I've attempted such kinds of games before, and I must say communication is key. Have a sit down with everyone and make sure everyone is on the same page as to what is and isn't allowed. An out of game contract per say.
I ended up retiring from an evil campaign because of a misunderstanding. I thought that the PvP was going to be held off until the end of the campaign (a sort of, we've conquered the world now, but which one of us gets to rule it kind of scenario). Turns out I had misunderstood, PvP WAS allowed, provided it went through the GM first. My character was betrayed early on only two minutes after another player passed a note to the GM. Naturally, things got...heated.
My advice? Find some in game reasoning as to why the evil party DOESN'T betray one another. Even evil people have family and friends whome they love. It stands to reason that they might have associates who they would never truly betray. Common goals amidst villainy members help to accomplish this. Treat the game as you would a normal one, except everyone's goals, and approaches to situations are dramatically different.
Communication and strong character backgrounds -- the character has to be more than just a toon... he has to have reason for everything that happens. People are not naturally evil (I'm not saying they are natural good by the way) -- in order for them to go with evil it has to be not only the path of least resistance but have something that leads there too.
Like has been stated, backstories are key, out of game relationships also help. I GMed an evil campaign once, all of us had been close friends for a while, PVP wasn't an issue, noone did anything to cruelly graphic to make the others uncomfortable, and they raised an army by doing favors and jobs for other groups. In the end, they ransacked a city. One of my favorite campaigns ever.
Keeping this trope is helpful. Especially if party sits before start and discuss common standards between themselves (do not betray your companion, or better kin, or do not betray the cause are good ones).
| 38 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil campaigns can be difficult, for all of those reasons discussed above. I have never played in a ‘pure’ evil campaign such as Way of the Wicked. However, the very first character I ever played in AD&D (a monk fellow by the name of Arminas) was Lawful Evil in a most good/partly neutral party; one that furthermore included a Paladin of Heironious in the ranks. Our DM (a great games-master named Steve Baker) and I sat down several hours before the game started and, as it was the very first time I had ever played D&D, we went over a few things.
He asked me to take a quick look at the book, and upon seeing the monk, I wanted to play one. No, I didn’t have to play him from 1st level, but Steve let come in with XP one level below that of the players: 7th. This was back in the heady days of 1st edition, so he had me roll 3d6 in order—but, he told me since I wanted to play a monk, my stats would either what I rolled or the minimum allowed for the class. Well, between some good rolls and bumping scores up to the minimum, I had a really good character by the time we finished with THAC0 and AC and saves and my attacks and damage and hit points and all that jive.
And then he asked me what alignment I wanted to play. Well, I started to answer ‘good, of course’, but then I asked him what alignment do you think I should play? He got a grin on his face, and explained to me that the group was currently a quest for the Church of the Twins: a forced amalgamation of the clergy of Heironious (LG) and Hextor (LE). Half the party was good and devoted to Heironious; the rest was neutral, with a thief and a cleric of St. Cuthbert (LN). He said that any of the three alignments could fit, but that he would like to see a Hextorian join the party—if I was up to the task of playing it well. After which, he explained to me that Lawful Evil was a lot like Darth Vader.
Hey, it was 1986 and I was a freshman in college.
I jumped on it with both feet. We spent the next hour finishing up the details of the character (his height, weight, racial ethnicity [Arminas was a Suel], and bit of character background). I determined that Arminas was an orphan who had been raised by a local monastery in his home of the Theocracy of the Pale (which in Steve Baker’s world was run by the Hextorians, not the Pholtans! Take that you intolerant light-bringers!) as a ward of the Church of Hextor. His path was not that of the clergy, but instead that of a monk.
By the time I joined the party, Arminas had progressed to the point where he was a major trouble-shooter of the Church: in a very literal fashion (ok, ok, trouble-beat’em-‘til-they-cry-for-uncle-and-beat ‘em-some-more). And he was very religious. Oh, you should have the faces on the folks I would be gaming with that night when Steve introduced me—and my character and the Holy Symbol of Hextor that he wore openly around his neck.
And even before I could make my introductions, the Bishops (11th level NPCs) of Hextor and Heironious walked up, I handed over my holy symbol was released from my vows to Hextor. I then took vows to the Church of the Twins and received my new holy symbol (basically a combination of H's&H’s symbols). And the party was then told I was the representative of the new Church hierarchy. Well, they were pretty much rattled, and since Steve didn’t let us share our character sheets, they had no idea what level I was or what my stats were or what my alignment was (although they could pretty well guess the last!).
We loaded upon a sailing ship that was taking us across the Nyr Dyv to Greyhawk City. I was paired up with the LN cleric of St. Cuthbert and by the end of that first session had him terrified of me. See, Arminas used a kusari-gama (basically a sickle on the end of a 5’ long weight chain); and I practiced my katas in our cabin. Swinging that razor sharp sickle over and over again inches above the cleric’s nose as he lay on his bunk. And Steve was in on it as well! He loudly announced that since the ship was moving, I would have to take a -2 on my To-Hit rolls—and if I rolled a 1 or a 2, I would hit the cleric. (Before hand, I had told him I intended to be very careful and Steve secretly gave me a +4 bonus for doing so, but we didn’t the others!)
The player, not the character, but the player was sweating bullets, especially when I announced that I rolled a ‘3’. Steve smiled and asked ‘before or after the -2?’ And he began to breath again when I said ‘after’.
On the first night of our voyage, Arminas found the thief rummaging through his belongings. The thief turned around and held up a magical dagger that Arminas had been given by the Church—and announced that since he could better make use of it, it was now his. This thief was a real tough guy, played by a very good role-player with whom I was friends. I nodded, and asked him if he was certain he was going to take what was rightfully mine—and he said yep. What’re ya going do about it? Cry to the paladin?
At that moment, I was so happy that I had selected a Lawful Evil alignment. I let the thief leave with the dagger and then I made a plan. Next session, I shared it with Steve before the game began and he burst out laughing.
You see, for that edition, monks had speak with animals. So, I made friends with the rats, and the seagulls and the ship’s cats. I fed them, and I talked to them, and I convinced them that the thief was their mortal enemy. Within a week, I had managed to talk them into driving the thief out of his mind. When he went above the decks, the seagulls began to scream and flap around his face (and firing projectiles at him, the type of projectiles that came out of their rear, if you know what I mean). The rats chewed up his bedroll, his straw mattress, his pack, his spare clothing. The cat’s gave birth in the mess and sprayed his face at night while he tried to sleep.
