Playing Evil

[Hussar]

Well, we just wrapped up my Savage Tide 3.5 game today. It was a great run and we really enjoyed it. This was a bit of a first for me, to be honest, this was the first time I've ever run an evil campaign. There were good parts and bad parts, so I thought I'd share.

The Good

It actually brought the group together better. The party was mostly evil, with a single neutral character. Because they knew that they were much better at achieving their goals as a group, they stuck together without backstabbing each other. Also, because all the players knew they were all evil, there was no inter-party fighting really. Everyone was extra polite by and large, to each other since they knew that any conflict could very quickly escalate.

Very Sopranos feeling.

It also brought out some really interesting scenes where the party was trying to do stuff and get away with it. Made for some pretty creative solutions from time to time. Instead of wanting to get accolades and rewards, they almost actively shied away from the public eye. And rightfully so.

The Bad

It's really, really hard to make adventures for evil characters. Evil is, almost by definition, pro-active. Evil goes out and does stuff. Good, OTOH, is reactive. Evil threatens and Good goes and stops them. There were more than a few times during the campaign where being evil didn't really seem to matter. Lengthy stretches of the campaign where they were doing exactly the same thing that good characters would do.

And, really, what's the point of being evil if you don't ACT evil.

Part of this is the Adventure Path itself I think. It's virtually impossible to write an adventure, let alone a series of adventures, that will appeal to diametrically opposed characters. What motivates one party just doesn't motivate the other. And, the AP, by its nature, is a bit of a rail-road, so, again, there just aren't that many places for the party to stand up and eat puppies.

Although the wizard shivving the lovable gnome, Urol Furol, at the behest of his demonic patron was gaming gold.

Conclusion

Would I run an evil campaign again? Yes. Definitely. It opens up all sorts of angles that a good campaign just doesn't deal with. However, if I were to do it, it would have to be decided right at the outset and the campaign designed with that in mind. I would never run an adventure path, or really most modules, with an evil party again. The assumptions are just all wrong.

 

[fanboy2000]

That's interesting. I'd never thought of what running a published adventure (or an adventure path) for evil characters would be like. But you're right, the assumptions are all wrong.

One motivation that can apply to both evil and good is money: the PCs are hired to do something. Of course, like you noticed, in that case they're just acting like good PCs would.

So, what kind of plot hooks would you create for your evil PCs in a homebrew adventured?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm really glad your players all worked together; sadly, "evil" is often interpreted as "be a jerk," and it's always good to see players who don't fall into that mistake.

 

[Grymar]

While I don't usually run pure evil campaigns, most of my campaigns lean evil and I have had very few problems with it. Yes, it can be sometimes difficult to find a good hook when "help the widow" won't do it, but as long as they are willing to be mercenaries, then the hook is simple. Otherwise, once they get in trouble, which they will, getting themselves back out of trouble is a great hook.

In my last three campaigns, I think I've had maybe one good character who slid to neutral within a session or two. My players like the freedom of being able to do what is necessary, rather than what is nice (that is an oversimplification, but still somewhat accurate).

 

[Wombat]

Most people who play evil characters tend to play what I refer to as "Disney Evil" -- they make a bunch of jokes, they involve themselves in cartoon-type, overly-complex violence (but always with some sort of comic element), and are so over the top they feel more like The Mask (Chaotic Moronic) than anything truly evil.

I would be interested in a game where the characters truly were evil, but I think very, very few players are capable of this ... but on another level, I think I am very happy for that rarity as well...

 

[weem]

I have run a few "evil" campaigns and a TON of "selfish" campaigns and have had a blast with them. I usually clarify up front that the group needs to work together as a team - even though that team might kill, cheat and lie to get what they want, they have found that they work best TOGETHER to get what they want.

I think if you make sure up front that turning against each other is something that needs to be avoided and why, it can work out well.

As for plots, you pretty much have to make your own, etc -- but then again, I ALWAYS do that. I have actually never run a published module since I started playing 21-ish years ago - I have borrowed ideas, but never run a module from a book, etc.

Some plot ideas have included...

1) ...one or more of the players being given a business opportunity that they then exploit and how that spiraled out of their control and became something else entirely (that was not working in their favor) it was something that ended up trying to end their lives which in turn of course led to them going after it.

2) ...the players were basically a group mercenaries. They had 2 NPC's with them for the first number of levels but one in particular began to gain power more quickly than them and sought to move on to better things (he was a wizard). They then started getting work that went up against what he was involved in and so he started drawing them into things they didn't want to be involved with and eventually he became their greatest enemy (some evil vs evil stuff there) which was fun because they had known him from the time when he was a nobody.

Anyway, one common theme in these games (for me) has been evil fighting evil. I did have good guys getting involved as well from time to time, and those with good intentions would get in the way, but in general the heart of it all came down to two evils battling it out.

