Herosmith14
First Post
So, this is an idea that's been rattling around in my mind for a while. A number of months ago a group at a FLGS I occasionaly go to started up an evil campaign. I wasn't apart of it, but I thought it was a fun idea. I eventually ended up thinking about how you would conduct an evil campaign, and by that I mean how you would handle the possibly clashing individual goals of the party. Of course you could just go for the old "conquer the world and divide it up" strategy, but that only works in certain circumstances, and, to me at least, seems rather uninventive. I was hoping you guys could give me some advice on a strategy I came up with to run an evil campaign.
So the basic idea is each character has a certain set of goals they need to accomplish in order to achieve there endgame, as well as some roadblocks that block the party as a whole, such as the good guys. You could evenly distribute ways of reaching goals throughout the adventure, such as having 4(one for each party member, not specifically 4) items or people dispersed throughout a dungeon or small adventuring area that would progress the scheme of each character.
Once all the major threats have been neutralized and a character has accomplished all of the prerequisites to their final goal, a player could talk to the DM, and, with the DM's okay, could "Endgame," or betray the party; their once-comrades now being the largest known threat to them. The DM could supply an NPC that would fill the same niche as the traitor(So as to not unbalance the party). The party and the traitor would fight (the traitor would presumably have summoned minions in some form) and if the party kills the traitor, the player in control of the traitor would roll up a new character, with a new set of goals to accomplish, and the campaign would continue until another player "endgames." If the traitor kills or otherwise defeats the party, the campaign ends and you could possibly start up a new one, with heroes instead of villains, and the point is to topple the victor of the last campaign.
One of the problems I see with his model is that it might unintentionaly encourage backstabbing through out the entire campaign, not just at the end, and could lead to a lot of mistrust around the table.
Any thoughts?
So the basic idea is each character has a certain set of goals they need to accomplish in order to achieve there endgame, as well as some roadblocks that block the party as a whole, such as the good guys. You could evenly distribute ways of reaching goals throughout the adventure, such as having 4(one for each party member, not specifically 4) items or people dispersed throughout a dungeon or small adventuring area that would progress the scheme of each character.
Once all the major threats have been neutralized and a character has accomplished all of the prerequisites to their final goal, a player could talk to the DM, and, with the DM's okay, could "Endgame," or betray the party; their once-comrades now being the largest known threat to them. The DM could supply an NPC that would fill the same niche as the traitor(So as to not unbalance the party). The party and the traitor would fight (the traitor would presumably have summoned minions in some form) and if the party kills the traitor, the player in control of the traitor would roll up a new character, with a new set of goals to accomplish, and the campaign would continue until another player "endgames." If the traitor kills or otherwise defeats the party, the campaign ends and you could possibly start up a new one, with heroes instead of villains, and the point is to topple the victor of the last campaign.
One of the problems I see with his model is that it might unintentionaly encourage backstabbing through out the entire campaign, not just at the end, and could lead to a lot of mistrust around the table.
Any thoughts?