Going All Evil. Experiences?

[Doug McCrae]

I've played in several all or mostly evil parties, and run a specifically all evil game once. My current group are pretty much incapable of playing good guys, if they do they make them lawful stupid or just stupid, they can't comprehend the idea of an intelligent person being moral.

All or mostly evil definitely works for my current group. We're all agreed on no PVP, the group has to work together as a team. This is perfectly plausible, there's no reason why bad guys can't have friends or see the value in co-operative effort. Minor conflict such as fist fights and disagreements are fine, obviously. We're generally agreed that going off on your own is a Bad Thing in any rpg and keep it to a minimum. It's a good group, these guys know what they're doing. No one's ever played EVIL - insane, sadistic, psychopathic - just selfish or misguided evil. Which I think is a good idea, like the protagonists in a story, PCs have to be at least somewhat sympathetic for an rpg to work.

Evil games in the past have worked less well. There was an Amber game where the PCs had all been trapped in a city for the last eight sessions. We'd probably become very frustrated and started trying to outdo one another in EVIL acts. I ate a kid, one PC raped a kid, another turned into a cloud of acid and flew around killing people at random. The campaign soon folded. We were sick of the game by then and the EVIL was most likely a symptom, not a cause.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

In my experience, playing alongside evil PCs generally just led to annoying play, with a lot of petulant, greedy and destructive behavior. The once case I recall playing alongside an Evil character proved genuinely disturbing. Maybe it would be more rewarding with an entirely evil group?

The stronger the back story, the better for you as DM, imho - but it sounds like you already know that . You might use some in game method like Mark of Justice, guardian spirits, curses, etc, to keep the in-party evil in check, but that's kind of weak from a story perspective.

Requiring character be Lawful Evil (or "Honorable Bad" ) is a possible route, especially if there's a code of some sort to back it up. Violate the Code, and suffer the consequences (either mechanical ones, such as gaining a Flaw; or an rp one, such as suddenly being beset by ninjas from the Brotherhood).

Of course, the flip-side of the Decent into Evil is Redemption. So, again depending upon character backstory and motivation, there are always those kinds of RP paths to explore further down the line if it gets too out of hand.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My one experience of an all-evil game was a poor one. I tried to make a character who was plausibly evil... who could actually survive in a city without being hunted down by a pitchfork-wielding mob and who could further his own goals.

Every single other PC was a cackling madman who would cross the street just to kick a puppy. And then set it on fire.

I ended up getting my throat cut because the others decided I must be a spy. And the DM really couldn't see a way - or a reason - to stop them, since I think she'd written it off as a failed experiment by then anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[JohnBiles]

My experience with such games was such that I'd rather repeatedly hit myself in the groin with a sledgehammer than do it again. I wish you luck, but I expect you will see your campaign destroy itself in fire.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

You've really, really got to get everyone on the same page. Having a mature set of gamers that aren't using the game to play out their own hidden, sadomasichist fantasies helps.

I've been running a "gray" morality-based campaign for going on ten years, and the reason it's survived is primarily due to the maturity of the players involved. A good inspiration for understanding how "evil" can work at a gaming table would be to read up on the Black Company by Glen Cook.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I never ran an evil campaign, though I considered it a few times.

The problems I see are two-fold
1) Inter-Party conflicts. Every group is different, and some can handle this well. I suppose a group that often plays Paranoia might handle this very well, a group that would never touch that game again won't.

2) Motivating the group. How do you motivate a bunch of egoistic guys to follow any type of adventures, especially together?
Good-aligned characters - sure, there is a village to rescue or a goblin tribe harassing travelers. Sure they go to investigate it!
But why would the evil guys take the risks?


One of my ideas is to give the party a larger goal on what they really wanted to achieve. My idea is that they become part of an evil organization that wants to bring down the BGGG (Big Goodie Goods Guys), probably a lawful good republic or theocracy (I envision Paladings standing guard at the city walls, carefully scanning for evil and making notes...)