And I? I began spreading a rumor throughout the crew that the thief was obviously cursed by the Gods—otherwise why would the animals be treating him such? Soon, he became a pariah. His food had rat droppings and cat urine in it; he couldn’t bathe on deck without getting covered in seagull guano. He couldn’t sleep. He couldn’t rest. My character literally drove his insane.
And then, I told him. I was protected from thieves by the powers of my Gods. And all of this was the result of a curse from him stealing from me. He begged me to lift the curse, and offered back my dagger. I refused, saying that he had wanted the blade and the blade he now had. He offered me his ring of protection as well, and I smiled and agreed to lift his curse. The very night before we docked in the City of Greyhawk.
Guy had a nervous tick about setting foot on boats ever since and never, ever stole from me again.
Several months later (and after I had gained a new level by defeating an 8th-level monk master, woo-hoo!), we were busy getting into the meat and potatoes of our quest. And we found that we had several prisioners who were not cooperating and answering our questions. We needed their information, but they wouldn’t talk.
Enter me.
I offered to get them to talk, and that divided the party along alignment lines. The paladin refused to hear of torture, but the many of the rest knew we had to get the info. Finally, the paladin extracted a solemn oath from me that I would not torture the poor saps. I agreed, having just seen ‘The Untouchables’.
Demanding absolute solitude from the rest of the party—except for my two closest allies (the LN cleric of St. Cuthbert and a N gnome illusionist), I revealed my plan. The prisioners were tied to their chairs, while the cleric and illusionist began to interrogate them. Then I came in, slapping them around a little, and taking out a sharp knife. They got holier-than-thou, and forced me from the room. So I went outside, and right on cue, the illusionist said ‘oh my god, the other prisoner is out back!’
I slapped the corpse around a bit, making sure that the chair could be seen from inside the hut. And then, I said, tough guy, huh. You don’t want to talk? You don’t want to talk! And I took out the knife, and began to cut away fingers and the dead man’s nose and ears—as the illusionist created the most vile high-pitched screams anyone had ever heard. And then, I cut out the corpse’s tongue and hacked off his head.
Drenched with blood, I stormed back in—and right on cue, the cleric of St. Cuthbert said, I ain’t gonna stop him, not now, not when he is filled with blood lust. And he walked out. So there I was, holding a severed head, and both of the prisoners began begging me to listen to them as they spilled their guts.
Now the paladin was mad as Hades and drew her sword on me, swearing to run me through for breaking my oath—when the gnome said ‘he didn’t torture anyone; hell, he didn’t touch a living soul once.’
And the cleric confirmed it.
It was the game that was perhaps the most fun-filled I have every played in. Because I remembered two very important rules for playing evil: don’t do it to your fellow players unless they really deserve it (and even then, keep it non-lethal), and always keep your word so they know they can trust you, even if they hate your character’s guts. By following those two simple rules I was able to play Arminas until he reached 14th level in ’94. And I enjoyed every minute of it, along with the people with whom I played. He never betrayed them, and he never broke his sworn word, although he was a right bastard at times. His evil he reserved for his foes that deserved it, not for his own companions.
And that, my friends, is the key to playing evil well.
Master Arminas
Well said, Master Arminas. That, truly, is how an Evil character can be a functional member of the party.
Thank ye. Ask me about the paladin sometime, and I'll tell you how I made her fall from grace. Never mind the fact that we eventually got married (characters, not players). But that is a story for another time.
Master Arminas
I've played evil characters in good parties, played in two evil parties, and have also GM'd an evil party.
1) Evil has to be proactive.
Not really. A BBEG has to be proactive, but the party can be evil without being "the villain." Throw in a BBGG for them to thwart and the fact they murder and pillage along the way is the only major thing differentiating them from a good party.
2) Minions.
Never had a problem with this. Players realize just as easily as GMs that this would just make things boring.
3) PVP.
First of all, I want to say that PVP can work. In the right circumstances, the act of turning on a brother in arms out of deeply-held principles can be an incredible roleplaying experience that adds a lot of depth to the game. I've seen it happen, and even been the "victim" of it, and still cherish those experiences.
But I've also seen a lot of stupid PVP, and that's never good. As far as I'm concerned, this is the GM's responsibility. Here's how this should go:
Player 1: I make a comment about the probable size of [character 2]'s penis.
Player 2: I pull out my sword.
P1: Feeling threatened, my character casts Ray of Enfeeblement. *grabs his/her dice to start rolling to hit*
GM: Are you guys really sure you want to go down this road?
P2: My character is very prideful, he wouldn't take an insult.
P1: And my character is optimized to kick his *** in a fight.
GM: Calm down. You guys have been adventuring together for months. Would you really be at each others throats over something so stupid?[
P1: Yes.
GM: No, you wouldn't. Moving on...
4) Squick factor.
Really depends on your group. In the evil game I ran, we had a scene where the party force-fed a chopped-up woman to her small daughter before sacrificing said daughter in an unholy ritual. But because it was so ludicrous and over-the-top, no one thought anything of it.
But I've also seen a player (neutral character, in fact) use the threat of rape (with no intention of committing it, we were assured) as an interrogation tactic. It was so disturbing that the GM intervened with a sudden ambush out of nowhere that freed the prisoner.
The important thing is to gauge the response of your players and move things along if people are uncomfortable. The best strategy I've seen is to have things occur off-screen. Had a player once who was a serial killer, and each time they stopped in a town he'd sneak out to find a victim. But the character's euphemism for his ritual was "a conversation," so all the player needed to do was say "[character] heads out and finds a conversation partner" and we'd leave it at that.
5) The banality of evil
In my opinion, this is the opposite of the problem. Players create characters who are cartoon caricatures of evil, who just randomly massacre for no reason, and talk about how evil they are. I'm pretty sure no one in real life considers themselves evil, and characters shouldn't either.
They should have deep-seated emotional issues, or be severely detached from reality, or a overzealous devotion to a questionable cause, or incredibly narcissistic. In short, they should have a consistent moral compass that just points in the wrong direction. OR They should have an inconsistent one and be aware of it. A temper they just can't control, for instance, but which they despise themselves for having.
What they shouldn't do is kill babies "just 'cause." No one does that. Just because a character is evil doesn't mean they should be less of a fleshed-out and believable person.
master arminas as always your words are a delight to read and im interested in hearing the about the paladin's fall from grace someday rofl
I have a guy in my group who always plays a chaotic evil character. But the thing is, I don't think I've ever seen him do anything chaotic or evil. I think he thinks that chaotic evil means "When you see an enemy, pull out your greatsword and charge at them screaming".
