Evil Campaigns: How do you feel about them?

[Hussar]

I have run evil campaigns, and I like them, but, I voted Other as a DM because, while they can be fun, they aren't something I want to do all the time or even a lot of the time. It's a nice change of pace from time to time.

So long as you get the player buy in beforehand, evil campaigns can be a lot of fun.

 

[Pentius]

I suspect a sandbox or ad-libbing DM could better handle an evil party than an adventure path or plot oriented GM.

I don't quite think this is true, Jerkwad Evil aside. I think it's true that evil characters are more often cast is proactive roles, while heroic characters are more often reactive, that is, The Bad Guy plans Bad Stuff and the Heroes stop him. Adventure paths, ime, do rely on reactive characters, but there's no reason a plot-oriented DM couldn't rock the socks off a proactive party. He just has to being them the plot they're interested in, rather than one he concocts with less player buy-in.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm neutral toward evil characters and campaigns, but that doesn't mean I run them half the time; it's such a poorly worded answer that I voted other instead.

I leave it up to the players to decide what kind of scoundrels they want their characters to be.

 

[Agamon]

What I hate and think should be destroyed is alignment...

 

[ACreepierFolklaw]

What I hate and think should be destroyed is alignment...

yeah, it just doesn't make sense to me... evil as a concept always begs the question "to what end?", and i suppose good does to. its too simplistic a motivation.

take the excellent UK TV show misfits: thier end of season finally (S1) was a bunch of near-do-well asbo kids (think chaotic evil) as heros trying to prevent a religious hippie (think lawful good) trying to take away peoples free will to do evil as it's "the best part of what makes us human."

at no point were the chaotic-evil's not heroes, and it was clear the lawful-good was a villain.

what i mean to say is that an evil motive can lead to good, good can lead to evil, good=evil its all nonesense

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I picked nothing for DM, as I've never DM'd an evil group. For player, I picked 'Other' because the one evil group I've played in 3.5 was a disaster in my eyes. I played a blue Slaad (which I don't even think were evil, but anyway), and it basically turned into a giant rape and pillage exercise, which is not what *I* wanted. I ended up sitting out the three or four sessions this went on.

However, if there was an evil group going on and it was going to be handled in the right way, I would be willing to try evil again. Maybe that's what I get for gaming with a group that was, mostly, 10 years younger than I was (I was 31-32, making most of the group 21-22) and usually drunk when we played.

 

[Meatboy]

I haven't voted yet, and may not, becuase none of the answers really fit ( may choose other later).

For me as a DM I don't wish to run an "evil" campaign, that is a campaign that revolves around, destroying the world, conquering or just general power aquisition etc. This holds true as a player as well, as in I wouldn't want to play in a game where those were the objectives.

I think that there is nothing wrong playing evil character's, especially if their motivations are similar to good character's. For me anyway its not the desire of that character that is the sole determiner of whether or a not someone is good or evil, though it can be, for me its the way a character chooses to solve the problems that makes them evil or at least is the best way to play evil in a campaign and still have it work.

At that point evil is not "damn I want that sword, so I'd better/kill or steal to get it" It's "the others don't see the truth, it was nessacry to use the poison even if some innocents were slain. For the orcs are a far greater threat and must be stopped." Evil is more then an ends justifiying the means and doesn't preclude the evil characters for persuing just or noble goals they just have a very different way of approaching it.

 

[SiderisAnon]

I have run a few and played in a couple of evil campaigns over the years. It is not my first choice for fantasy. I want my fantasy to be Good. (The ones I've played in have all been modern or futuristic.) In my experience, many of the players who want to play "evil" really just want to be jerks.

That said, it can work with the right group and the right setting. Just because you're evil does not mean you're so greedy or violent that you're stupid. Evil does not necessarily mean psychotic. Face it, there are people in modern society who would be classified as "evil" under D&D guidelines, including a number of leaders who would definitely be "lawful evil".

When I run an evil game, I do put limits on what characters can do. I do not allow carnage for the sake of carnage. (One of the reasons I will not play White Wolf games with certain people.) I also point out that since the D&D world is about heroes triumphing over evil, if the party makes too big a target of themselves they will quickly become the target of someone else's adventure.



I am actually currently running an evil game because it was requested by the players. They wanted to do kingdom building. They're mostly lawful evil. The stronger voices in the group are opposed to "psychotic evil" or "lawful sociopathic", so that should help keep things from spiraling too far. Mostly they're not about being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, they're about being able to squeeze the most out of the land and being able to be a jerk to their enemies when need be. Currently they're just getting settled into the lands they inherited and are working hard to make the locals like them, so they're really not being evil at all. Yet.

We'll see how it goes. I'm betting 50/50 that the party gets in its own way so much that they sabotage all of their own plans without the "good guys" ever having to worry about it. That's not so much them being evil as just them being gamers.

 

[Ringlerun]

I ran an evil game a few years back. All of us were really into dungeonkeeper so devised a game around the players being little demons and they had a small village to torment. They started off turning the milk bad, letting the chickens out and basic little things to annoy the people to build up demonic energy for some real evil. It was alot of fun everyone worked together to achieve goals and to get rid of the nasty doogooders in the town

 

[KiloGex]

I love evil campaigns as short runs, but I can't see an extended campaign taking place, merely for the fact that eventually at least half the party will A) run off with the loot B) leave to explore better opportunities C) kill the rest of the party. However, the in-fighting and backstabbing and bringing a player into the other room, returning to strange side-glances from the rest of the table is what makes it that much more fun.

Honestly though, some of my favorite campaigns have come from the secretly evil character in a group of goodie two-shoes, spying for the opposite faction and doing whatever they can to hinder their progress. I eventually had one break down to where the players cover was exposed and the rest of the campaign was her stalking the group, killing their horses, burning down their camps, stealing their gear only to plant it on another player, and various other meniacle deeds (eventually breaking down to actually kidnapping one of the players and taking them hostage).

A lot of times the interactions that an evil party can bring to RP is much more interesting than a good campaign, and not just between NPCs but each other as well.