"Reverse Dungeon" experiences?

[Swedish Chef]

My group is currently playing a campaign like this. The entire group asked to play evil characters (I'm the DM) and I agreed, provided we set out some rules and understanding at the beginning.

1) No inter-party killing. Evil doesn't mean stupid.
2) Have a goal. World domination? City Domination? Create their own thieves guild? Just let me know.

What I got was a set of individual goals from each player, many of which were going to lead to party strife. One wanted to be a Ghost Faced Killer (PrC), while another wanted to eventually take over a town while a third wanted to amass as much personal wealth and power as possible. I can make a plot that fits all that, but we all know what happens to the best of plots once they encounter the players!

So, with some back and forth, the guidelines were established, everyone agreed that no one would play Chaotic Stupid, and that they would come up with an agreed upon goal (probably taking over a kingdom), as things fell in place.

What we've got, in reality, is a group that is adventuring just the same as when they play "good" characters, with the exception that they now feel free to torture or kill any enemies that surrender.

 

[nedjer]

Making them reluctant/ forced to be evil might limit any excesses?

 

[deinol]

I've always wanted to run an inverted Keep on the Borderlands. You are innocent orc/kobold/hobgoblins banding together to defend yourselves from invaders from that pesky human fortress of doom. After fighting off a few raids, take the fight to them and stop them at their source. Think of the kobold children!

Just remember to give them a sense of community and tribal loyalty. You may be evil, but that doesn't mean you are dumb and don't recognize the value in working together.

 

[Thanael]

You are aware of the TSR module right?

Reverse Dungeon - RPGnet d20 RPG Game Index

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Because that's what evil always does, is eventually turns on one another.

It baffles me why this is the typical default for evil groups. Sure there are evil characters who will sell out anyone to reach their goals. But just because you're an evil character doesn't mean you don't love other people, have lifelong comrades, or simply aren't driven by overwhelming ambition.

I think a simple discussion with the players like Swedish Chef had

1) No inter-party killing. Evil doesn't mean stupid.

would iron this out well.

You are aware of the TSR module right?
Reverse Dungeon - RPGnet d20 RPG Game Index

I ran this when it came out and my group had a pretty fun time with it. We had the most enjoyable time in the first dungeon where you play a goblin tribe. Because the goblins were so much weaker than the heroes the players had to invent creative ways to defend against the heroes. In the higher level dungeons (where they played abominations and undead), they relied more on their creature's abilities than their own cunning and creativity.

 

[Rel]

You are aware of the TSR module right?

Reverse Dungeon - RPGnet d20 RPG Game Index

I've heard of it but never owned it. Do you have direct experience with running or playing it?

 

[havard]

This is fairly reminiscent of how Dave Arneson used to run his games

-Havard

 

[Deset Gled]

The dungeon is actually a lair of some Major Power. To start with, the characters a low-level peons in the scheme of things. They may be jockeying for position, but the Major Power has a vested interest in things in the lair working together.

I would like to replace this specific example with a more general rule for playing with an evil group:

The party's ultimate mission must always be more important to all members of the party than all other individual goals combined.

The reason could be orders from an overlord, a common threat, a happy coincidence or any other things. But the important thing is that players only screw each other over in ways that don't affect the end game. No killing off allies, no breaking away from necessary allegiances, and no petty arguments allowed. Making sure you still end up with the biggest pile of treasure at the end, however, is still encouraged as long as you don't risk failing to do it.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I believe some people are confusing "Reverse Dungeon" with "Evil Characters" here. As Rel states, he wants his players to establish a lair to entice the good guys to visit and torture them when they arrive.

You are aware of the TSR module right?

Reverse Dungeon - RPGnet d20 RPG Game Index

I ran this when it came out and my group had a pretty fun time with it. We had the most enjoyable time in the first dungeon where you play a goblin tribe. Because the goblins were so much weaker than the heroes the players had to invent creative ways to defend against the heroes. In the higher level dungeons (where they played abominations and undead), they relied more on their creature's abilities than their own cunning and creativity.

I have this module and ran it back in the 2E day. My players and I were teenagers and more interested in being silly than in building a cohesive lair. The module has three separate parts in which players can take the roles of three increasingly-tough monsters to combat those pesky adventurers. It doesn't sound like it's quite what Rel is looking for.

My only advice is a memory from running the module: Paladins are a wonderful opponent so don't over-use them; they make a great ultimate foe.

 

[Croesus]

I would like to replace this specific example with a more general rule for playing with an evil group:

The party's ultimate mission must always be more important to all members of the party than all other individual goals combined.

The reason could be orders from an overlord, a common threat, a happy coincidence or any other things. But the important thing is that players only screw each other over in ways that don't affect the end game. No killing off allies, no breaking away from necessary allegiances, and no petty arguments allowed. Making sure you still end up with the biggest pile of treasure at the end, however, is still encouraged as long as you don't risk failing to do it.

I can think of at least three approaches that can keep the characters from going too far in pursuing individual goals, whatever their alignments and inclinations:

1) Robin Hood. A usurper has taken the throne. His supporters have been put in positions that allow them to squeeze the king's supporters - nobles, clergy, peasants. Many have been driven off their land, others have seen loved ones imprisoned or killed. Some of these have banded together, fighting first for survival, then to restore the rightful king. The "lair" is their base of operations, whether a forest hideout or a traditional dungeon.

2) Military campaign. Similar to the robin hood situation, except the characters are free agents who have been hired to disrupt an enemy kingdom, attacking their supply lines, drawing off troops that could otherwise be used in offensive campaigns, and generally making things difficult for the enemy. One incentive would be that the characters are promised that they will receive the titles of those noblemen they are opposing in the war (to the victor go the spoils...)

3) The Syndicate. The characters each serve a faction, and their leaders have agreed to cooperate for mutual benefit. Any character who goes too far - for example, killing a party member - would be killed by their faction leader in order to prevent the alliance from collapsing. The Syndicate could be a collection of criminals, races, or even monsters (a beholder, a lich, and a rakshasa enter a bar...) Races would probably be most like a reverse dungeon, as the various "evil" humanoids band together to stop an invasion of humans and other "good" races.