*sigh*....
One of the reasons I fell out of my evil group was because another character in the party threatened my character's life and soon posed a credible threat.
When I decided to cast dominate person on his character in order to protect my own, the PLAYER b&!&*ed and moaned about how he would "quit" if he wasn't able to play his character with 100% freedom. I worked with him out of game, trying to come up with a compromise, with things such as "the domination will be limited to not moving against my character." But he wouldn't have it.
Not willing to ruin another player's fun for any reason, I decided not to attack his character directly, and we roleplayed out a cooling down period instead.
His character betrayed my character the next day (with the support of the GM no less!).
I did everything in-game and out-of-game that I could think of to not only keep to my character, but to ensure everyone was having fun. In return, the other players trashed MY fun.
I was like "WTF!?"
Unsurprisingly, the entire campaign fell apart soon after I (the only apparent voice of reason) abandoned it.
I'm currently playing a le char and honestly i don't do much in the way of actual evil. Its one of the best things about evil in that you don't HAVE to do things to maintain your alignment.
If i have a chance to stick it too a goody goody or i can gain more power by ripping out someones soul or a problem can be solved by summoning a horde of devils sure. But on the flip side why bother coming up with a diabolical scheme to do something evil when you can do it with less fuss by just asking. I traded favours with the bbeg (before he was the bbeg), i don't need to run around stamping on puppies and stealing toys from orphans to be considered evil. Just knowing that a character has the capability to conciously commit evil acts if required makes them evil enough in my book, would my character commit murder, rob the poor, kill a puppy? Of course but that doesn't mean i have to.
I also know in character that if everytime one of my party piss me off i try to kill them i won't have a goody goody healer around for long to vouch for me when paladins get twitchy in the street as i walk by or a beer swilling fighter to watch my back while i sleep. There are repercusions to pvp, no one wants to play with the guy who always comes back to town by himself and blames in on the dragon.
|
In my experience, the major cost of every evil campaign hasn't been PVP; I've been fortunate enough to have good groups the few times we've done it. It's PVE, or always wanting to overthrow any NPC that has power over you. This has had me doing everything from jumping into near-impossible fights with an assassin's guild leader to early attempts at vampire destruction; all in the name of supporting the PC that "voted with a gun", as the term goes.
On the other hand, I have had PVP in non-evil parties; mostly in the form of greed (neutral types pocketing treasure). This has always played out far more heavily.
I have played evil / good mixed group; and as long As nobody is a tool everything goes fine. Heck, my PFS primary is "evil" (LN Chelaxian worshiper of Asmodeus), but can get along (sometimes on eggshells) with the predominant Andorian goody-goodies :). Just a matter of maturity.
The evil guys I've gamed with have had absolutely no problems being "pro-active" with their deeds. In fact, it's down right terrifying how detailed and determined they are with those plans. Give them a map, and they'll plan out a complex series of attacks on the surrounding landscape, point out positions to set up garrisons and strongholds, detail the make up of their armies, their means of keeping authority within ranks, the works. It's both impressive and horrifying at the same time.
But, these games have crashed and burned many times. Usually, it's the DM trying to out-evil the players, and so far nobody I've ever gamed with can out-evil these guys. The best thing to do is come up with opposition that's holy-as-holy-can-be to give them a real challenge. Most DM's are just so used to running the roles of the settings bad guys, it's hard to change up to actually running the good guys against player-villains.
It very much depends on the maturity and imagination of the whole entire player group.
I have only been in 1 group where there wasn't at least 1 person that couldn't really handle it well. Even most of the players I know in there 20's and 30's can't really handle it. Certainly not the entire group.
Most people can't seem to play evil as anything other than CE with a completely out of control immediate gratification unreasonable response personality. Leads very quickly to non-fun PvP and an end to the campaign.
Is marginally possible if CE and CN is removed as a possiblity and everyone discusses it as group OoC before anything starts. Also have to find some sort of tie for the PC to cooperate: grew up together, related, etc...
The funny thing is most of the people I know that play LN or N characters on a regular basis, could easily be defined as really just a socially functional LE or NE character.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shortly after the Untouchables scene, Arminas’s group managed to find and recover the item we had quested for over the past year. Finally, we thought, we could return home to the Duchy of Tenh and kick the butt of one character’s uncle who had stolen the throne and exiled our buddy, a NG ranger. Boy, were we ever wrong.
Upon our return to Greyhawk City, we were arrested on charges of multiple murders. Needless to say, the entire party took turns staring at ME. I had to remind them that I had been with them outside of the city when these murders took place. Confident that things would get cleared up, we went into custody with the guards and suggested that they speak with Mordenkainen, who had dispatched us on the last leg of our quest.
Well, there we were, with all of our gear taken away (the guards were kind enough to leave us with our normal clothing, so we didn’t have to wear prison raiment) and we were tough enough and scary enough that the other prisioners left us alone. Mostly. Like I said, our paladin was a lady, and that seemed to bring out the worst in our fellow inmates. But, three dead attempted rapists later (have I said how much I enjoy playing a monk because he can’t be disarmed?), the rest of them left us alone. But, unfortunately, those three deaths would be added to our list of crimes (and man o man was the party mad that I didn’t just subdue the thugs; but hey, nobody rapes someone Arminas knows in front of Arminas—no one.).
We could have broken out, and our new thief halfling thief (the previous thief having died in the Cairn Hills) suggested that we do just that—but we pretty confident that Mordy would sort things out for us.
Next morning, we are taken before a magistrate and put on trial. The trial was short, sweet, and to the point, and they had witnesses that testified against us. We got more and more uneasy, but then Mordy was called to the stand and to our utter horror, he told the court he had never before laid eyes upon us—and left.
We weren’t allowed to testify; we couldn’t present evidence; we were railroaded into a conviction. And, of course, it didn’t help when I promised the magistrate that once we managed to escape, I would be finding out who framed us and would pay a special visit to his home to show my displeasure of this miscarriage of justice. We were found guilty of the crimes (which we had not committed) and sentenced to exile. That wasn’t so bad, was it?
It was.
Our counsel told us that we would be transported to the Isle of the Damned, a lonely island far out in the middle of the Solnor Ocean. The Isle was protected by a one-way teleportation barrier that extended far out to sea, and was surrounded by a massive storm that circled the Island for miles—and never quit raging. The waters were filled with were-sharks and sahuagin and razor-sharp coral reefs. It was a place where Greyhawk City sent those prisoners too dangerous to keep in its dungeons.
