Evil Campaign Advice

[Andor]

When you say evil do you mean by means or motive? Evil motives could be a charming urban fellow who never hurts a fly or utters a foul word but whose political machinations lead to the deaths of millions. Evil means could be a lying, killing, tortureing bastard who manages to save the world.

For some reason this thread makes me think of Tom Smiths 'Rocket ride' "Let's find a villian with professional pride."

 

[Asmor]

Incidentally, I killed the old man by setting fire to his wooden wheelchair and rolling it down the hill into the town. This happened about 2 years before Red Dragon came out at the cinema (where the same thing happens(not the crocodile bit))

The book that movie's based on came out 19 years before your game, then.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

Evil Campaigns are much, much harder to run successfully than good campaigns, and I’ve seen a whole lot of them turn from “campaigns” into unintentional one-shots after players attacked each other, committed crimes which made the adventure unplayable, etc. The generic D&D structure of a team of protagonists working together to win fights and challenges in pursuit of consecutive, shared larger goals meshes perfectly with heroic pcs—not so much with evil ones. When the noble paladin rides off to rescue the princess, it not only makes for a smooth adventure, it fits the character. The evil wizard is far more likely to ask, “why the heck should I care about the princess, and even if I did, why should I work with these bozos?” Many evil pc concepts have no credible motivation for working with (and not betraying) others, for completing any adventure not directly in line with their particular selfish goals (.e.g taking over the world), and doing all the other things that the game is built around the pcs doing.

That said, it can work. I’ve seen it done, and when done successfully it can be a blast. The players and DM just need to adhere to a few key rules:

• “Heroes” or not, players are still protagonists. The first place most players of evil characters go wrong is that they look for inspiration on playing their character from fictional antagonists, i.e. villains. This is problematic, because villains and antagonists serve a very different roles in the story, and their behaviors are generally going to be severely disruptive if carried out by pcs. For example, the Joker is a wonderful villain and anatagonist. But a PC attempting to act like a Joker would be unlikely to be much of a team player, and would almost certainly be far too disruptive to social settings and indeed the plot overall to successfully serve as the protagonist of an ongoing campaign. Or look at the classic “evil mastermind” archetype. It works well in fiction, but at the table a player who spends all of his time manipulating others and building labyrinthine plots is going to end up on lots of longer social tangents which hold no interest to the other pcs, and isn’t going to have much in-character motivation for going out with a group and directing all of his efforts towards completing their shared goals. As cool as they are, Littlefinger or Lex Luthor are not good PC templates. A successful PC concept always supplies credible motivation for the PC to act as an adventurer and work with others. Those can be “evil” motivations, but they need to be strong enough to ensure that when you roleplay the character the way he would actually act, it functions at the table as smoothly as a heroic PC would.
• Makes rules for characters, not just players. Rules like, “no betrayals” or “no stupid evil” sound great, but if they’re only player guidelines rather than explicit rules laid out in the gaming world, then you’ve done nothing to rectify the underlying problem, which is that if you’re roleplaying a treacherous or murderous character, staying in-character would naturally push you towards those behaviors. You end up with characters who don’t act the way they should purely due to metagame reasons. This causes cognitive dissonance and breaks immersion. Instead, gives the characters reason to follow those rules. For example, maybe they’re all undercover as advance scouts for an evil empire in a foreign land: they need to work together to succeed, they can’t create too much of a commotion or they’ll be caught, and if they fail the empire will hang them out to dry and leave them alone in a hostile country. Even if they’re naturally inclined towards killing, they won’t just murder random people, and even if they’re naturally out for themselves they need each other too much for any betrayals. This means the players can roleplay the characters to the hilt, without holding back, and still believably function within the game and work to complete the adventure.
• Play Nazis, not serial killers. Characters who believe in the virtue of their cause are more interesting, complex and believable, and are far easier to get on the same page in terms of working towards a shared goal. If you all work for an evil empire, then that empire’s goals can credibly motivate all of you to go on the same adventure. On the other hand, psychos or people who are evil to be evil are generally boring and one-note, occasionally disturbing to other players, and are like herding cats when trying to motivate them to work towards a single adventuring goal.
• Villains have friends too. Just because the characters are evil doesn’t mean they all need to hate each other, lack loyalty, and only care about themselves. Your tyrannical wizard could be childhood friends with that dark knight.
• The sandbox is not your friend. If you do not provide a fairly rigid structure, the campaign will devolve into stupid evil and chaos. It happens every single time. Stay clear of sandbox play no matter what, just trust me.
• The PCs should not be the most powerful beings in the area. 5 evil PCs in a small farm town with no guards worth caring about is recipe for disaster (literally—I’d be very surprised if the town was still standing after an “adventure” or two). Whatever the local authority figures are should pack enough muscle to effectively enforce order if the PCs decide to start acting like they can do whatever they like without consequences.