The question is - what do they gain from it? Do they get a powerful position? (Maybe they are rightful heirs to an older regime that was displaced by the good guys, and want to get back into power?)

 

[El Mahdi]

One might ask - what is the difference between Evil and "willing to do evil things to get what they want"? Selfishness to the point of hurting others is a form of evil, is it not?

This is the primary downfall of evil parties, in my experience. You are talking about characters who are willing to see others hurt to reach their own ends. If, at some point, their own ends are best served by hurting the other PCs, then there's a problem.

It helps if the characters have a reason to work together. Lawful Evil, for example, can be an aid here. Telling them that they need to take a long view - so that if they do hurt each other, at least it is part of a dramatic, long-term plot - can also help.

Members of an evil party need to have good impulse control, no matter how selfish they are

I think this is the most important factor, and right on the money. A group of chaotic (translation: selfish) characters just will not work together. They need to have a unifying purpose. Anti-paladins and evil clerics (as long as they aren't chaotic) work well. Asassins hired by a group or character, or somehow have their fortune linked to the group, can also work well.

I was in an evil campaign once, that for the most part went pretty well. We had an Anti-paladin and asassin that worked well together. However, we also had two players playing twins which were essentially freaked out drug addicts (imagine a D&D version of RIFTS Juicers). It was a constant struggle for the group with those characters.

But, with a unifying purpose, and a good discussion between you and the players about what evil is and the ground rules of the groups dynamics, it can be a pretty fun game.

Ask any actor, it's always more fun to play the bad guy. Not that any of you want this in real life, but being seperated from moral norms and typical social contracts, and being able to act without most limitations can be really fun.

 

[Slander]

I played in an evil campaign a few years back while most of our game group was on vacation. The couple of us in our group who played in that brief campaign still reminisce about it. The problem you have to overcome is similar to the problem with the Paladin. Just as people tend to play Paladin's as "Lawful Stupid", people tend to play evil characters as "Stupid Evil".

Successful, evil characters will often view their teammates as tools vs. comrades. The more tools an evil character has, the more successful the evil character will be in achieving his/their goals. It's just dumb to kill a useful tool just because it pisses you off. It will ultimately hurt the character more in the long run because dumb, evil characters rarely last long.

Finally, just as in a normal campaign, there still exists a gaming contract amongst the players, even if it doesn't exist amongst the characters. PvP killing, even if it can be "justified" in character, just can't happen (unless you want that kind of game). Or if it does, it is with mutual consent and appropriately dramatic. Honestly, even if killing is an easy solution, it's rarely the best, even amongst evil characters.

 

[scrubkai]

My experience is like most of the others on the board...

Be sure you do two things up front:
1) Define what evil is. Are you going to be self-centered, Running a thieves guild, kicking puppies and old ladies for fun, quietly taking useless flesh sacks off the street for your arcane experiments, Or bringing the next demon plague to a city just because they closed the city gates at night and didn't let you in. There's a pretty good range of evil, everyone needs to agree where you want to be at before they start the game.

2) Set CLEAR boundaries on what can happen within the party. Sure I can't knife you in the back.... Can I steal your treasure? What about cutting and running from a fight that looks like it's going baddly for you. Everyone needs to be on the same page for this to work.

3) If you are going to be exploring "sensitive" topics (Rape, Slavery, Human Sacrifice, etc.) find out from all your players confidentially if there is anything they want you to avoid.

 

[amysrevenge]

My experience with such games was such that I'd rather repeatedly hit myself in the groin with a sledgehammer than do it again. I wish you luck, but I expect you will see your campaign destroy itself in fire.

This, the groin thing.

I *heard* of one that "worked" (in that it ended because some of the people moved to a different city and not because of conflict) for a couple of sessions. The way they did it was to make their PCs collectively rather than separately, and make sure that they shared motivations and such.