Now that was a horse of a different color. The guards came back into the courtroom, and all of us were paralyzed by magic, as they proceeded to brand each of us on the right shoulder with the glyph for murderer. Since Arminas had been so wise as to actually threaten the magistrate, they also burnt out his right eye. And then we were teleported away.
We reappeared on a sandy beach, all seven of us together (the ranger, the paladin, the halfling thief, myself, the cleric of St. Cuthbert, a half-elf druid/MU, and the gnome illusionist). And with us there was a crate. Opening the crate, we discovered several suits of studded leather armor, chain mail, an assortment of weapons, three holy symbols, and two spellbooks. And a parchment letter from Mordy.
You have my apologizes for the deceptions and for the trials which you must now undergo. It has come to my attention, however, that the final key in the grand scheme which you have been investigating lies upon the Isle of the Damned. While I am well capable of traveling there and retrieving the item, it would consume time that I cannot spare from other duties. I have chosen you to retrieve this item (followed by a long description of exactly what we were looking for). Once you have discovered the rod, journey to the ancient ruins overlooking the escarpment on the north face of the Isle. Within, you will find the means to escape the Isle and return to Greyhawk City. The portal will only function should one of your number possess the rod. I await your return—M.
The dirty rat. And at that point, the parchment burst into flames, so that we would have no evidence of the Archmage’s intervention. The SOB.
NONE of the gear was magical in any way. So here we were, 8th and 9th level characters, trapped on this island and having to undertake yet another quest to gain our freedom. But we weren’t alone. Remember, the Isle of the Damned was Greyhawk City’s exile prison. No, it was filled with cutthroats and murderers and rapists and the worst of the worst criminal elements. And it was divided up into different gang territories.
We tried to get off (the Isle, stop thinking those dirty thoughts!) via magical means, but our druid/MU tragically discovered just how effective the teleportation barrier was when he attempted to cast that spell. He vanished and then reappeared—fused with his fox familiar. So, from that point on, our druid was a half-human, half-elf, half-fox druid/magic-user who had a bushy red tail, a fox’s whiskers, an elongated snout filled with sharp teeth, fur covering half his body, and a rapidly deteriorating mind! He was a hoot!
It took us two bloody years of campaigning to find that damned rod and make our way to the ruins!
Along the way, the paladin and Arminas (in character; as players we were good friends) found their relationship growing more and more strained; especially after we discovered the Eye of Vecna. And since I had an empty socket . . . well, you can guess what happened next. She was getting more and more agitated with how my particular brand of diplomacy went: if some bandit gang attacked us, they died. All of them, their heads impaled on stakes to warn the other bandits not to trifle with us; even those who surrendered.
She really had a problem with that. I pointed out to her that—unlike us—the other denizens of the Isle had committed heinous crimes and were sent here as justice. They were the real condemned criminals and their lives were forfeit under all systems of justice in the Flaness. And the rest of the party agreed, the more so after most of bandit gangs began to leave us alone. But then we found the Eye and I popped it into place.
And she immediately attacked me! Well, after the party restrained her, I began to taunt her, asking why she, a Paladin of Heironious no less, would attack a person who posed no threat to her, who aided her, who had not betrayed her? Who fought at her side, who had prevented her rape? Who watched over her while she slept? And attacked, with lethal force, no less, for making use of an item that would drive any other member of the group towards evil. I, Arminas said, am already evil, and I have no qualms about using this artifact to aid us in leaving this horrid, diseased, dirty little island in the middle of nowhere. Arminas asked her, where is the justice in your actions, Sonandra? What would the Archpaladin, the Valorous Knight, her own sworn deity, make of such actions by his champion?
And she—the player—was so mad that she blurted it out then and there. I don’t give a damn what He wants! I’ll see you dead, you evil bastard!
And then her eyes went wide (the player’s) and she started to back-track, but Steve was having none of that. An Avatar of Heironious suddenly appeared in the stroke of a lightning bolt (gods not being subject to the teleportation barrier, after all) and frowned upon his champion, his paladin. Needless to say, he was not pleased. He lectured her, and he reminded her that I was just as much a part of the Church of the Twins as she was—and he told her that her actions required punishment. She was stripped of her power’s as a paladin then and there.
But then his stern gaze softened. And he told her that one transgression, even one of this magnitude, would not end his love for her. She would be given an opportunity to atone, to redeem herself in his eyes. And he told us what Mordy (that rat-fink bastard!) had not: the ruins were protected by a band of vampires!
They guarded not only the portal, but an ancient sword, a holy sword. He then charged her to find and recover the sword and to dispatch the Undead—and if she was successful, he would restore to her those powers he had just stripped away. And then before he left, he turned a stern glare in my direction and chastised me for provoking her! Arminas merely bowed and said, forgive my Lord, I was unaware that simple speech was an adequate provocation for a lethal attack. And he frowned. Soon, he said, the Church United would find its usefulness at an end, and then I (Arminas) would be forced to choose the side on which I would stand. And he glowered: if you choose wrong, then my champion will end your evil ways.
And he left.
So, we would spend another year (in real-life) searching the Isle, and then assaulting the vampire stronghold in the ruins to earn our freedom. But that, my friends, is another story.
Master Arminas
My awe is only outweighed by my nerdy jealousy at how awesome that is.
/slow clap, for you, your fellow players, and particularly for your DM/
I have not read the thread, but here is my take on it.
Being evil does not mean you have to stab your buddy in the back. The PC's are always going against bad guys that work together and even die for each other. Why can't the PC's do the same?
If a group of people are united in their goals, but have allegiance to each other that can definitely make them evil as anyone else is fair game for murder, torture, and other bad acts. I am pretty sure burning down a village, can't be counter balanced with, "but I would never do it to my friends".
The issue is that people assume "evil" means betray everyone, and have no alliance to anyone but yourself.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
Having played in an evil campaign back in AD&D I mostly agree to what has been said already by several others:
- being friends with everybody at the table helps
- talking excessively before play starts helps
- strong motives why your char is in it helps
- having an archvillain making certain you achieve his goals, because otherwise... helps
The only time the game was coming apart was when another friend joined "for two or three sessions". Since he wasn't involved in the whole development process, i. e. wasn't as settled in the game environment as we were and because his understanding was basically "evil == do stuff you as a good citizen are not allowed to do" he derailed the plot line and made it very difficult for us to function as a unit.