 

[weem]

Most people who play evil characters tend to play what I refer to as "Disney Evil" -- they make a bunch of jokes, they involve themselves in cartoon-type, overly-complex violence (but always with some sort of comic element), and are so over the top they feel more like The Mask (Chaotic Moronic) than anything truly evil.

I would be interested in a game where the characters truly were evil, but I think very, very few players are capable of this ... but on another level, I think I am very happy for that rarity as well...

My players over the years have been pretty good... at being evil, hehe (in those campaigns - the last few have been good-aligned).

Two quick examples...

1) Kill a family who occupied a home where there was an item said to be in their basement (they didn't want witnesses). And in my games, you don't get to say "We kill the witnesses", you need to tell me how...

2) Kidnap a man who wasn't giving them the information they wanted. They took him to a cave nearby they were using and proceeded to torture him. Among other things, they heated shuriken over the fire and dropped them on his bare back.


These are players who play "good" guys well

 

[Hussar]

That's interesting. I'd never thought of what running a published adventure (or an adventure path) for evil characters would be like. But you're right, the assumptions are all wrong.

One motivation that can apply to both evil and good is money: the PCs are hired to do something. Of course, like you noticed, in that case they're just acting like good PCs would.

So, what kind of plot hooks would you create for your evil PCs in a homebrew adventured?

Honestly, I think there's two things you can do.

First, don't use D&D for running this kind of campaign. I know that's glib, but, really, at the end of the day, D&D is based in heroic fantasy. It's just not a very good system for this kind of thing. For one thing, just take 3.5 for example - your cleric, presuming he's evil, can't channel healing. That's a HUGE disadvantage right there (I got around it by chucking that rule).

Second, I think it would work much better to allow the players to generate their own hooks. Craft a setting first (ARRRRGGGHHH!) and let the players direct the vast majority of the action. Like I said, evil is pro-active. It has to be doing something in order to be evil, by and large. So, give the players a basic framework to work inside - perhaps a city or some such - and then work with the players very closely to develop adventures.

Like I said, I think an evil campaign would work much better in other systems.

I'm really glad your players all worked together; sadly, "evil" is often interpreted as "be a jerk," and it's always good to see players who don't fall into that mistake.

Well, we fixed that one right out of the chute. I made it part of the group template - an explicit agreement between all the players that they would play the campaign as PvE and not PvP (to borrow an MMOism). I told them that I didn't care how they got there, but, under no circumstances would you be allowed to gank a fellow PC.

It wound up that the group became rather polite. Like I said, very Sopranos. Everyone behaved reasonably well to each other, simply because it was the easiest way to achieve not coming into escalating conflict.

Thinking about it, it almost reminds me of Pulp Fiction with Jules and Vincent. Two very evil characters who treat each other with respect and almost kid gloves because they know they have to work together.

Most people who play evil characters tend to play what I refer to as "Disney Evil" -- they make a bunch of jokes, they involve themselves in cartoon-type, overly-complex violence (but always with some sort of comic element), and are so over the top they feel more like The Mask (Chaotic Moronic) than anything truly evil.

I would be interested in a game where the characters truly were evil, but I think very, very few players are capable of this ... but on another level, I think I am very happy for that rarity as well...

Again, I don't think D&D is a good medium for this. The system fights you too much to be "really evil". And, depending on your level of graphic depiction, that's probably a good thing as well.

Like I said, the PC's were evil. Killing the helpful NPC to sacrifice him to your dark master is pretty evil. Stealing from your patron - evil. Hunting Coatl, yeah, pretty evil.

But, like I said, trying to do this in the context of an adventure path is too problematic. There just aren't enough chances to be evil. If I were to do it again, I would have the big bad guy (sorry, don't want to spoil anything for those still playing) contact the party very early and pretty much offer them a job. In other words, the first two modules could work pretty much as written, but, everything after The Bullywug Gambit, I'd have to rewrite.

 

[pawsplay]

Evil, but functional, parties can have much the same sorts of adventures as other parties. True, many published adventures won't work well, but that applies equally to neutral or chaotic parties in many cases. General hooks are:

- greed
- power
- fear
- love
- loyalty
- necessity

all of which apply equally to evil characters as good ones.

 

[Hussar]

Evil, but functional, parties can have much the same sorts of adventures as other parties. True, many published adventures won't work well, but that applies equally to neutral or chaotic parties in many cases. General hooks are:

- greed
- power
- fear
- love
- loyalty
- necessity

all of which apply equally to evil characters as good ones.

True. The problem with that though is that the games play out pretty much the same regardless of the alignment. A "necessity" game, such as "Find the MacGuffin before Baron McStabbity destroys the world" just doesn't resonate all the well with me for trying to be an "evil" campaign.

I think it's better, if you're going to do an evil campaign, to find motivations that are ... well... evil. The party is actively helping Baron McStabbity for example.