D&D 5E Evil parties that don't fall apart: ideas, suggestions, experiences?

[DMZ2112]

Interpreted after the fact into D&D, they'd no doubt have been evil characters. But we didn't really try to do that, because we didn't care.

If you don't care about and don't use alignment, why should I care about or consider your opinion of it?

 

[Minigiant]

Another idea is to give the evil party an enemy. Evil can hate other Evil. World conquers tend not to like troublemakers.

My personal setting has a very powerful lich who almost every faction hates, good and bad. Multiple chromatic dragons have a bounty on his head and dragons in my setting are real cheap with their money. Everyone want him dead.

Evil vs Evil can work if the reward or fail state is big enough.

 

[Desdichado]

If you don't care about and don't use alignment, why should I care about or consider your opinion of it?

If you don't care enough about my quote to read it well enough to not blatantly misrepresent it when you ask your question, why should I care about or consider giving you an answer?

 

[DMZ2112]

doesn't make any real sense
nonsense code
because it's nonsense
can't really do it properly

I wasn't using alignment as a mechanic at all
wasn't any point in assigning yourself one

we didn't really try to do that
we didn't care.

Mmm... nope. I think I got the gist.

EDIT: Okay, wait, no, that's not entirely fair. It is entirely possible that I /did/ miss your point, but if that is the case, I do not think I can be /blamed/. That's the actual point I'm trying to make here.

 

[Dausuul]

That's not entirely fair. If a dungeon master lets a player roll a Chaotic character in a predominantly Lawful group, they deserve what they get. A properly played Chaotic character is just as devoted to free agency as a Lawful character is devoted to order. There is a divide between those two cardinal points equal to that between Good and Evil.

D&D does not have, and has never had, a coherent definition of "chaotic." It bounces wildly between several different meanings:

1. Chaotic characters are spontaneous, preferring to act in the moment rather than plan ahead.
2. Chaotic characters prefer to work outside the existing order.
3. Chaotic characters are ideologically opposed to laws and centralized power.
4. Chaotic characters disregard rules and have no problem with dishonesty, stealing, and so forth.

Of these definitions, only 2) arguably precludes the Chaotic PC from working effectively as a member of a Lawful party (since the Lawfuls will want to work within the existing order). 1) and 4) are mere differences of method. 3) may result in some lively arguments about politics, but in practical terms it's unlikely to have much impact. Many of us have co-workers with very different political views, but it doesn't keep us from getting the job done.

And none of these definitions requires the Chaotic Evil PC to be Chaotic Stupid. That's entirely on the player. Just because you're okay with stealing as a general thing doesn't mean you go around stealing from your buddies. There's a whole world full of people to rob, cheat, and murder. Either friendship or simple self-interest should dictate that you lay off the folks who watch your back while you're doing it.

 

[Desdichado]

Mmm... nope. I think I got the gist.

EDIT: Okay, wait, no, that's not entirely fair. It is entirely possible that I /did/ miss your point, but if that is the case, I do not think I can be /blamed/. That's the actual point I'm trying to make here.

No, you didn't. You quoted me talking about the law/chaos axis, and then try to tie that to me talking about evil.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but it looks like it's based on a obtuse misreading of my post. :shrug:

 

[DMZ2112]

D&D does not have, and has never had, a coherent definition of "chaotic." It bounces wildly between several different meanings:

1. Chaotic characters are spontaneous, preferring to act in the moment rather than plan ahead.
2. Chaotic characters prefer to work outside the existing order.
3. Chaotic characters are ideologically opposed to laws and centralized power.
4. Chaotic characters disregard rules and have no problem with dishonesty, stealing, and so forth.

I don't find any of these strictly contradictory. Unhelpful descriptors, perhaps, but not necessarily descriptors of different philosophical viewpoints.

Of these definitions, only 2) arguably precludes the Chaotic PC from working effectively as a member of a Lawful party (since the Lawfuls will want to work within the existing order). 1) and 4) are mere differences of method. 3) may result in some lively arguments about politics, but in practical terms it's unlikely to have much impact. Many of us have co-workers with very different political views, but it doesn't keep us from getting the job done.

I don't really follow your logic, here; they all seem to me like they would be distasteful and disruptive to a Lawful society of any size.

And none of these definitions requires the Chaotic Evil PC to be Chaotic Stupid. That's entirely on the player. Just because you're okay with stealing as a general thing doesn't mean you go around stealing from your buddies. There's a whole world full of people to rob, cheat, and murder. Either friendship or simple self-interest should dictate that you lay off the folks who watch your back.

