So that's why you like it

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The thing I don't understand is the appeal of evil campaigns in D&D. Other games seem to fit the evil vibe better. And every time I've personally seen an evil D&D campaign it's just an exercise in anti-teamwork that quickly implodes. Why would someone want to play in an ongoing campaign that seems doomed to collapse?

No one wanted to touch this topic over the last week?

 

[Mallus]

No one wanted to touch this topic over the last week?

I'll give it a shot!

My idea of the core D&D experience is that of violent, amoral looters willing to stab each other in the back over magical lucre at the drop of a pointy hat. This may have something to do with my formative D&D experience playing 1e in high school The idea that D&D doesn't do evil well is foreign to me.

As to why play evil? Simple. It's the simple joy of acting out. Breaking the rules. Doing as though wilt being the whole of the law, et al. Couched in more cynical terms, it's the pleasure of a power fantasy decoupled from a morality fantasy.

Also, some people just like exploring different characters.

edit: also, playing evil doesn't imply a lack of teamwork any more than playing good guarantees teamwork.

 

[Noumenon]

It's just that illusion D&D gives you of "I can do anything!" Well, why not do something computer games rarely let you do? Build the evil empire, play the bad guy. It only doesn't work because D&D doesn't let you do "anything," such as PvP for one, and evil's not that much better than unprincipled amorality anyway.

 

[Rechan]

The thing I don't understand is the appeal of evil campaigns in D&D. Other games seem to fit the evil vibe better.

Some people won't play any game but D&D. Or, D&D is the only game in town (no such other system being ran by anyone you know).

So, when D&D is your only option, and you want to play evil, you play evil with D&D.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Evil D&D:

Just like some previous answers of mine. It comes down to evil games can explore different stories and character concepts that good games can't. You can't play a game where your PCs are slave-runners avoiding various policing agencies and then become embroiled in a conflict with Illithids after the slaves the PCs bought were stolen from them and you need to protect your interests.

 

[Crothian]

No one wanted to touch this topic over the last week?

Evil is very subjective. Even a so called good party is going into places and slaughtering everything. It seems with most evil games that the PCs do mostly the same things it is just the motives change.

One aspect I've seen is people that don't want consequences for their actions try out evil games.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One aspect I've seen is people that don't want consequences for their actions try out evil games.

Its the same for any D&D game. There are no "real" consequences for what the characters do in the game world, good or evil.

If you are talking about consequences within the game world, then why wouldn't they exist for good and evil? Consider a campaign where the PC's are orc raiders. They have been ordered to pillage the human orphanage and return with children for the stewpot. During thier mission the PC's take pity on the poor children and let them go. They return to a very unforgiving chieftain with no meat for the pot.

There will be consequences.

Doing something radically outside what is accepted as normal and proper within your society will result in consequences. The morality may change but cause/effect is a constant.

 

[Mallus]

Even a so called good party is going into places and slaughtering everything.

This is why I used the term 'morality fantasy'.

One aspect I've seen is people that don't want consequences for their actions try out evil games.

That doesn't match my experiences --at least my later-in-life experiences. People who want to fight paladins instead of demons (or start false religious cults instead of expose them) choose evil campaigns.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My idea of the core D&D experience is that of violent, amoral looters willing to stab each other in the back over magical lucre at the drop of a pointy hat.

This is usually the point I would find things breaking down in a D&D campaign. Was this style conducive to a long-term campaign?

As to why play evil? Simple. It's the simple joy of acting out. Breaking the rules. Doing as though wilt being the whole of the law, et al. Couched in more cynical terms, it's the pleasure of a power fantasy decoupled from a morality fantasy.

I understand playing evil in general, and in other games where teamwork isn't as necessary to be successful or the game is pre-determined to be short-lived (a short story arc or a one-shot) I have found it to be fun. Just not in a long-term D&D campaign.

edit: also, playing evil doesn't imply a lack of teamwork any more than playing good guarantees teamwork.

I'm glad to hear that other's experiences vary from mine. I had two players over the years that were able to intelligently play an evil character. Every other time evil = "Stab the other PCs in the back at my earliest convenience." Without any forethought to whether that was a smart move or not. It was the flipside of 'Lawful Stupid' paladins, the 'Stupid Evil' character.

Some people won't play any game but D&D. Or, D&D is the only game in town (no such other system being ran by anyone you know).

So, when D&D is your only option, and you want to play evil, you play evil with D&D.

Good point.

Evil D&D:

Just like some previous answers of mine. It comes down to evil games can explore different stories and character concepts that good games can't. You can't play a game where your PCs are slave-runners avoiding various policing agencies and then become embroiled in a conflict with Illithids after the slaves the PCs bought were stolen from them and you need to protect your interests.

I wish I had players who could play intelligent evil characters so I could run or play in a campaign like this. Like I said, of the hundred or so people I've had cross my game tables (1 private and 1 public FLGS), I've had two that could make a workable game around evil PCs. I finally gave up and just banned evil characters. I think too many people's core experience with evil is as Mallus describes and that is a style of game I don't understand the appeal of.

 

[Mallus]

Was this style conducive to a long-term campaign?

Sort of. The end result was we learned to drop the PvP and became hooked on RPG's . Wwhich isn't to say we all started playing good alignments...

Just not in a long-term D&D campaign.

For the last few years I've been running/playing in groups where the default alignment (though we basically ignore alignment) hasn't been good. When our current DM described the moral... timbre of our campaign on ENWorld a few months back, he got his first ever locked thread in over 10,000 posts.

I had two players over the years that were able to intelligently play an evil character.

It not really about intelligence or intelligent play. It's about knowing how to play well with the other (real) people at the table, and how to communicate/compromise effectively.