Playing Evil

[pawsplay]

See, that's my problem Pawsplay. None of the actions that I'm likely going to take in those adventures (assuming they are straight up and no twists) are not going to be particularly evil. Rescue the princess? Even if the princess is being held in a Lawful Good nunnery, it's just a bog standard adventure, just with the alignments reversed.

Well, that's exactly the point. Simply putting the princess in a LG nunnery really changes the game. You can take the same "rescue the princess plot" and everything is different. Suddenly there are fewer limits to what behavior is permitted by the PCs. Innocent bystanders? Too bad for them. And the princess herself... didn't I mention she's being tried as a criminal? She's an assassin in the service of some evil power, and once you rescue her, it's not a given she is going to go along with the Baron's plans... perhaps she can make an alternative offer to the PCs. Suppose the PC's rescue plan is to detonate the entire tower, then recover the princess's remains and resurrect her. That's certainly different. Or the PCs slay some knights, defeat a good wizard, and brutally murder the lady-in-waiting who helps the princess escape (she's a witness). If the princess refuses to be rescued, or to go along with the PC's plans, they beat her up and stick her in a bag.

The main difference is that the PCs act, well, evil. Either the players are up to the next or they are not.

Go to X, kill things and get the loot, doesn't (unfortunately) say a whole lot about morality.

Correct. Just as rescue X, recover X, or defend X says little, as well.

As I said earlier, I really think D&D, with its focus on combat, isn't a very good vehicle for this sort of thing. Since the solution for the majority of story lines in D&D is "apply greater and greater levels of firepower", morality isn't a huge deal.

My experience is rather different... but then, I ran a game in which a rescue-the-damsel situation did not go off as planned, the players took too long, and the damsel agreed to marry the evil knight and on he wedding knight was impregnated with a Tainted Scion. What do you do with an innocent damsel who is completely under the thrall of a fiendish unborn creature, itself yet guilty of nothing?

And then there was the time I let the PC's get a hold of a magical item that would let them command undead, which they used on a death knight. They commanded him to destroy one of their enemies. Which he did, along with numerous innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time. That, along with several other questionable acts, led to a loss of Good alignment for the party wizard.

I think I've heard of a description of the modern military as something along the lines of being able to apply the right amount and the right kind of firepower at the right place and time.

It's true, "slay the orc horde" doesn't have much moral significance. Unless you are a member of said horde, it only makes sense. But how it is done, how the aftermath is dealt with, and most importantly, how PC goals are met, that really changes things.

The real problem with most evil campaigns is the same problem with most good campaigns: The PCs don't actually have goals.

Although the Ublex thing could be fun. To make it evil, I'd actually have the party working FOR Ublex and bringing about the end of the world. Now THAT'S evil. Explore the ideas of religious zealotry, cults, mind control and brainwashing, that sort of thing.

Really? That could be fun for a lark, but playing unhinged sociopaths actually strikes me as fairly boring. I find the idea of being a mad cultist about as interesting as a Lawful Stupid paladin. I could get into a PC who had their own reasons for wishing the end of the world, but that kind of game is actually a fair amount of work.

In my mind, if you want to play an evil campaign, there should be all sorts of moments around the table where people are cringing in their chairs. That the actions that make sense for the character are pretty much abhorrent to the players.

If you want to play an evil campaign, I suggest watching:
- Payback
- Reservoir Dogs
- A Boy and His Dog
- A Clockwork Orange
- Pitch Black
- Pirates of the Carribean
- X-Men Origins: Wolverine
- Watchmen
- episodes of Blackadder
- ConAir
- Silence of the Lambs

Because not evey evil character is a weirdo in a hockey mask. Just as good comes in all shades, evil comes in all shades. Running a game of all Joker-style psychopaths would ultimately be kind of boring, since they would simply be one-upping each other, but if you threw in an actual demon or something, whom the psychopath tolerates but does not trust for a second, plus a character criminal who has simply forgotten their human limits, a tortured antihero, and something monstrous and inhuman, then you've got a gang.

It's a stereotype that good = reactive, evil = active. I think that's basically just not true. Many evil characters spend a lot of time on the run, and many stories focus on proactive, good characters, such as the Grail quest, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and even the Ghostbusters (remember, they started their business to finance their research and sloppy bachelor lifestyles).

Virtually every plot can be a Good plot or an Evil plot. All you have to do is figure out a way to get PC skin in the game.

 

[hewligan]

There is always the Midnight campaign setting for this sort of campaign. Sure, it is set up to play the weary hero, but I think they did a book on how to play on the dark side, so to speak.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Character tag lines from WFRP which does NOT have alignment.

• Tax Collector - pay up by ANY means or get thrown out, children sent to work in mills and factories or end up being sold to red-light businesses or even into the army.
• Land Grabber - get people off the land by any means.
• Tradesman - snakeoil is good for you or you got to protect your product and routes.
• Lawyer - nuff said but known to get the bad people off and send others to jail.
• Noble - it's not evil if it is my given right!

 

[Azgulor]

See, that's my problem Pawsplay. None of the actions that I'm likely going to take in those adventures (assuming they are straight up and no twists) are not going to be particularly evil. Rescue the princess? Even if the princess is being held in a Lawful Good nunnery, it's just a bog standard adventure, just with the alignments reversed.

