Evil Campaigns: How do you feel about them?

[Iron Sky]

We've never really played "Good" games. We'd have a few good characters, the rare evil character, and mostly neutral characters. Generally we'd do the right thing, but sometimes in a mercenary/brigandish sort of way. Basically somewhere on the LN/CG spectrum.

That changed when we played Rogue Trader. Being in a universe where everyone is somewhere in evil land and you are just out for profit as a group changed something for us.

The key, as has been mentioned up thread, is that your characters are unified in some way - loyal to each other, loyal to some belief system, god, whatever, out to make a profit together, etc.

It's actually more interesting to me to play evil characters because instead of trying to figure out what the GM wants me to do in the situation, I take every situation and try to figure out how to profit from it.

It's been alot of fun - check out my story hour if you want to see how it works out in action.

 

[khantroll]

I've run and played in evil campaigns several times. In fact, our long running epic level campaign is focused on evil characters. Evil doesn't have to mean stupid or childish; it just has to be, well, evil. Many evil people work together for years; high ranking nazis, for instance.

To answer the follow up questions:

1) and 2): Usually not a problem. Instead of for the greater good, evil characters are in it for more; more power, more wealth, etc, and the best way to get it is with like minded individuals with skills to offer.

I'll say this though: if you have a player who really wants to play an anti-social chaotic evil nut-bag, then make sure he's the only one in his field. Two rogues like that can be competitive and spiteful; a rogue and wizard, even if both are anti-social nut-bags, can see the necessity in each other. It also cuts down on the backstab/thievery.

Further, it is understood that I don't tolerate stupidity for stupidity's sake. If you are going to piss everyone else at the table off, then we're going to do the same to you, and everyone is going to go away mad.

3.) Sort of. There are two members of the group who, due to generally being better players, are leaders. They deal with in-character problems, and make sure everyone follows the carrots.

4.) Keep them in trouble. My games, both those I run and the ones I play in, are very rarely sandbox style games; there's a story and big events. No one can go on a five finger shopping spree if they are being chased by cadres of drow warriors, or demons, or what have you.

This does illustrate a point that should be made: evil games typically lack the subtlety if good or neutral games. It tends to be about combat situations and dastardly deeds.

 

[Aran Thule]

My experience with people playing evil characters is that they use it as an excuse to be a jerk.
I dont really see how killing the other party members in their sleep and running off with the loot helps with the overall enjoyment of the game.

I also remember one player getting fairly upset that the party would not raise his character (they found an unholy symbol on his characters body and speak with dead then revealed he had been deceiving everyone as to his true intentions)

Basically i prefer it when the group works together and which evil characters that is rarely the case.

As a side note i just started a poll which i hope some of you could put your views in as to wether dominate is an evil act.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/312656-dominate-evil.html

 

[Jhaelen]

I have zero interest in evil campaigns, both as a DM and as a player.

Normally, I'm also not interested in playing an evil PC, but as it happens, I currently play one in our 4e Darksun campaign. But these are exceptional circumstances and the character's alignment doesn't prevent the pc's goals from being in alignment(!) with the other pcs (at least until very late into the epic tier).

 

[Chris Knapp]

I've played in a few evil campaigns many years ago and disliked them all. Unfortunately, my experience has been that either children or adults with the emotional level of a child are drawn to evil games and will infect any "adult" attempt to have an evil game. I might play a one-off game, but a long-term campaign? No thanks. I'd just feel dirty after each session.

Additionally, my experience with evil PC's is that they always have that roleplaying ace up their sleeve: Can't solve situation X? Just kill them all. I've seen the motivation to think outside the box drop when "kill'em all" is an option.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I generally don't like it when players create evil characters in a heroic-style campaign. Having to justify a group of heroes running around with what might be a knife-wielding psychopath is one of the best ways to ruin a game for me. That said, on rare occasions I have seen it done well. I don't really mind an evil character, so long as they act with restraint around their good-aligned allies. I'm happy so long as I don't have to metagame a justification for my good character to run around with an evil one.

For example, in one (heavily house-ruled 3.5) game I was playing a benevolent doctor, the sort of guy who was innocent enough to give anyone and everyone the benefit of the doubt. A friend of mine played a pet class character, but his character's schtick was that he beat his pets into submission. While he was away from the party, he found a giant rat and beat it into obeying him, then returned to the party and explained how he had rescued this poor little rat from a life of abuse. I never had a problem with it, because while I was aware of his evil escapades out-of-character, he was very careful to keep us completely oblivious in-character. As far as the party was aware, he was a stand up guy!

