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

[DMZ2112]

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.

Sorry, the intent of that "of any size" was to include adventuring parties. I could have been more clear.

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

No disagreement.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

That is admittedly not how I interpreted the OP's question. I was actually feeling like the recent foray into the question of alignment interpretation by players was somewhat off topic. Fair enough; I can accept that your post was made in good faith. Sorry for the challenge.

 

[Desdichado]

Eh, no prob. I didn't read the whole thread carefully, so I was probably missing some context there. In my case, I've run a few very successful evil campaigns. But I think the problem a lot of groups have is that since the alignment twist is the twist to the campaign itself, they focus on it too much, over-think it, and forget to just play the game normally with a character who's a lying, violent, ne'er-do-well. Reducing the focus on alignment, making sure not to forget to play the game like a mature regular player, and maybe having a stronger thematic focus (i.e., we're not just "evil"--we're fantasy The Godfather for example) all seem to have been strategies that have worked very well in games I've run.

 

[AmpsterMan]

Heh, on the above points, I too don't like the alignment axis. When I make my own characters I instead try to give them a Myers-Brigs personality type, a motivation, any past events, etc.

My big bad might be an INTJ (Roughly a "Lawful" Type) with some very selfish aspirations (arguably "Evil") However, this DOES NOT mean he has to hate everyone and everything. On the contrary, he might even care for those around him. He might love the people in his demesne.

 

[GameDoc]

Heh, on the above points, I too don't like the alignment axis. When I make my own characters I instead try to give them a Myers-Brigs personality type, a motivation, any past events, etc.

My big bad might be an INTJ (Roughly a "Lawful" Type) with some very selfish aspirations (arguably "Evil") However, this DOES NOT mean he has to hate everyone and everything. On the contrary, he might even care for those around him. He might love the people in his demesne.

So gonna do that with my next campaign.

 

[MarkB]

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.

One advantage of not having a written alignment for a character is that you don't feel any obligation to remain consistent with that alignment. Disengaging from the "am I good or evil / lawful or chaotic?" question might allow for a wider range of responses to different circumstances, and result in a more rounded character with broader, more true-to-life motivations.

Not in every case, or for every player - but certainly in a lot of cases.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I play a very good game of all-evil all-arcane characters that's very fun for everyone in the group.

I've got four pieces of advice (some of which has been mentioned):

Have the players establish relationship bonds between most or all of the characters (they are less likely to betray each other if there's a roleplaying reason not to).

Make sure the players understand that if there IS a conflict between characters, it should never be a conflict between players. Both players involved in a conflict should be in agreement on what the story is that involves conflict between their characters.

Make sure the players really think through the personalities of the characters. Playing evil should not be a reason to just do whatever you want (not even chaotic evil, exactly). There should be internal consistency or they'll be playing cliche's, not characters.

Leave a lot of the truly despicable acts to the imagination. "I do something horrible to the prisoner." will probably do it over role-playing terrible things in detail. The characters can actually be worse that way without making the game itself disgusting.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Here's how I would approach it, and it ties nicely into the traits, bonds, and flaws.

Give the characters a powerful shared history that bonds them together. Perhaps they served together in an evil hoard, are part of a longstanding faction, or are even related by blood. Whatever the reason, there is a deep affection for one another. This transcends alignment. That said, no true sociopaths.

Perhaps have the players come up with some custom backgrounds to reflect this shared history.

You could even go so far as to give the group a motto, such as "Anything is moral if it serves the family".

 

[AmpsterMan]

So gonna do that with my next campaign.

My character that I am making right now is largely an avatar for myself, so he is an INTP Bard of Lore . I find Myers Briggs to make very good character silhouettes that one can fall back on when wondering what that character would do in a particular scenario.

 

[Mull Ponders]

It can be done.

Way back in 1st edition I played in (then ran) a campaign with mostly evil characters. Chaotic evil fire worshiping clerics, backed up by assassins, assorted fighters and other stuff. The key was they had a bond to each other. They had a larger purpose, something that mere loot couldn't overcome. In this case they were scouts, sent a year ahead of time to explore this unknown region and map out a plan. At the end of that year the "gate" was going to open again and their entire clan (think 10,00 people) would pour through looking for a new home. Given their alignment, it didn't matter too much if someone else was already occupying it, so long as the scouts had figured out their weaknesses.

jfolsen