An Evil party... Troublesome?

[HellHound]

See, some people play their alignments, pure and simple. I'm one of those people.

I'm going to be a jerk and say that, IMO, this is "badwrongfun".

As a DM, you two would be the players that would make me quit again.

We game with a social contract, and part of that social contract is that inter-character disputes are handled by the players deciding cooperatively how to handle it - the key word is cooperatively. Any inter-character issues are to be vetted by the group first - this includes the theft from one character, and retribution in turn. If the players decide they enjoy roleplaying this, then we run with it, but if the players indicate that it would be a bummer and one player would over-react and have his character go senor psychopath over the issue, then it gets the official "no go".

 

[Kestrel]

People in the real world are capable of good and/or evil from one moment to the next. In D&D, alignment is fixed and acts as a guideline for PC behavior. A LE, NE, or CE PC exhibiting genuine compassion, caring, kindness, sacrifice, and/or love should have his/her alignment changed by the DM.

That's not a guideline, that's a straightjacket. Enforcing evil characters in your game to be like that is making them into cardboard caricatures. I would prefer my bad guys be a little more interesting. Tony Soprano, Al Swearengen, etc. Those I would describe as evil, but they all have some ability to love and care for those close to themselves. They also have the ability to callously kill anyone that interferes with thier plans. Alignment is a judge of what the PC is capable of and the reasons why they do the things that they do.

Not every evil npc has to be crazy cultist running around killing innocents and playing in his own feces. Personally, I would find the game incredibly boring if this was the case. but as always, this is my own preference.

 

[Crust]

They also have the ability to callously kill anyone that interferes with thier plans. Alignment is a judge of what the PC is capable of and the reasons why they do the things that they do.

I agree. Tony shows love for his family. He loves his wife because she takes care of him and his family while he's having sex with prostitutes and strippers. He loves his kids because they're of his seed, and he would morn their loss like any mammal. On the same token, his best friend turned on him so he shot him. Tony shows love for his friends on the outside, but the entire Sopranos series shows how that love is only skin deep, how that love could turn to murderous intent as soon as those so-called friends act on their greed. Tony's "friends" who don't act on their greed fear Tony and what he can do to them. We're back to greed and fear.

Not every evil npc has to be crazy cultist running around killing innocents and playing in his own feces. Personally, I would find the game incredibly boring if this was the case. but as always, this is my own preference.

I agree completely. I hope you didn't imply what you're saying above in my post.

 

[Kestrel]

I reread your post, and I agree with you. I was implying the wrong thing from the post. (That's what I get for skimming)

In the context of a game, I can still see how a group of evil characters could work together. As to sacrifice for another pc, they would only do it based on the advantage to them, and even then, it would probably burn thier hide that they had to do it. (The look on Al Swearengen's face when he has to help Bullock to advance his own goals is priceless)

So, we're on the same page.

For a GM to run this kind of campaign, he has to be comfortable with the themes. You have to have the right kind of players to make it work. I've met a lot of players that are of the "Crazy murderer" variety when they get to play "Evil". Its pretty boring to run.

 

[Mallus]

I never run evil campaigns, and I never will.

Cool.

I'm not comfortable running an evil campaign.

Also cool.

It's about good vanquishing evil.

See above (though it's a very different game for me)

On top of that, isn't there already enough of a stigma surrounding D&D?

The stigmata has to do with D&D being seen as a dorky and adolescent hobby. It has zip to do with in-game good and evil.

I also think that the idea of evil PCs being friends is ridiculous.

D&D is deeply rooted in the ridiculous. Not to mention the contrived.

Truly evil PCs would not be friends with one another.

And elves and dwarves don't really exist. See where I'm going with this?

In other words, a PC that is properly role-played as evil would not make sacrifices for the good of another PC, would not trust any of the other PCs, and would always be looking for a way to use the other PCs for his/her own personal gain.

To my mind, there's only one useful definition of a 'properly role-played character'...

"A properly role-played character is one that provides enjoyment for its player without interfering with the enjoyment of the other members of the group."