Compare that to the psychotic alterna-Paladin who enjoyed torturing his enemies and stringing their intestines up in trees for decoration. (The rest of the party was both good-aligned and relatively well adjusted.) Hated that guy, and was very glad when his schedule finally changed so that he couldn't make it to game.

While I don't generally care to run them, I enjoy playing in a good evil campaign. By good, I mean a campaign that is intended from the beginning to be for evil characters, isn't too "cartoony" in it's approach to evil, and gives the party a reason to stay loyal to each other (whether because they have a Dark Lord to answer to, or just because the whole world is against them). It can definitely be a fun change of pace to play the antagonists of a campaign world.

In an evil campaign I enjoyed, we were playing intelligent undead and giant insect in a world overrun by unintelligent undead (who would eat anything, including us). Humans were an endangered species, but unfortunately many of the intelligent undead had dietary requirements that could only be met by living humans. In this campaign, we were constantly trying to find enough to eat while foiling the attempts of the mindless hordes. We'd use tactics that we wouldn't typically attempt in a heroic campaign; luring a horde over to a group of survivors too large for us to normally take on, then picking off the stragglers after our two enemies had thinned each others' ranks.

I hate getting a vibe off of someone, that they're role playing some twisted fantasy of theirs in game. That's just creepy, and nothing ruins an evil campaign faster for me. Thankfully, such incidences have been rare in my experience, but I've heard of more.

When done wrong, I've found that evil campaigns tend to crash and burn rather soon after takeoff. Done right, evil campaigns can encourage creativity bereft of the constraints of morality (and they're a lot of fun). Typically, what I've found makes that difference is how well-adjusted/mature all of the people at the table are. IMO, evil campaigns really underscore just how easily one bad apple can ruin a bunch.

 

[Filcher]

Evil campaign?

You mean like where for no reason PCs show up in homes unannounced, slaughter the residents, and make off with their belongings?

No sir, never played one. Only a psychopath would have an interest in roleplaying a greedy, homeless butcher.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I voted for hate as DM and Player.

I suppose, in extremis, if my entire game group voted to play such a game, and they were all my long-term friends, I might give in. Not sure I want to explore that, though.

I am happy to see others play them if they want, as long as the "evil" doesn't go outside the game, and I have seen shades of this occur. Such as angry, unacceptable, and/or threatening behavior leave the game table and spread to others. I especially dislike this.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Evil campaign?

You mean like where for no reason PCs show up in homes unannounced, slaughter the residents, and make off with their belongings?

No sir, never played one. Only a psychopath would have an interest in roleplaying a greedy, homeless butcher.

Depends on whose homes the characters are invading and why they are killing them and taking their stuff. To say something like that could be good or evil depending on the situation. I know you meant it as a joke, but still if a bunch of good characters enter the home of a goodly lord just to slaughter him and his entire family to take his stuff, yep that's evil stuff to me.

On the flip side, if that's the home of the one of the lieutenants of the BBEG in your campaign world who has been mercilessly hounding the party and trying to kill them for 4-5 levels, they go after him, they defeat his defenses, stumble in and kill him after a hard-fought battle and then take his stuff as a reward, nope not evil, just good gaming and done fair and square.

I don't know about everyone else, but my characters always have a home (or home base) and come from somewhere, they are just out adventuring and trying to save the world (caveat: in good campaigns), not homeless beggars slaughtering everything in sight and trying to steal their stuff.

Depends on the perspective, maturity levels of players, and type of campaign you are playing.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

How do you keep the in-fighting to a minimum and keep the group together through thick and thin?

What do you think about loyalty to the group and what seems to be the me-first attitude of evil?

Do you have an "overlord" that makes sure the group stays on track?

What do you do to motivate them so they aren't just killing puppies for the fun of it and stealing everything not nailed down just because?

Non-evil campaigns are just as vulnerable to intraparty conflict and ruining of the plot based on the party makeup. This can be easily managed by creating a group template that illustrates how the group knows each other, why they stay together, what goals they share, and what the GM needs from them for the plot prior to starting the campaign. As well as ensuring that there aren't going to be any personality or ethical conflicts between the characters that could ruin the plot. It should be no different for an evil campaign. If the same thing is done for an evil campaign you'll head off most of the issues before they become a problem.