My only disagreement is that I think the reasons for cooperation differ a great deal between a Chaotic and a Lawful party (whether you are using an alignment system or not; these are just convenient terms), and that can cause conflict. The Chaotic character respects the strength and personal space of his companions. The Lawful character recognizes civil rights and possessions. Ultimately cooperation can and should occur, but saying a Chaotic character should get along without conflict in a Lawful party is missing a roleplaying opportunity.

As for the Stupid alignments, I absolutely agree: Lawful Stupid is just as much a thing as Chaotic Stupid, and they are both player "alignments," not character ones.

 

[DMZ2112]

No, you didn't. You quoted me talking about the law/chaos axis, and then try to tie that to me talking about evil.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but it looks like it's based on a obtuse misreading of my post. :shrug:

I'll take responsibility for reading a correlation into the two halves of your response that wasn't there, but I still question the value of the whole post to this discussion. Whether we're talking about Chaotic Evil or chaotic evil. an analysis of different character motivations is neither nonsense nor irrelevant to the discussion of persistent successful "evil" campaign.

Put another way, it's fine if your pirate PCs didn't have alignments written on their character sheets, but I find it difficult to believe that means they did not behave in a manner consistent with a Chaotic or Evil (or chaotic or evil) alignment. I would have been far more interested to hear how their behaviors lent themselves to the success of the campaign than to hear about how you think half of alignment is nonsense and the other half is irrelevant.

For my part, this being a D&D discussion forum, I find it useful to discuss using D&D terminology. I don't do so to invite technical criticism.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't find any of these strictly contradictory. Unhelpful descriptors, perhaps, but not necessarily descriptors of different philosophical viewpoints.

They are not contradictory. You can hold any or all of these attitudes. But they are also quite distinct concepts, and D&D veers between which one it's using as the meaning of "Chaotic" (and which opposite meaning it's using for "Lawful") at any given point.

I don't really follow your logic, here; they all seem to me like they would be distasteful and disruptive to a Lawful society of any size.

Probably. Who cares? We're not talking about "a Lawful society." We're talking about a group of 4-6 PCs, working within a much larger society.

My only disagreement is that I think the reasons for cooperation differ a great deal between a Chaotic and a Lawful party (whether you are using an alignment system or not; these are just convenient terms), and that can cause conflict. The Chaotic character respects the strength and personal space of his companions. The Lawful character recognizes civil rights and possessions. Ultimately cooperation can and should occur, but saying a Chaotic character should get along without conflict in a Lawful party is missing a roleplaying opportunity.

Occasional intra-party conflict, within reasonable limits, is fine. In fact, it's a good thing IMO--it helps get the players engaged with their PCs and out of the pure tactical mindset. It doesn't mean the party can't work together, they just have to be able to resolve their disputes without resorting to murder and betrayal. I can argue with my friends about politics without punching them in the face.

Like I said: Alignment is only a problem if the players choose to make it so.

 

[Desdichado]

I'll take responsibility for reading a correlation into the two halves of your response that wasn't there, but I still question the value of the whole post to this discussion. Whether we're talking about Chaotic Evil or chaotic evil. an analysis of different character motivations is neither nonsense nor irrelevant to the discussion of persistent successful "evil" campaign.

Put another way, it's fine if your pirate PCs didn't have alignments written on their character sheets, but I find it difficult to believe that means they did not behave in a manner consistent with a Chaotic or Evil (or chaotic or evil) alignment. I would have been far more interested to hear how their behaviors lent themselves to the success of the campaign than to hear about how you think half of alignment is nonsense and the other half is irrelevant.

For my part, this being a D&D discussion forum, I find it useful to discuss using D&D terminology. I don't do so to invite technical criticism.

Great. As it happens, my response was crafted to answer the OP's question, though. My response was completely relevant to that discussion. Your insistence that I do so within the idiosyncratic idiom of the D&D rules would be fine--I guess--if it were your question and you wanted to better bound the answers. As it is, I question what value of your questioning of the value of my post has to the discussion. Or, for that matter, what value there is in you attempting to disqualify answers that--while relevant to the OP's question--are a little bit outside of the box with regards to the default D&D paradigm.

Considering that the players' interpretation of alignment is the problematic issue here, making the suggestion that you can decouple alignment from the game and get exactly the results you want is not only relevant, it's central to the question. Your constraints on the discussion are not.