Evil Campaigns: How do you feel about them?

[Insight]

I've played the evil character from time to time. I've never really had the emotional side of evil sort of experience in a D&D game; it's mostly been about killing monsters and taking their stuff -- alignment didn't seem to matter.

I would DM an evil campaign with the right group and the right game concept. Everything would have to be in the right place for it to happen.

 

[Umbran]

Non-evil campaigns are just as vulnerable to intraparty conflict and ruining of the plot based on the party makeup.

Non-evil is vulnerable, yes. But I don't think they are just as vulnerable.

Neutral characters are usually not pursuing things for sake of principle or ideals (like Good characters tend to do) but they still have some moral governors (unlike Evil ones). So, your neutral character isn't apt to come to blows over a difference of opinion.

And, if you've got a bunch of Good characters, you can usually rely on them generally wanting to move in the same vague direction. If you've put an Evil out there, they want to stop it, make the world a better place. They may not agree on how, but they'll more often agree there's a problem they all want to address.

Evil characters aren't restricted from beating the tar out of you (usually, willingness to kill to get things out of their way is part of what makes them Evil), nor do they have the unifying goal of wanting to make the world a better place.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Non-evil campaigns are just as vulnerable to intraparty conflict and ruining of the plot based on the party makeup. This can be easily managed by creating a group template that illustrates how the group knows each other, why they stay together, what goals they share, and what the GM needs from them for the plot prior to starting the campaign. As well as ensuring that there aren't going to be any personality or ethical conflicts between the characters that could ruin the plot. It should be no different for an evil campaign. If the same thing is done for an evil campaign you'll head off most of the issues before they become a problem.

While I can see the merit in your opinion on the subject, I just have to disagree that a good party is as vulnerable as an evil party to in-fighting. I feel that a good party -most of the time- are out for the "greater good" and look out for each other because they genuinely care about each other and some members even die to protect the rest. I don't see that happening in an evil group, they are mostly out for themselves when it comes down to a life or death situation, I've never seen an evil character in any book/movie/RPG or anywhere else offer to selflessly lay down his life so that his companions could get away safely and and live another day. You see think kind of act very often in a good character.

I totally agree that to keep an evil party together they need a really good reason to do so, they need to share common goals/motivations and they need to agree to stick together even with their warped sense of honor or keeping their word. We all know that evil tends to break promises much easier than good because to good people/characters that's "wrong," but to evil characters that's more along the lines of "self preservation" and the "me-first" attitude most people seem to portray evil as being, whether in books, movies, or table-top games.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

@Filcher 's XP Comment: Guess it depends on if they use detect evil on him or not....

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Non-evil is vulnerable, yes. But I don't think they are just as vulnerable.

While I can see the merit in your opinion on the subject, I just have to disagree that a good party is as vulnerable as an evil party to in-fighting.

I'll concede AS vulnerable may be overstating. But my point was that having a discussion about the group makeup and what is expected of it prior to creating characters and starting the campaign can ensure that the plot doesn't get derailed because of character differences. It works well for a good campaign and it would work well for an evil campaign.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I'll concede AS vulnerable may be overstating. But my point was that having a discussion about the group makeup and what is expected of it prior to creating characters and starting the campaign can ensure that the plot doesn't get derailed because of character differences. It works well for a good campaign and it would work well for an evil campaign.

I'll definitely agree to having a prior discussion with the group as DM is an absolute must especially if you are running an evil-themed campaign. I've gone as far as requiring that all the players give me a detailed background on their PCs because you can't just have all of them do the cliche "meet in a tavern" beginning, they need a stronger bond of some sort to want to actually travel together in my opinion. I want them to know each other a bit better and have more things than "I'm seeking adventure" in common to start out.

 

[Barastrondo]

Not wildly fond of them for a couple of reasons.

One is that a really good D&D game, to me, is about shaping the world. Building a legacy, toppling governments, things of that nature. I tend to appreciate campaigns with world-shaping and community-building more if they aren't evil in nature because it's easier to become invested in wanting to make the world a better place (for personalized ideals of "better", of course.)

Another is that, well, "the evil campaign" isn't a very solid hook for me to hang a hat on. A thieves' guild campaign? Great. A mercenary campaign? Awesome. But a game in which everyone is bonded together by the commonality of "we are evil" doesn't speak to me of anything. Sometimes they go a little farther, like "oh the forces of Good are really insufferable and we want to topple the magical pony princess," but I'm not terribly interested in opponents that are straw men. (Except maybe killer scarecrows.) It's just not that unifying a theme, and I like my D&D to have some theme to it. (For full disclosure, I also have also had my fill of random bands of adventurers in search of generic gold and generic glory. Give me a campaign hook!)

Finally, I've just never really played with any players who could make the concept sound interesting and fun. I've played with some players who could handle technically evil but interesting, nuanced and cooperative characters. I've played with others who just wanted it to be an excuse to mess with other players. I've never played with an entire group interested in the former approach -- interesting, nuanced and cooperative characters, yes, but never a group of players who said "and also it would be interesting to be evil."

 

[Dice4Hire]

Evil campaigns are one thing I avoid.

I like the trope of the good party working together to make things better, or at least explore while working together.

Backstabbing and suspicion and paranoia are no fun at all, at least for me.

I know some people might like it, but I am not one, from either side of the screen.

 

[Janx]

Non-evil is vulnerable, yes. But I don't think they are just as vulnerable.

Neutral characters are usually not pursuing things for sake of principle or ideals (like Good characters tend to do) but they still have some moral governors (unlike Evil ones). So, your neutral character isn't apt to come to blows over a difference of opinion.

And, if you've got a bunch of Good characters, you can usually rely on them generally wanting to move in the same vague direction. If you've put an Evil out there, they want to stop it, make the world a better place. They may not agree on how, but they'll more often agree there's a problem they all want to address.

Evil characters aren't restricted from beating the tar out of you (usually, willingness to kill to get things out of their way is part of what makes them Evil), nor do they have the unifying goal of wanting to make the world a better place.

Exactly. As a GM, I find it's easy to prime the pump for a good party. Present them with a problem, and they all jump into fix it.

And the Paladin is not likely to kill the Ranger because he coveted his bow or didn't agree on choosing right or left at the fork in the road.

Evil characters, are more prone to terminal in-fighting, unpredictable pursuit and abandonment of goals (this looks hard, screw that, let's go kill some hobos).

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

 

[Chris Knapp]

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

This begs the question: does sand-boxing promote evil play? Or is it just the preferred format since story-driven games run such a high risk of imploding with evil players?