Evil Campaigns: How do you feel about them?

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

And my answer was that I wish that this wasn't a question.

If the players can create PCs with an identity and personality without hanging a sign around thier necks, then "evil" isn't really a thing.

But that is the question, you didn't have to answer it if you didn't want to.

Well that's part of the discussion in this thread and what the meaning of evil is in your game(s). Someone like Hitler didn't walk around with a sign around his neck saying he was evil, he thought he was good and in the right, he had a personality and identity, but to the rest of the world he was evil because of the things he did. So why would a character need a sign around their necks if they were good or evil?

 

[Pentius]

And my answer was that I wish that this wasn't a question.

If the players can create PCs with an identity and personality without hanging a sign around thier necks, then "evil" isn't really a thing.

Alignment labels did not create morality.

 

[Holy Bovine]

And this is the easy answer. Fact is, I do play other games, but I do also play D&D/PF. And in playing the other games, the alignment system of D&D feels even more annoying.

This is like someone saying they don't like mushrooms on their pizza, and the answer of course is, so don't eat pizza.

I do my best to pick the mushrooms off, but damn, with the newer stuff it gets cooked into the crust...

(ps, I lurves mushrooms, just an example)

But (using your analogy) you are wanting to destroy all mushrooms everywhere so even the mushroom-loving population can't have any.

Originally Posted by Agamon View Post
What I hate and think should be destroyed is alignment...

I do find it funny you seem to think the newer versions of D&D have alignment 'hard wired' into it (or baked - I think pizza is my new favourite analogy medium ) where a lot of people feel the alignment system in 4E was toned down to the point of irrelevance. 3E/Pathfinder still seem to have many game elements dependent upon it.

 

[was]

As a DM, I absolutely hate them and won't run them. As a player, I will play only if it's a group I know and they really want to play it. In my past experiences, people have taken evil alignments as a license to be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Janx]

So why would a character need a sign around their necks if they were good or evil?

The sign is invisible if you are just meeting somebody and have not heard their reputation.

You then cast Detect Evil to see the sign.

Additionally, some spells like Protection from Evil impede the efforts of people wearing the invisible Evil sign.

If the game didn't have these alignment dependencies, you could skip putting signs on PCs.

However, Evil is still Evil, and the kind of play it engenders is very different from heroic play.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

The sign is invisible if you are just meeting somebody and have not heard their reputation.

You then cast Detect Evil to see the sign.

Additionally, some spells like Protection from Evil impede the efforts of people wearing the invisible Evil sign.

If the game didn't have these alignment dependencies, you could skip putting signs on PCs.

However, Evil is still Evil, and the kind of play it engenders is very different from heroic play.

Like this? http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/engvall-bill/heres-your-sign-get-the-picture-5978.html

"Here's your sign..."

 

[Lord Crimson]

So what constitutes evil to everyone else? How do YOU define evil in your campaigns/worlds?

For me, it tends towards a combination of the Ends and the Means.

Evil characters can have any kind of goals (Good, Evil, or in between), though they tend toward Evil goals. But they're ultimately willing to use any means (including murder, genocide, rape, mental domination, and worship of and sacrifices to dark gods) to get them, regardless of the nobility or ignominy of the final goal. Of course, if they have even a decent intelligence, they also understand that letting those actions be discovered could interfere with said goal.

Good characters must have non-Evil goals (and usually have fairly Good/noble goals). And they'll try really hard to avoid "Evil" and even questionable means to achieve them.

Neutral characters generally have non-malevolent goals (could be self-interested or could actually be Good), but are more willing to "break a few eggs" (stealing, betrayal, blackmail, manipulation, kidnapping) than Good characters, but are rarely willing to go as far as an Evil character (hesitant to use murder/assassination - will almost never use rape and/or sacrifice).

An example:
Kingdom is ruled by an Evil Tyrant.

Evil Goal: Kill him and replace him on the Throne.
Neutral Goal: Overthrow him, maybe kill him if he's a threat, and replace him on the Throne with someone on your side (probably someone that isn't obviously Evil).
Good Goal: Overthrow him (preferably imprison him) and put a Good person on the Throne or replace the Throne with another, more benevolent, government.