While the results may not be different than those of a good party, the actions taken to achieve those results will (or at least should) be dramatically different. Ends justifies the means and all that. Motivation is the other differentiator.

A member of a knightly order tasked with rescuing the princess is going to approach things much more differently than the assassin given the same task solely to advance his noble patron's agenda.

The cleric of the good religion seeking to stop an evil cult from obtaining an artifact that will enable them to summon their demon-lord patrion will pursue that quest differently than the evil cleric who wants the artifact for his church that has its own plans for the item.

Trust me. They'll play differently.

 

[kitsune9]

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.

I agree. In my early days of gaming when we wanted to play evil characters, it just came down to fighting in the inn/tavern where we all meet because we all got attitudes, we're jerks, and there is no adventure to even begin with.

I did play in a very successful evil adventure and we had a blast. As players, we all knew we were playing in a evil adventure so we established a gentlemen's agreement that we would have to work together and not backstab each other. Jerk behavior was for the minor NPCs and common folk. Aside from that, the DM had established that a powerful NPC (Manshoon from the FR for those of you who know) obliterated our commander for failure of some minor duty and told us that we had better accomplish X goal or that it would be us next. This was also an incentive for us to work together as a team as no one wanted to be blasted into bits by Manshoon.

 

[Mallus]

My players do 'cooperative but chillingly amoral' quite well. It many not be the same as mustache-twirling evil, but it's surely in a hemisphere opposite from good.

As for being proactive, they are that. What began as a little fetch-quest in my setting's Land of the Dead will likely precipitate the fall of Heaven.

 

[Ghostwind]

I'd suggest that anyone wanting to play or run an evil-driven campaign should pick up a copy of Darkwalkers and read it.

Darkwalkers: The Evil Within - DragonWing Games | EN World PDF Store

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Evil characters may rescue the princess and then sell her to enemies of the kingdom for more gold....

Evil characters recover the McGuffin and shake down team good down for their pocket change, magic weapons and daughters.

IME, evil characters are pretty damn proactive.

Evil characters don't have to be mustache twirling villains. They may just be too amoral, too ruthless.

Evil characters can work together without infighting. "We're all working together to get rich and kill those jerks that annoy us!"

I've had a lot of fun Dming and playing amoral to evil characters, they can get in a lot of interesting trouble. And a lot of unexpected hilarity/comedy occurs.

It's a lot of fun picking fights with NPCs in order to loot their bodies.

It's a lot of fun when the group decides, as a whole, "You know what, this save the village/kingdom business isn't paying nearly enough and is too much work. Plus they're a bunch of losers unwilling to defend themselves or relocate. Let's go south to somewhere with beaches and dancing girls and rich fools to rob."

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Well I've only played one evil character in recent years. An evil campaign in which we all played Orcs and related races.

My character was, basically, a Nazi Orc. His goal was to unite the tribes, promote veneration of The Leader (the dead NPC whose horde we were all survivors of), promote racial purity (ie: he hated half-orcs) and of course gain leibensraum for the orcs by killing/enslaving other races. He was also a religious fanatic.

Great fun and boy, was he a nasty piece of work. Treated the Goblin PC as a slave. Thought of the female Orc as a baby making machine. (Well she was a shaman of Luthic, the Cave Mother.) And had a rivalry with her son, the extemely powerful, yet extremely stupid (read min-maxed) Half Orc-Ogre, for leadership of our little group.

As for his treatment of the enemy... actually no worse than most "good" PCs. He killed em and took their stuff. Although he did actively participate in the ritual sacrifice of captives. And he thought slavery just made good economic sense.

Of course this character thought of himself as Good. A Hero looking for a homeland for his oppressed people. Seeking to free them from poverty. To drive off and punish their enemies. To save them from the genocide regularly practised upon them. To bring Order and Law to the tribes. To lead them to their Destiny! (yeah, he did want to lead, not for material benefits so much as the glory!)

Compared to most DnD PCs was he evil? Not particularly. In many ways he much less amoral and self-serving than many Good PCs as he did genuinely care for the Orcish people. OK, he was given to acts of stupid vandalism and had no respect for other races or value systems... Mmm, again, kinda par for the course in DnD.

So I'd say, in my experience, that evil campaigns are quite possible and that, despite the fact that many of the same actions are indulged in and same goals are aimed for, there is a difference in both attitude towards and (some) of the means used to achieve goals. And this makes the difference to me.

 

[Hussar]

I do see your point guys. I'm just not 100% convinced. If you're doing mostly the same things, and the only major difference is the color of your hat while doing it, is it really a big difference?

The example of the knight vs the assassin rescuing the princess isn't a question of alignment in my mind. It's a question of totally different character types. What about a good rogue and an assassin? Would their tactics really be all that different? Or the good knight and an evil knight?

Both knights would likely go through the front door and demand that princess. If they were attacked (which they most likely would be) they'd kill everyone attacking them until they stopped getting attacked. They then ride off with the princess (after looting the bodies of course).

One just uses more foul language in the process.

Like I said, I do see where you're coming from. It's just my recent experience speaks differently. When presented with (mostly) the same situation, a good PC and an evil PC does pretty much the same thing - applies violence.

That being said, Pawsplay, your movie list is spot on. Good stuff there for inspiration.