Forked Thread: What are the no-goes for you? - Evil campaigns

[Hussar]

Forked from: That thread on No Goes

(major snippage)

- No evil PCs. Yes, like someone else said, I know there's plenty of people who've HEARD of games where evil PCs worked. I've never seen it. Typically it becomes a deathmatch that never leaves the city or inn or it's a bunch of nutcakes working out their weird and hateful fetishes through D&D. So. No thanks.

I'm near the end of an evil campaign at the moment and it ran pretty darn well actually. But, there are a few things I felt that I had to do in the first place to make it work.

The absolute most important thing, IMO, to make an evil campaign work is the PC's backgrounds. This is MUCH more important than in a good group. You truly, truly need a background from the PC's that meshes with each other. They must have a reason to be together. That, right there, heads off most of the problems before they start.

What I did was have the players create their backgrounds as a group. No one got to go off and do up a background on their own. And, as part of that background, every PC had to have meaningful links to at least two other PC's. Either shared experiences, shared goals or even familial links. Whatever. It just had to be stuff that actually meant something to the PC's.

Sure, they're evil, but, they work together because they aren't stupid. They know that their goals tend to be along the same line and they are much better off working together than on their own.

The second thing was I just meta-gamed it. I flat out stated that the campaign was PVE, to use a MMORPGism. In a player vs environment system, you aren't allowed to gank your fellow players, except in some very specific, mutually agreed circumstances. I tossed the problem into their laps. They had to come up with reasons as to why they weren't screwing each other over that made sense to them.

And it's worked very, very well. They are definitely an evil group. No question about that at all. But, they do work together reasonably well as well. Either they just ignore each other when one does something that might annoy another PC, or they come up with methods as to how the issue can be dealt with without drawing weapons.

Kinda like a mafia family. I keep hearing the Sopranos theme song during play.

So, I would say that it is absolutely possible to play an evil group. I would also say that it can be a very interesting change from regular play (although, I think my players are getting a bit tired of it to be honest - one player said that he was rather happy the campaign was coming to a conclusion, he was tired of being an every session. ) But, yeah, it can be done. I would say that it's more challenging than a regular campaign in some ways. Certainly not better, but, also certainly different.

 

[Carpe DM]

I agree. My thoughts on an evil campaign here.

 

[Mort]

Forked from: That thread on No Goes
So, I would say that it is absolutely possible to play an evil group. I would also say that it can be a very interesting change from regular play (although, I think my players are getting a bit tired of it to be honest - one player said that he was rather happy the campaign was coming to a conclusion, he was tired of being an every session. ) But, yeah, it can be done. I would say that it's more challenging than a regular campaign in some ways. Certainly not better, but, also certainly different.

If I were to run an "evil" campaign I'd do it pretty much how you outlined yours. In other words, eliminate the biggest problem evil campaigns cause - massive inter party conflict causing problems between players. My group would likely take to it well, though like yours I bet they'd get tired of it somewhat quickly (I doubt I could run a multi-year arc like most other campaigns).

 

[Desdichado]

I've had great luck with evil campaigns, to the point where I actually prefer them.

Of course, I play with people who are mature. Most of the problems I hear about with evil campaigns are what I would consider immaturity. To be honest with you, "evil" is often a label applied retroactively, not something we plan on. I just get rid of alignment altogether, and I end up with some PCs that would fairly be called evil.

That doesn't make them unplayable, and I struggle with the idea that "Oh, I'm evil! I must kill the other PCs now." No, that's not what that means.

 

[maddman75]

I'm playing in an oWoD game, which is very much an 'evil' game. I mean we're all vampires. My character in particular, a southern rock musician, has his Humanity down to 3. Which means that humans are just playthings to him, he honestly couldn't care less if one dies, even at his hands.

What is important to him is the main thing - having a good time, and his friends. He dislikes most of the other vampires in the city, but has a few that he can count on. We don't try to kill each other or what have you. Not that there's no conflict - the prince was recently assassinated and a new one rose. One PC was in the prince's clan and my PC was good friends with them. Other PCs have been brought into the fold. So there's a division, but we still watch out for each other.

I think that's the important part. Just because you're an evil group doesn't mean you're not a group.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's worked for my current group, not so well for groups I've been in previously. I think the key factors were:

1) PCs work together as a team. They are loyal to the group, to the other PCs. One could argue that they are evil to the world, but good to one another.
2) No one is a raving psychopath, Evil kind of evil. The PCs are bad dudes but they are still sympathetic. Like the Punisher or Elektra, not the Red Skull.
3) We'd become a bit more mature, allowing us to avoid PvP.

 

[Crothian]

Of course it can work with the right people and the right DM. It can also not work like any other style for some people.

My experiences have been mostly that they aren't all that different. People do the same thing in normal D&D just different motivation (kill things and take their stuff). Other times peopel want evil because they believe it gives them an excuse to do what ever they want with no reprucussions. There was one evil game I was in that we weren't actually evil. It said evil on the character sheets and we worked for an evil god but we didn't really do anything evil just the same old same old.

I like it when DM's say they want an evil campaign and we all agree on it. What worries me more is when a player suggests it because he's rarely thinking of the group.

 

[MichaelK]

I've run a lot of games in my day and few have been so much of an abysmal failure as the two 'evil' games I tried to run.

However from the ruins of that, I think I've drawn a number of valuable lessons and if I were to run another evil game, I'm sure it would turn out much better than either of those two.

For the moment though I'm preferring to run games that are heroic or at worst antiheroic or morally grey.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My experiences have been mostly that they aren't all that different. People do the same thing in normal D&D just different motivation (kill things and take their stuff).

That's an interesting point. D&D's default mode of play - kill things and take their stuff - is an evil campaign. That it says 'good' on the PCs' alignment boxes is irrelevant, they ain't nice people.

 

[avin]

As a player, of the group is composed of mature experienced roleplayers, I'll join a evil campaign on a heartbeat.

As a GM, I have no much faith in ALL EVIL parties the same way I don't like te GOOD DOERS party. I have GMed for two guys who decided to crucify a soldier from a fortress they couldn't get in to force people go out and fight them. They weren't "evil" all the time, but the act they made was coherent with their "veteran of war - don't care to rules - if there's so money we're in" character.

Now, if they decide to start killing children on villages "just because" the game will became boring to me and I'll stop it next session, the same way I won't GM for some church guys who just decide to force their point of view in different cultures.

(Didn't expressed myself the way I'd express if this was a brazilian board...)