 

[painandgreed]

A good rule to follow for an evil game (or any game) is to metagame it first and make sure that all the players are on the same page. If half the group is thinking that all PCs can be trusted because they're PCs and the other half is thinking it's every man for himself, then things can fall apart pretty easy. I usually put forth to the players what sort of game they want to play, cooperative or competative. They've almost always chosen cooperative and thus there is an understanding that they can trust the other players. In the times they have chosen competative, everybody is on guard against everybody else and they still usually end up working together just fine because external threats were greater. The trouble comes when one player thinks he can trust another due to metagame reasons when he can't and gets bit for it.

If they choose a cooperative game, then make sure they make characters that can be cooperative and will work. IME, there are plenty of RPers that will go with their character concept no matter where it leads. I've had players with characters they liked, but simply with no RP reason to even leave the house, let alone join up with the other characters. Others were simply sociopaths. Once the players dumped those characters and made up new ones with the idea of working in the party, everything went fine.

Even in a competative game, there can be a bit of trust. Certainly more than they can expect from NPCs, especially if the DM plays it that way. They don't even have to be friends. Simply that they are eachother's support group and nobody else will be, especially if they are known for betraying their previous support group, usually goes a long way. Like members of a gang or criminal organization, they have to work together to acheive their ends which are usually mutual.

 

[Particle_Man]

The stigmata has to do with D&D being seen as a dorky and adolescent hobby. It has zip to do with in-game good and evil.

Although it has died down recently, there is still a not too rare belief that D&D is evil and even Satanic, depending on where one lives.

You will still see news stories about murderers that "had a D&D collection at home" being made a newsworthy fact, in the newsmakers' opinions.

 

[Mallus]

Although it has died down recently, there is still a not too rare belief that D&D is evil and even Satanic, depending on where one lives.

Well, I do live in a big East Coast city. I'm more likely that I get labeled a huge nerd than a devil worshiper.

But don't those inclined to see D&D as Satanic (for instance, knuckle-dragging idiots) have as much of a problem with good wizards as evil cultists? It's the presence of any supernatural content that they object to. Excising 'evil' PC's from the game wouldn't make any difference, would it?

You will still see news stories about murderers that "had a D&D collection at home" being made a newsworthy fact, in the newsmakers' opinions.

Unfortunately, most 'newsmakers' are more interested in selling the audience a story than telling the audience a story, something they have in common with third-rate hip-hop acts.

 

[Crust]

The stigmata has to do with D&D being seen as a dorky and adolescent hobby. It has zip to do with in-game good and evil.

There's definitely more to it than being a dorky hobby. There are people out there who consider D&D to be a satanic game involving witchcraft and brainwashing. The reading is out there. As in example, I found this article by Googling "D&D is satanic." It was the second hit. I don't agree with this person, but they're out there:

http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp

To my mind, there's only one useful definition of a 'properly role-played character'...

"A properly role-played character is one that provides enjoyment for its player without interfering with the enjoyment of the other members of the group."

I agree with you 100%. DMs have their preferences at the table. In the same way that I wouldn't allow evil PCs, I also wouldn't allow three players to each roll up dwarf fighters and name themselves ZZ Top, rocking out as if their axes were guitars...

And yes, the dwarf without the beard would be named Frank Beard.

 

[JBowtie]

Well, we just had our character-building session for my campaign, and wound up with a completely different dynamic than I expected.

Four of the players are siblings, and the fifth character is the family curse. Most interesting.

Now, families are just as bad (or worse!) for infighting, but a conscious decision that this family is committed to one another and the advancement of the bloodline is a wonderful excuse for party unity as well as a great hook for the campaign. The kids are basically taking over the world because "that's what Mum would have wanted", and the family curse gets to come along and exercise as much mischief as she wants.

For the last, we keep her behaviour in check by setting the terms of the curse such that she cannot lie to the PCs or hinder them directly, and they know it. (Of course, it helps that the player in question can be relied on to not overdo it).