And this is still key to playing a roleplaying game for me: it is you as a group vs. everything the GM comes up with - it is not about winning (or losing), i. e. being the last (wo)man standing after having massacred the rest of the chars, but about working together (quarrels are ok, sidetreks are ok, character quirks are ok, etc.) to achieve a (more or less) common goal be it evil or worse.
Ruyan.
The most recent evil game I was in ended in failure. The GM was really at fault however. He encouraged us to make characters alone not just normal evil types but epic proactive evil types. So it shouldn't have been a surprise when the various plans of these evil power houses stepped on the toes of each other. Not only were we unable to compromise but it looked like the only way out of our deadlock would be full blown PvP. Must of us however were mature players and didn't want PvP. So we all simply quit playing.
Back in 3.5 I played a CN Warlock in an Eberron campaign. We were 6th level and I had access to an at will SLA called The Dead Walk (like animate dead essentially). One guy played a Paladin, joined later by a second. Every time my guy animated something, which was usually right after we had killed it, the GM rolled dice behind his screen (which I later learned was to see if my alignment changed to evil). After the second Holy-Joe joined us, Team Paladin joined forces to be a pain in my backside! Every time I raised a new minion, Huey and Duey would turn and destroy them, laughing as they did so! Needless to say I could feel the Dark Side rising even before the DM announced "The Warlock is now Evil guys!"
When the teams Artificer was killed by a Wail of the Banshee spell trap (something that he still feels narked off about to this day) I was the only person who could use his collection of wands, but the Paladins refused me access to them saying "No, he could use them against the party!" despite the fact that I had never acted against a single party member, yet!
While the rest of the party were fighting over our dead comrades gear, I stepped into the room that the trap was guarding and found a Chaotic Evil Artifact, a stone tooth that when placed in the mouth allowed, amongst other things, the once a day use of a Word of Chaos spell CL 20. More on this later (Dunh, dunh, duh!)
When the Paladins realised that I could kill them with a single word (literally) they announced that I was a threat and should die! My only ally at this point was a CN Drow Psion who placed a Suggestion on me that I could not kill any party member untill our mission was done.
Many encounters later, and after much humiliation at the hands of the Paladins (LG my undead raising butt!) we finally faced off against the BBEG (a huge sized construct) and the Paladins (finally) allowed me the wands. Between us we beat the clanking monstrosity, but not without casualties, only the Paladins, the Psion and myself remained. With that I turned to face the Paladins, grinned evily and stated "Thus ends our mission. (to the GM) I activate the stone tooth!"
The power of the Word of Chaos washed over the party (leaving both myself and the Psion unaffected - Chaotic, heh!) but leaving one Paladin dead, and one Paladin extremely p#ssed!
As the remaining "good guy" drew his sword and charged at me, the GM decided to call it a night, we never did pick up that particular campaign again.
Right, 3&4 are *THE* big reasons not to do a evil game, or let evil PC’s into a game. Mind you, in a long term group, once in a great while it’s OK to run a short Evil game, just to let them see how boring it is and allow them to blow off steam.
Of course, as Master Arminas has shown, a well run LAWFUL Evil PC can work with many parties.
In general, Players should not be allowed to go the “CN which is actually CE” route or the “PvP route in any campaign.
I’ll point out that even evil groups don’t turn on their fellows- that’s being a sociopath, not evil. Even Nazi SS functioned well as combat forces, they weren’t constantly turning on each other, stealing from their comrades, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of players, I find, can't handle evil games because they are too busy metagaming and making baseless paranoid-fueled assumptions about the other characters.
Mirrel's story shows an irrational belief that just because "he raises undead, that means he must wanna kill us next!" Um...no it doesn't. It just means he has little to no respect for the dead.
My story featured an evil witch that did nothing but help the party left and right, she was nevertheless threatened, ostracized, and betrayed--left to die in a great desert. No where did I threaten to bring them to harm, or even interfere with their goals. Once word got out that I was seeking lichdom, however, they saw not a powerful ally, but a potential menace.
Even in Arminas' story, the moment he claimed an evil artifact, he was sentenced to death, even though everyone already knew he was evil, and he had done nothing but help the party progress in their goals. That makes no more sense then the evil character sentencing the paladin to death for having obtained a holy avenger!
It's not us that's the problem. It's THEM. Fearful metagaming scum that they are. They don't rely on the in-game evidence and observations, only on out-of-game assumptions based on fear.
I like that plan to turn all the animals against the thief, have to remember those rules if I'm ever in a situation where I'm playing an evil character. All of the ones I've played so far have technically been chaotic good or some variant thereof.
Well, I don't think the rules had anything to do with it, especially since we were playing 1st Edition. All I did was use a fairly weak and otherwise nearly useless ability and my brain. And, I talked to my DM and asked, well, what if I did this? And gave him the structure of feeding the animals, befriending them, and then asking for their help.
Remember, it doesn't have to be in the rules to be allowed. Talk with your DM out of game--just sit down and talk. Ask him questions, answer his questions, and bounce ideas around about how you can make the game better. And you might just end up have seagulls defecate on your party rogue!
Master Arminas
A lot of players, I find, can't handle evil games because they are too busy metagaming and making baseless paranoid-fueled assumptions about the other characters.
Mirrel's story shows an irrational belief that just because "he raises undead, that means he must wanna kill us next!" Um...no it doesn't. It just means he has little to no respect for the dead.
My story featured an evil witch that did nothing but help the party left and right, she was nevertheless threatened, ostracized, and betrayed--left to die in a great desert. No where did I threaten to bring them to harm, or even interfere with their goals. Once word got out that I was seeking lichdom, however, they saw not a powerful ally, but a potential menace.
Even in Arminas' story, the moment he claimed an evil artifact, he was sentenced to death, even though everyone already knew he was evil, and he had done nothing but help the party progress in their goals. That makes no more sense then the evil character sentencing the paladin to death for having obtained a holy avenger!
It's not us that's the problem. It's THEM. Fearful metagaming scum that they are. They don't rely on the in-game evidence and observations, only on out-of-game assumptions based on fear.
Right you are, but when I do play an evil character, I find that I (if I have the right DM) can play off that fear to make for a better game. Not by being outright gross or disguisting, but by making dead certain every character in the party knows how I will react to betrayal and what the consequences for them might be: even if it is something I am incapable of doing! I'm playing evil, not dumb. You bet I am willing to bluff the devil out of the other players.