Evil characters can have any of these goals. Neutral characters will probably only have the Neutral or Good goal. Good characters should have the Good goal... though some of them might lean a little close to the Neutral goal overall.

Evil Means: Murder, Assassination, Poisons of any kind, Rampant and even unnecessary Blackmail and Theft, Terrorism, Murder the children of every lord and merchant publicly supporting the Tyrant's rule, Making and Breaking Deals as convenient, Kidnapping the Tyrant's daughter and forcing her to marry him and then consummating that unwilling union.

Neutral Means: Some Poisons (preferably not deadly, but harmful is probably fine), Theft, Exposing Tyrant-supporters despite the harm it may bring them, Kidnapping the Tyrant's daughter to keep the Tyrant from further excesses. Anything more extreme (assassination, blackmail, terrorism, even breaking deals) will probably be kept to a minimum and focused only where deemed absolutely necessary.

Good Means: Inciting Rebellion, Building a Coalition, Minimizing Casualties, Taking Prisoners, Publicly demanding that the Tyrant step down, Offering Public Challenges, Killing only in Self-Defense. Avoiding murder, assassination, blackmail, terrorism, and the worship of dark gods entirely. Keeping theft to a bare minimum and only using sleep/knock-out poisons at the worst - if at all.

Good characters will never use the Evil Means and keep Neutral Means to a minimum. Neutral Characters will use Good and Neutral Means, while keeping outright Evil means to a minimum. Evil characters can use whichever means most suit the way they wish to accomplish their goal.

And, of course, I'm willing to have a little flex here and there. But consistently choosing Evil goals and/or using Evil means? That puts you pretty squarely in the Evil camp, even if your ultimate goal is "Save my people from the Evil Tyrant".

 

[Agamon]

Alignment labels did not create morality.

Sorry, I meant "Evil" isn't a thing. As Janx pointerd out, someone can point to me and call me evil, and hey, that's their opinion, maybe I think I'm doing the right thing. Except, oh right, my stats tell me I'm Evil. And that spell tells me I'm Evil, too. I guess I am doing the wrong thing. I guess I'm really just a Villian.

With black and white alignment, evil does evil for the sake of evil, because it's Evil. That's fine for Saturday morning cartoons.

Bovine's got a good point, in 4e games I run, it's not tough to ignore alignment. 3e/PF you can try to ignore it, but good luck.

 

[karlindel]

I'm not a fan of evil campaigns. I find that usually if someone wants to play an evil character, it means they want to play a jerk character and be able to defend their actions by saying "but I'm just playing my character" or that the GM said it was ok for them to be evil. A whole party of that would not be fun for me to play or GM.

I have run one evil campaign, Necessary Evil for Savage Worlds. All of the superheroes have been killed by alien conquerors, and the ones left to defend the world are supervillains. So it's a campaign of evil characters, but all of them are working towards the same goal, and that goal is a good one.

The only time I might consider running an evil game would be with a group I had known and gamed with for a long time, in which everyone wanted to play in an evil game, with everyone on the same page from the start as to what that meant, and characters who were all tied together with many common goals and history, and deeply nuanced.

 

[Hussar]

When I ran an evil campaign (Savage Tides Adventure Path in fact), I simply put in on the players. You can be as evil as you want, but, it's entirely up to you to keep the group together. You figure out why you operate together and how you can keep operating together.

Funny thing is, it kinda turned all Sopranos after a while. Everyone was REALLY polite to each other and any disagreements were quickly resolved before things escallated because everyone had bought into the idea that keeping the campaign alive was more important than being a douche bag evil guy.

Our current Dark Sun campaign is pretty evil as well. It's a mixed group and we've just stumbled into our first issue that is based on our outlooks. It will be interesting to see how this group resolves things.

IMO, an evil campaign really, really needs a group template to work well. Get everyone on board with a few solid reasons why they are working together and everything else just falls into place.