite well for evil groups is the common enemy routine; this is the basis for all the super-villain groups in the comics.

 

[Cevalic]

In most of the campaigns I've played or DMed, someone has always played an evil character. Just because they're evil doesn't mean they run around killing babies and torching villages, or that they can't get along with anyone else. Then again, the worlds that we've played in tend to be dark, and out to beat a person down. Heroics just don't get you far, kind of like real life.

 

[Shining Dragon]

If evil characters backstabbed each other all the time then there would be very few evil characters left in D&D. And there would be much rejoicing from good characters everywhere.

Obviously, this phenomenon is only restricted to evil player characters. Evil non-player characters actually manage to co-operate somewhat, reproduce to ensure the survival of the alignment and, on the odd occasion, successfully enact a plot to take over the world (before falling to the bumbling actions of a party of good characters).

So how should one go about preventing an evil party from imploding? I think they should have a goal that requires all to act as one, or a greater evil that can drive them to act as a party. Or even get the players themselves to detail why their characters are together (and won't kill each other). Personally I think this is doomed to failure as cries of "I'm only acting in character" will soon echo around the room as daggers are buried deeply in the backs of the more trusting characters despite the presence of a larger threat. Because, you know, the DM would never kill the entire party - that would kill the campaign.

 

[phindar]

Its important to note that no alignment, from LG to CE, is insurance against jackass players. Its a good idea to know up front what the characters are capable of, but its absolutely imperative to know what the players are capable of.

I think its crucial that as the GM, you don't let a jackass player hijack (hijackass?) the game, especially if its with the (poor) excuse of "but I'm only playing my character". Killing the other two characters in their sleep and effectively ending the game is a conscious decision on the part of that player to derail the game, and the responsibility for that can't be passed on to an imaginary person. The player is wrecking the game for the other players (and the GM). That far outweighs character concerns.

I think its fine to say right at the beginning that there isn't going to be any pc-on-pc violence, if that's the sort of thing that would wreck the fun. (Some groups are okay with interparty violence, and sometimes that's a big part of the draw of the evil campaign.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Heroics just don't get you far, kind of like real life.

Then who the heck are on these Wheaties boxes?

 

[Cevalic]

Then who the heck are on these Wheaties boxes?

The average 'hero', some guy who jumps in a river to save someone, or such, doesn't get on the wheaties box. Most things like that aren't mentioned that often or when they are, they're just in passing. The news is more geared towards celebrities, athletes, and tragedy than heroics.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The average 'hero', some guy who jumps in a river to save someone, or such, doesn't get on the wheaties box. Most things like that aren't mentioned that often or when they are, they're just in passing. The news is more geared towards celebrities, athletes, and tragedy than heroics.

The sports and entertainment section, certainly -- that's their purpose, after all -- but I have to say, genuine run-into-the-burning-house-pull-the-kids-out heroes certainly seem to get a lot of news coverage in my area, in print and on both forms of broadcast news.

 

[Li Shenron]

How are you going to keep a evil party together and loyal towards each other?

Agreement between players that there will never be backstabbing, murder, betrayal or theft between party members, unless the two players in question agree on the specific case.

It could be seen as a kind of metagaming, but it's the best way indeed to play without problems. The PCs can still be utterly mean against the NPCs, so roleplaying their alignment is NOT hampered. Furthermore, inter-party conflict CAN still be roleplayed as long as it doesn't cause a PC's death, loss of equipment or other in-game disadvantage. PCs can even fight against each other, but for example they could do so unarmed (subdual damage), beating each other hard but without killing the other's character.

Keep in mind that characters that betray each other, kill each other or steal to each other, are just not suitable to stay in a group for long. And since D&D is a group game, it means that those characters are not exactly supposed to work in D&D. You can try to, if you're playing with very experienced people, and sure it may even work, but it's certainly very hard.

So better just make an agreement if you're not sure you can handle it.