kitsune9
Adventurer
My opinion on evil campaigns is that I don't DM them. I'm not really a fan of evil campaigns; however with the right kind of players, they can be entertaining. I was going to have a short evil campaign for my players to transition to another campaign after my current one ended, but I scrapped it. However, here are some of the "ground rules" that I was going to implement into the campaign so it doesn't devolve into a PvP combat that effectively ends the campaign.
1. Fearing the "master" is more important than ego. At the very beginning of the campaign, I would establish an uber-boss who would obliterate an even more powerful NPC with just a thought as punishment for failure. It sets the tone with the players that if they fail whatever they should be doing, their fate is sealed. It makes them think that cooperation is important than ego.
2. Evil is funny. I was going to make themes where the PC's are more like bumbling minions than sadistic psychopaths dealing with horrific themes. Encounters and challenges would be tailored where the bumbling evil is actually fighting other bumbling evil or doing odd jobs (like stealing goods and stuff). I would specifically avoid encounters and situations where the players could explore themes of cruelty for cruelty's sake and such.
3. Evil has a two-edge sword of consequences. Probably the most realistic aspect of the campaign but also to temper's the player's bloodlust (should they be so inclined) is that if they go around wantonly kill whoever they want just because someone looked at them funny, eventually, they will find more and more NPCs coming for bounties on their heads. Also, it will affect their performance in obtaining their goals for their "master" in that the chance of failure increases which means that if they, their master will punish them or they will be stopped by the forces of good.
I did play in one short evil campaign and it was a blast. However at the very beginning of the game, we as players, had a gentlemen's agreement. It was:
1. That we wouldn't attack each other directly, but NPC's and property were fair game. If we had problems with each other, we would work out some other solution to gain the upper hand because failure in our mission meant execution for all of us.
2. That we were fanatically loyal to our cause therefore we all knew that cooperation was key to the cause's success. Our hatred of our foes was more binding than our egos.
I had two evil characters--a dim-witted Cockney accented fighter who thought himself as a gentlemen, but was no more than a street thug. He let those of higher intelligence direct his actions, but if the opportunity for larceny occurred, he took it. Another was a necromancer who laughed evilly (I can do those evil laughs fairly well, my only talent) and his evil was the experiments he carried out on dead people (he was socially inept when it came to dealing with the living).
Fun times.
1. Fearing the "master" is more important than ego. At the very beginning of the campaign, I would establish an uber-boss who would obliterate an even more powerful NPC with just a thought as punishment for failure. It sets the tone with the players that if they fail whatever they should be doing, their fate is sealed. It makes them think that cooperation is important than ego.
2. Evil is funny. I was going to make themes where the PC's are more like bumbling minions than sadistic psychopaths dealing with horrific themes. Encounters and challenges would be tailored where the bumbling evil is actually fighting other bumbling evil or doing odd jobs (like stealing goods and stuff). I would specifically avoid encounters and situations where the players could explore themes of cruelty for cruelty's sake and such.
3. Evil has a two-edge sword of consequences. Probably the most realistic aspect of the campaign but also to temper's the player's bloodlust (should they be so inclined) is that if they go around wantonly kill whoever they want just because someone looked at them funny, eventually, they will find more and more NPCs coming for bounties on their heads. Also, it will affect their performance in obtaining their goals for their "master" in that the chance of failure increases which means that if they, their master will punish them or they will be stopped by the forces of good.
I did play in one short evil campaign and it was a blast. However at the very beginning of the game, we as players, had a gentlemen's agreement. It was:
1. That we wouldn't attack each other directly, but NPC's and property were fair game. If we had problems with each other, we would work out some other solution to gain the upper hand because failure in our mission meant execution for all of us.
2. That we were fanatically loyal to our cause therefore we all knew that cooperation was key to the cause's success. Our hatred of our foes was more binding than our egos.
I had two evil characters--a dim-witted Cockney accented fighter who thought himself as a gentlemen, but was no more than a street thug. He let those of higher intelligence direct his actions, but if the opportunity for larceny occurred, he took it. Another was a necromancer who laughed evilly (I can do those evil laughs fairly well, my only talent) and his evil was the experiments he carried out on dead people (he was socially inept when it came to dealing with the living).
Fun times.
