Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4908111" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, we just wrapped up my Savage Tide 3.5 game today.  It was a great run and we really enjoyed it.  This was a bit of a first for me, to be honest, this was the first time I've ever run an evil campaign.  There were good parts and bad parts, so I thought I'd share.The GoodIt actually brought the group together better.  The party was mostly evil, with a single neutral character.  Because they knew that they were much better at achieving their goals as a group, they stuck together without backstabbing each other.  Also, because all the players knew they were all evil, there was no inter-party fighting really.  Everyone was extra polite by and large, to each other since they knew that any conflict could very quickly escalate.Very Sopranos feeling.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It also brought out some really interesting scenes where the party was trying to do stuff and get away with it.  Made for some pretty creative solutions from time to time.  Instead of wanting to get accolades and rewards, they almost actively shied away from the public eye.  And rightfully so.The BadIt's really, really hard to make adventures for evil characters.  Evil is, almost by definition, pro-active.  Evil goes out and does stuff.  Good, OTOH, is reactive.  Evil threatens and Good goes and stops them.  There were more than a few times during the campaign where being evil didn't really seem to matter.  Lengthy stretches of the campaign where they were doing exactly the same thing that good characters would do.And, really, what's the point of being evil if you don't ACT evil.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Part of this is the Adventure Path itself I think.  It's virtually impossible to write an adventure, let alone a series of adventures, that will appeal to diametrically opposed characters.  What motivates one party just doesn't motivate the other.  And, the AP, by its nature, is a bit of a rail-road, so, again, there just aren't that many places for the party to stand up and eat puppies.Although the wizard shivving the lovable gnome, Urol Furol, at the behest of his demonic patron was gaming gold.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ConclusionWould I run an evil campaign again?  Yes.  Definitely.  It opens up all sorts of angles that a good campaign just doesn't deal with.  However, if I were to do it, it would have to be decided right at the outset and the campaign designed with that in mind.  I would never run an adventure path, or really most modules, with an evil party again.  The assumptions are just all wrong.</blockquote>

Verification