For example, soon after the incident on the boat with the thief and the rats, cats, and gulls, one of the players approached the DM and asked him about Arminas: he pointed out that by the book, a monk can't put a curse on someone. And the DM nodded, and said exactly, a single-class monk can't. The player took that to mean that I was a dual-class character and they had absolutely no idea what that other class was or how high level Arminas had been before he started over as a monk. I wasn't, of course, but Steve let them go on thinking that for nearly two years. And even after it was revealed that it had all (initially) been a grand bluff, the worst I got about it from the players was . . . 'man, you're a bastard, you know that?'
Now having said that, it doesn't work that well when you don't have a group that appreciates role-playing instead of an in-person MMORPG where it is kick down the door, kill the monster, and take the loot; and the people you are playing with have little or no emotional attachement to their characters.
Fear can be a very powerful motivator. When used right.
Master Arminas
I'm currently playing in a (slow) play by post 'evil' campaign Here -- I'm the choker monk.
lol. Sorry for misunderstanding, Liam. I run into a lot of people who take something I say or do and then ask "what rules allow that?" Anyway, thank you.
Master Arminas
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about playing evil characters.
1) Does being evil mean you have to cross a street just to kick a puppy? I don't think so, unless that evil is an outsider that are literally personifications of evil. Even then I wouldn't expect it from a Devil. Sure you might kick it if it's jumping on your leg begging for food. You might also take it to make it a dog for hunting and war if it is suitible to that. But what gain do you get for going out of your way to be pointlessly cruel.
2)Do you have to be a sadist to be evil? No. One of my characters was a NE Evoker who was a megalomaniac. He loved showing others how great his power was and had no problem killing others in battle. When he and a group of likemind individuals tracked down a man who had had my character imprisoned, as I was his rival, I beat him until he began pleading for his life. The CN warlock in the group came by then and used a scoll of some spell out of the 3.5 Tome of Evil that was going to kill him through ability damage shortly in a torturous fashion (Flay or Wrack was the name). I immediately dispelled this because my Evoker wanted him alive, imprisoned, and forever remember that he had begged for my mercy. Even if he did want to kill him, he would have just killed him rather then torture him to death. It doesn't mean you can't be a sadist if you want to be, but it doesn't mean you have to be.
3)Does being evil mean you can never be kind? No, you just probably see it as a way to manipulate others. Sometimes the velvet glove works better than the iron fist to get what you want.
4)Does being evil mean you can't have friends? If this was true all those evil humanoids wouldn't probably band together because they'd be too worried to trust each other. Sure they'd kill one of their own if they could be of use to the band or to challenge another for leadership. Still, at the end of the day there is just too much benefit to having a group of people around you can at least trust somewhat. Social creatures tend to stick together with like-minded individuals.
These are only a few I can think of at the moment but in essence its that you don't need to do evil 24/7 or your membership card gets revoked. Here are some ways I've found effective running an evil campaign:
1)Revenge: the 47 Ronin method. All the players have been wronged by the same thing and they're out for blood.
2)Rival Power: Something threatens the entire party. This could be a rival clan like the Hetfields and McCoys, an invading army, or even some apocolyptic threat to the world.
3)Loyalty: maybe its patriotism, belief in a cause, due to a contract, or personal respect for a ruler's power but the group is willing to work for somethingother than themselves. I had fun running a game once that was an evil party working for a non-evil king as operatives that did jobs that the kingdom could aford to have traced back to them. They were loyal in their own ways to the king and I never had to worry about PVP or stupid evil.
These things still have to be gone over with the PCs ahead of time but I've found them to work out well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil can work, assuming you have the holy triumvirate of a mixed alignment party:
1. Mature Players
2. Good Player & GM communication
3. A lack of preconceived notions about how someone else's character should be played (doubly important from the GM as the players)
As has been stated above, however, the issue is more with player preconception than playing a themed game. I've played in and run both evil campaigns and mixed alignment campaigns several times with varying success.
Some issues I've seen:
Published Alignment bias: Most D&D flavored products (especially 2E and thereafter) are geared towards good parties, generally referred to as "heroes". This means that pretty much all of the support is aimed at challenges for good or neutral aligned groups. Running an evil game well requires a LOT more work as almost no printed encounter can be run as-is due to the inherent biases towards good aligned groups. This is a tiny bit less true in Pathfinder than it was in the 2E environment I was most familiar with, but still true none the less.
Chaotic Stupid Characters: To be honest, most of the PvP I've seen in table top games has come from chaotic neutral or "moral high ground" lawful good characters. Playing evil does not mean playing stupid. Being evil should quite literally mean you aren't playing by anyone else's rules but your own. As stated by several posters above, why would you kick a puppy? You're not the one who is out to prove a point, those are the good guys. Morally speaking Good is limited behavior set, evil is everything else. Pick your morals and stick with them. If you're playing with a group of other evil players, talk to them and make sure everyone is on the same page and it's not someone who is just trying to blow off the frustration of failing in an MMO by killing their party members on their bad hair day.
Evil is not Easy™: Lazy evil would probably better be called stupid. Playing a paladin is relatively easy to wrap your head around, role-playing wise. Playing an honorable evil character is a bit less so. Where are your moral boundaries? Ethical boundaries? How flexible are they? Are you irredeemably evil or just need some therapy? What drives you to the behaviors that make paladins look like they horribly failed their ride check with an especially large saddle horn? Evil characters more than any other, need to be very fleshed out to keep from being the xeroxed bad guy of the week. In most game worlds its even more challenging finding a diety that doesn't make you seem like a moron for following them. Pathfinder wins with Asmodeus and the rather neat backstory about Cheliax in this regard.
-TimD
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Discuss, set, and respect boundries before starting.
Don't @#$% where you eat.
Come up with a reason to work together.
Don't be a jerk player.
Useful tropes:
Affably Evil
Bad Guys Do The Dirty Work
Better The Devil You Know
Even Evil Has Loved Ones
Even Evil Has Standards(as mentioned already by Drejk, and for good reason!
Evil Versus Evil
Evil Versus Oblivion
Evil Virtues
The Good, The Bad, And The Evil
Kick The Son Of A @#$%&
Moral Myopia
Never Hurt An Innocent
Obliviously Evil
Pragmatic Villainy
Revenge Through Corruption
Villainous Valor
What Is Evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discuss, set, and respect boundries before starting.
Don't @#$% where you eat.
Come up with a reason to work together.
Don't be a jerk player.
Useful tropes:
Affably Evil
Bad Guys Do The Dirty Work
Better The Devil You Know
Even Evil Has Loved Ones
Even Evil Has Standards(as mentioned already by Drejk, and for good reason!