There may be other guidelines, but I’ve found that these ones are the bare minimum for making an evil campaign work. I’d think very hard if this is really the route you want to go and if you’re prepared to do the necessary work, but if you are, then best of luck.

 

[Byronic]

For instance, rape. As a DM, you generally know Not to go there. Your players, however, may not; they're playing Evil characters, and depending on the character, they may be overtly cruel or have no inhibitions. Same with Slavery, extensive torture of captives, etc.

Shows how much you know. I once played with a DM who not only did all 3 of those, but managed to do them all, quite extensively within 90 minutes or less. Even though it took less then 10 for all the players to get bored and stop paying much attention.

I think people from the USA tend to be much touchier about such subjects though compared to Europe

 

[Rechan]

Shows how much you know.

I did say Generally.

Also, it's a matter of knowing your group. If you know your group won't blink at the most delicate of subjects being hit with a jackhammer, then you don't have to.

I once played with a DM who not only did all 3 of those, but managed to do them all, quite extensively within 90 minutes or less. Even though it took less then 10 for all the players to get bored and stop paying much attention.

Was the adventure called "THe Aristocrats"?

Sounds like he was doing it for just shock value, then.

 

[Asmor]

Shows how much you know. I once played with a DM who not only did all 3 of those, but managed to do them all, quite extensively within 90 minutes or less. Even though it took less then 10 for all the players to get bored and stop paying much attention.

I think people from the USA tend to be much touchier about such subjects though compared to Europe

In one of the first campaigns I ran, back in high school, that's how they found one of the players who joined late. We were running the Sunless Citadel, and his character was tied to a post by the kobolds and being, err, "used" by them.

Ah, high school... I'm so much more mature now (not).

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree evil campaigns are a big problem, and I would not run or play in one.

To me, you would need to restrain the group's more self-and party destructive behaviors, but at what point do those restrictions basically make it a selfish neutral game?

 

[Byronic]

Was the adventure called "THe Aristocrats"?

Sounds like he was doing it for just shock value, then.

No, I think he was inspired by some horror books. I think he might have done it because he believed it would show us how horrific and inhuman the torturer was.

All it really resulted in was me taking him aside after the session and asking him to please get laid so that we don't have to play in adventures inspired by sexual frustration.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I agree evil campaigns are a big problem, and I would not run or play in one.

To me, you would need to restrain the group's more self-and party destructive behaviors, but at what point do those restrictions basically make it a selfish neutral game?

As others said, one of the problems with evil parties is the false connection that evil has to equate to serial killers. You can be evil without killing a single person. Typically, the issue comes from players or DMs who need to "prove" their evilness. Likewise, you can be an evil character, but never do anything out and out "horrible." Sure, you kill people, but so do good characters. It's nothing personal. Or how about an evil character with a code of honor? You'd kill a man for challenging you, but you'd never hurt a child.

My point being, just as there's a nasty habit to associate good with law, there's an equally nasty habit to associate evil with chaos. You can be an evil character without being Alex DeLarge.

That said...I love the idea of a cartoonish evil group. You start at the low rungs of minionship and commit crimes to go up the rungs of the criminal organization. Robbing banks, kidnapping nobles, holding towns hostage, intercepting caravans, etc. Nothing that would shock or horrify players, and you aren't twisted monsters, you're just punch-clock villains. Once they get high enough up the ladder, their boss and his council of doom are all defeated and killed by the designated heroes of the land, and it's up to them to reunite the crime group. The game ends with them aiming their evil magic artifact shaped like a giant top hat at the city, demanding a billion gold, with the heroes all trapped in incredibly convoluted death mechanisms.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

Same with Slavery, extensive torture of captives, etc.

Whoah, I missed this part on my first read through.

Re. Slavery: in a significant amount of the "d&d source literature," as well the majority of the historical periods and places that inspired D&D, slavery is common and accepted.

One could make a compelling case that in a Roman Empire or Biblical Period style game, that capital-G Good characters would own slaves. They would treat them kindly and fairly (and the Chaotic Good types probably wouldn't be hung up on proper "owner/property" etiquette). They fictional and historical characters that are kind to their slaves and set them free after a while? Good aligned slave owners.

As a DM and a player I've witnessed even neutral characters selling captives into slavery (hell, if the captive is a real jerk s/he had it coming). No eyebrow's raised, just a fact of life in the campaign worlds.