Evil Versus Evil
Evil Versus Oblivion
Evil Virtues
The Good, The Bad, And The Evil
Kick The Son Of A @#$%&
Moral Myopia
Never Hurt An Innocent
Obliviously Evil
Pragmatic Villainy
Revenge Through Corruption
Villainous Valor
What Is Evil?
Oh no no no.... I am not clicking on those links, I won't get anything done for DAYS
My characters are SO into Pragmatic Villainy and are also generally Villains With Good Publicity.
|
I'm evil. My group is evil. We get along just fine.
However, we are not normal Drow. We were all born with a special link, along with our odd-colored eyes. We can sense each other's presence, and feel each other's pain and pleasure to a small degree. We are each from separate houses, but all our mothers died giving birth to us, and we were all born on the same day, which I believe was a celestial event of some sort (eclipse or something). This link has brought our houses together to form a council, and also swept us together. This sort of "empathy" draws us to each other. Thus, we are evil to the core, but our connection prevents betrayal.
There were problems at first, especially with me. I like lying, which makes me untrustworthy, and I over-reach my grasp, talking back to priestesses and the like... which I do because I know my Matron adores me, and because I can lie and charm my way out of anything. I've killed prisoners out of turn as well (to save time), and taken slaves that my other party members want for themselves.
But things have become very smooth as of late. For all my lying, my comrades know I do it for their sake. For my hoarding the best slaves, I do so because the others have proven less capable masters (the Ranger has shown a love for torture, the Alchemist likes buffing them and sending them off to die, and the Priestess and Sorcerer seem uninterested for now). For all my arrogance and selfishness, I've fought for my comrades and helped them aplenty, and continue to do so. We've all proven our worth to each other.
As such, this "PVP" is simply non-existent.
There is some squick factor, for example, the priestess spent ten minutes detailing her vivisection of her brother (who failed us) as part of her sacrificing him to Lolth. We've had long discussions on how to "process" certain prisoners before interrogation: I wanted her eyes and feet removed, so she couldn't use sight to target, and thus use supernatural escape; feet so she couldn't get far. The others were more dramatic and less practical. I just left it up to them, and the Ranger got to write extensive emails to the DM on the piece-by-piece dismemberment and interrogation.
This addresses the squick factor to some degree, is that the group saves some of the nastier stuff for emails between games - read if interested, discard if not.
As for banality, I assure you, we are not nice people. We murder for convenience, toy with the lives of others, we torture, we've raped (mostly as part of an impersonation/infiltration into a rather nasty little bawdy house), and we relish in the suffering, death and deception of others. But all we do, we do with purpose. Every act we perform is for the sake of our mission at hand, our rise in power, and for the glory of Lolth.
I have had some success with DM'ing a group, all of whom chose to play evil characters. When I started my campaign however, it was not specific for an evil party.
This group of players has some of the qualities identified previously by others; the players are mature, they are motivated to play evil (they've been good in so many other campaigns), they understand the difference between an evil character and a stupid one.
Challenges for me as DM: Making sure there are NPC's outside of the dungeon who will interact with the party; having a credible backstory for those NPC's; and describing things in a way to play on the suspicion and distrust that the PC's would have towards one another even with compelling reasons to cooperate.
My advice? Find some in game reasoning as to why the evil party DOESN'T betray one another. Even evil people have family and friends whome they love.
That's pretty much my advice -- if I'm going to play in an evil party, I want an iron-clad reason to trust the other PCs. Playing a paranoid game of trying to avoid being double-crossed by my "friends" is too much like work to me.
AD&D had this to say about good an evil. Some others here have hit on it, but Gygax gives the key right there. To play evil, first ask what's your character's purpose?:
Basically stated, the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of ADBD, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are un-desirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.
Trouble comes from players assuming an overriding purpose is the character's immediate self-gratification of malicous whims or short term personal gain. That might be an evil character's purpose, but doesn't have to be, and it's not (and can't be) for the bulk of evil characters that exist in a functioning society or organisation
Most evil minions, for example, have the primary purpose of serving their evil master. That purpose overrides concepts of creature's right to life and happiness, so (unlike good) they kill and torture in their master's name without quam or question (and with enjoyment of the act as a fringe benefit of service). However, loyal evil minions would not betray or backstab their fellows where doing so would offend their master's will. Doing so violates their purpose.
Evil heros often have a quest, same as good heroes. The priority for them is the success of the quest. Their evil is expressed in their willness to do *anything* to succeed in their goal - an likewise not do anything that would disadvantage them in achieving their goal. They would not betray or backstab their fellows there doing so would undermine their chances of success - doing that would betray their own purpose. They would also help their team mates out of the enlightend self interest, since the long term benefit of their continued mutual support far outweighs whatever short term cost may come from redering that mutual assistance.
So, to run an evil campaign (or RP evil NPCs), first you have to get this straight and on the same page what their shared over-arching evil purpose is. It HAS to be a shared purpose, because otherwise there's no reason for them to be a team. It has to be a purpose that all of them can best attain as a team. And everyone has to agree that this purpose is of paramount imortance to their characters - more important that short term gain, or satifaction of petty malicious whims (the tendency to indulge 'Chaotic Stupid').
If you can get player buy-in on THAT, then you're good to go.
There is a problem here that has not been mentioned. It's the lack of non-combat resolution. The result is that EVERY conflict becomes violent, and quickly.
I would recommend bulking up the debate/argument part of the game. If you don't want to home-brew a solution like I did, you can use opposed skill checks. Just don't allow refills to infinity, win or lose, the result stands for the rest of the scene.
PS please Pathfinder, bulk this up for version 2.0 of the rules. A role playing game should be good at this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a problem here that has not been mentioned. It's the lack of non-combat resolution. The result is that EVERY conflict becomes violent, and quickly.
I would recommend bulking up the debate/argument part of the game. If you don't want to home-brew a solution like I did, you can use opposed skill checks. Just don't allow refills to infinity, win or lose, the result stands for the rest of the scene.
PS please Pathfinder, bulk this up for version 2.0 of the rules. A role playing game should be good at this.
I don't fully agree, Rkraus2. The problem is that many players (not all, certainly, but many) see themselves as a Conanequse kind of guy, who doesn't talk about problems he hits it with his sword! Totally not the Conan of the novels, but portrayed that way in the movies. Why do you think you see so many people who love to play chaotic characters?
Man, the rules don't apply to me! I make my own rules, I live by my wits and my sword, and ain't no guard gonna tell ME what to do!
Chaotic characters, have, in the long run, proven a greater disruption on games than evil characters that are lawful or neutral in respect to law and chaos. Because they don't want limits. Personal, judicial, or otherwise. I am not at all certain having a rule for a skill check, or an ability check, or something else can stop PvP arguments. Only a well schooled, experienced DM can do that. And even then, not always.
Master Arminas
It's not even chaotic characters, but players who play characters that act for the short term, behaving like consequences don't apply to them.
Smart, long-term thinking evil can be hard to discern from good. Chaotic or Lawful aside, this is true.
To me, Chaotic evil characters think that tradition, honor and duty are synonyms for weakness and stupidity. If the local authorities enforce rules, the smart CE character puts on the appearance of obedience, but ignores the rules (and exploits people who follow them) when he can get away with it. Granted, a CE character with low mental stats is by definition Chaotic Evil and Stupid, so such a character ("Wisdom and Int are dump stats") is doomed to function as the stereotypical "chaotic stupid" guy, and that fits the bill.
Belkar the halfling from Order of the Stick is a prime example of the "Chaotic Stupid" guy that Malignor is talking about.
...Only a well schooled, experienced DM can do that. And even then, not always.
Master Arminas
I'm going to suggest you try a game with a social combat system, like any of the indie games from the Forge. After you get past "hey, new rules", I think you'll be impressed.
Here's what happened in my group. (Half of which were the types to completely dump int and cha every time).
We started to have non-combat encounters, in which an NPC would try to convince them to, say, go one a dangerous quest for terrible pay, because it was the right thing to do.
Players could use the social combat rules to negotiate terms. The ones with no social skills ended up with worse deals. This rebalanced the classes somewhat. Yes, that fighter will be useful when you get there, but the rogue with negotiation skills is cool too.
Combat and role-playing encounters both occurred regularly. After a while, players realized that optimizing for one meant getting worse at the other. I was glad to see that.
Then, we started to use the social combat rules within the party, like when everyone wanted the magic sword. If you lost the argument, you didn't get it. If you had some small amount of social skill, you could negotiate for smaller benefits, like first pick next time, or winner gives up his coin purse to the loser.
Now, our game runs smoother than ever, and players don't argue over which plan to use, or which hallway to walk down. When characters disagree, they resolve it with the mechanics and it's done.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is especially important for everyone who isn't playing with a well schooled experienced DM. Because having the system there means the job changes. Now, a DM chooses between combat and social resolution.
This is FAR easier than combat and 'invent something awesome on your own without much help from us'.
And, it channels the inner optimizer to HELP role-play. Watching my players think through things like "I'm going to mention I'm a worshipper of Iomedae, because she's the goddess of this area and that might give me a bonus" is actually a huge improvement over "I'm bored, when's the fight start?"
To break down what Gary McBride thinks is a problem and what I think isn't a problem is very interesting.
1) Evil must be proactive
Evil doesn't have to be proactive at all. Evil can be lazy, or take it's time to find the best way to be evil. The idea that a good guy will just randomly try to trash the evil guy lol. Evil things happen all the time in real life, and sometimes they go unpunished, and even unnoticed. so no evil doesn't need to be proactive. this isn't a problem at all. evil can be reactive as in the good guys are doing a good deed which we think needs to be stopped cause it is interfering with our evil thing we have going over here. Good guys have plans and plots just as much as the evil guys do. good guys can be proactive in an evil campaign. you see that is the beauty of being a GM you can play either side of the field. you have no restriction on alignment you are simply engineering fun. and your tool is good, rather than evil.
2) Minions?
a problem lmao noob. only a unskilled GM or gamer with no real experience playing would say minions are an issue. in fact minions in an evil campaign are more needed than not. i love the leadership feat period. it gives you so much more to work with role playing wise, socially, and even to thicken the plot. how pissed does a character get when his/her favorite minion gets killed by a good npc. evil plots thicken at that point.
3) PVP.
interesting that many players have bad encounters with pvp. the pvp that i've been apart of is rather harmless. being sapped, or an arrow in the side, maybe some non lethal damage. i've never been killed in pvp, and i've never killed anyone in pvp evil or not. at some point someone gives in and say ok you made your point. taking that killing blow means even as an evil character that you want to be in a solo campaign not a group. at which point you need to remind the player this is a group/team game in which you simply can't kill everyone on your team all the time. at some point your character will be retired since no one will work with him/her due to reputation of killing. if you look under the leadership feat it explains this quite nicely. if you caused harm or killed someone in your service like another player you have a lower leadership score. I used this once on a new player explaining that if he kills a player character he receives a -2 each time and that at 9 or less his character retires due to lack of companions available to him in a team game. that is just a lack of knowledge of the player. pvp isn't an issue.
4) Squick factor:
you are playing a evil campaign right? so rated R and pg 13 comes to mind. again lack of knowledge and experience in gaming come to mind. this one is simply not an issues either. you don't have to explain your torture or rape methods, and you can keep it pg 13 evil. the rated R should be for a group that is ready for it. start with the PG 13 evil campaign if you are unsure. pg 13 means you keep it simple. you do evil stuff as in saying you raped, or tortured someone and keep it at that. no need to go all into it during a finding out if people like or don't like evil campaigns.
5) The banality of evil. Having a PC just "be evil" can be kind of stupid. Evil PCs need clear and strong motivations.
this author clearly doesn't game often enough to even begin writing on the subject of gaming evil, or gaming at all. no disrespect Gary McBride but really? being evil is only stupid if you are playing with 13 year old kids. Every PC needs clear and strong motivations evil has nothing to do with that. going into an evil campaign is designing the game around evil characters rather than good. having a evil pc and an evil campaign is a really good flip side to normal game play. lets face it fire ball is just a bit more fun when casting it on the orphanage randomly. this is something you get away with in evil campaigns simply because you are an evil character. this exploration as a player is new to most. it's the GM's job to bring those players back to reality. that orphanage has a 16th level paladin inside that will all kinds of smite your dumb ass for not thinking that fire ball through after he saves ever last kid in the place. biting off more than you can chew as an evil character is just as much a lesson in good as well as evil campaigns.
false all around. evil is a good change up to good. playing a true neutral campaign is in my mind the hardest. I simply don't have enough experience in that type of game to know where to start. and i'll be the first to admit to it.
Communication and strong character backgrounds -- the character has to be more than just a toon... he has to have reason for everything that happens. People are not naturally evil (I'm not saying they are natural good by the way) -- in order for them to go with evil it has to be not only the path of least resistance but have something that leads there too.
Word.