Director of Narrative
|
I know, I know...evil campaign. Ugh! I've seen it ruin a gaming group. Never really liked the idea unless you could get the group to commit to a party that wouln't 'self-dissolve'. I've seen a group lay the final straw on an internal personal dispute within an evil campaign and end my favorite group ever. So why am I even bringing it up? Well, I think my group of shady characters AND do-gooders finally thought up an evil campaign that 'could work'.
We had the idea to buld a party around the concept of hunting down and defeating the 'iconic characters'. Just wanted to throw this out as entertainment for the boards.
Does this necessarily have to be an "evil" campaign? What if they're good and they've been told by powerful good powers (angels, archons, etc.) that they must stop the iconic characters?
Either way, I never did like that Redgar... smarmy little bastard.
On a sidenote I think that evil campaigns can work - evil PC's should be able to work together - but they must make the same metagaming choice to have characters that work together. IF you've read the Erevis Cale trilogy this might make sense.
|
Director of Narrative
|
Does this necessarily have to be an "evil" campaign? What if they're good and they've been told by powerful good powers (angels, archons, etc.) that they must stop the iconic characters?
No I guess not. Not necessarily. But it's alot more 'fun'.
On a sidenote I think that evil campaigns can work - evil PC's should be able to work together - but they must make the same metagaming choice to have characters that work together. IF you've read the Erevis Cale trilogy this might make sense.
I agree. I was the one trying to hold it all together as a player. I can't for the life of me figure out how the DM thought a priest of Nerul and a priest of Iuz would work out in the same party. I was just a fighter/rogue following the one most likely to pay me ( or get me paid).
We had the idea to buld a party around the concept of hunting down and defeating the 'iconic characters'. Just wanted to throw this out as entertainment for the boards.
For an idea of who to go after, check the illustration for "Symbol of Pain" in the PH. Remember that Symbol of Pain is a spell with the evil descriptor. Oh, and then check out Heroes of Horror.
...
Yeah, Jozan's my favorite iconic. >:-D
I just finished an "evil" campaign with my group. They wanted to try something else than "save the world" and do whatever they wanted.
Well, they played mostly Neutral Evil characters and did whatever the hell they wanted for a couple of levels, getting hired as mercs for the highest bidder. Then got hired by someone more evil then them. They thought they were doing as they pleased but they were actually pawns in a bigger plot. In the end, they had to choose between two greater evils, which meant pain and certain doom either way.
They've learned that evil attracts evil and that there's ALWAYS a bigger fish. Better to fight evil than to be it's pawn.
Ultradan
They've learned that evil attracts evil and that there's ALWAYS a bigger fish. Better to fight evil than to be it's pawn.
Ultradan
Nonsense! This is an evil campaign we're talking about. If the party plays in character and true to their alignment, the bigger fish are merely steps along the road to power.
"It is better to be the right hand of the devil, than to stand in his way."
- Bennie, "The Mummy"
"It is better to be the right hand of the devil, than to stand in his way."
- Bennie, "The Mummy"
And we all know what happened to that poor old Bennie at the end of the movie. My players suffered the same fate, metaphorically speaking.
I believe, that even if you play the biggest, nastiest, evilest character possible, then you'll only become someone else's stepping stone.
Ultradan
And we all know what happened to that poor old Bennie at the end of the movie. My players suffered the same fate, metaphorically speaking.Ultradan
Yes, he became the most memorable character of the film. I was rather hoping he'd make a reappearance for the sequel, but alas.
More seriously, I have seen gaming groups self-destruct over both good and evil campaigns, too. It's less of an issue of the campaign itself, than the players and DM.
Daigle, I've successfully run an Evil campaign for a couple of years; not having the party tear itself apart has as much to do with player chemistry and maturity as it does running a plot that has them united in their goal and not just jockeying for the most loot.
I've posted a journal of their SCAP exploits:
*Read about it here*
*…here*
*...and here*
M
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I ran a thieves guild campaign inspired by the Sopranos/GTA where the characters were generallly evil. The campaign was about their cell of the thieve's guild taking over their neighborhood. The players knew up front that some duplicity would be involved, and were generally cool about it. In fact, one PC was aligned with a rival gang leader that the majority of the group unexpectedly decided had to be destroyed. The group suspecected (correctly) that the aligned PC was spying on him, so they waited till after a fight and ganked him. The player took the death in stride.
I would always bear in mind that hired as mercs assassins or other types of dangerous toadies that the hirer has your (that is the parties) elimination as part of his plan, as a scapegoats for the plot, to avoid the plot leaking, to avoid paying, because they have the potential to rise to become a threat. And that this would be true regardless of the alignment of the hiring party - if they are good disposing of you after the mission is handled is cold, but still the destruction of evil.
Tough path to walk.
Though similarly they are no less the heroes in many if not most scenarios.
|
Marc and M. Balmer are right, IMO. It really depends on what type of group you have. If your players are the type to hold grudges...don't run it! It will only lead to trouble. If you are the type of DM to gloat (a little honest self-evaluation here), don't do it...it'll probably just end up pissing them off. Although, as M. Balmer says, that can happen in 'good campaigns' as well.
We had a 'Thieve's World'-esque campaign back in college (all characters were non-good, most were evil) and it was great fun. It just depends on the maturity that you and your players bring to the table.
As the Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight would say: "And so he says 'Evil's okay in my book. What about yours?' and I go 'Yeah, Baby! Yeah!!'"
I think running or participating in an evil camapign would be fun. And the idea of hunting down the iconic D&D characters sounds really appealing.
On a side note I am starting up a homebrew in Eberron where the part are all goblinoids trying to reestablish the Dhakaani/goblinoid empire. Goblinoids in Eberron are 'evil' so it will be interesting how the group handles the plot hooks and what they do to get the job done.
IMO as long as PCs aren't CE playing evil is not so hard, sure you can stick your knife in a party members back if you want... but why would you do that if they could be ressurected a week later? I think evil campaign is best done with LE characters who have to abide by some rules and have party preservation atitude.
igi
|
Evil campains can be great fun if done correctly.
last time we tried one was about 6 monthes ago, I played
a LE Teifling(3 levels higher than everyone else(GM plant)
most of the others played, N,NE,CE. and the only person to
complain the entire time was my cousin(27male), even my
neice had a great time with this(16), and was mature about
being betrayed and killed(came back later as a LE samurai,
one of my retainers)
the other memerable evil campaign was more a neutral one
about 9 years ago, in the military, we were playing a BirthRight
campaign(2nded), if anyone remembers that:), mostly CN, but to this day if I happen to here from the old group my NE fighter
Axel is always brought up, no one can even remember any of the other characters names without their old character sheets.
game on
I ran an evil campaign for more than 3 years a little while ago. I ran two parties in the same world at the same time; one good, one evil on alternating Sundays.The theory was that both groups were high level and one be working against each other indirectly while during a world wide conflict.
Neffier, I've been planning to do this for some time, although with the modification that there be two DMs (one is DM for Good/PC for Evil and vice/versa). Glad to know the concept worked well for you, though I'd be interested to hear further thoughts on what worked/didn't work, especially as relates to metagaming (players deciding they like their good characters better, for example, and purposefully nerfing their evil; that sort of thing).
More to the subject of the thread, I love evil campaigns; they have their problems, but if you have (as others before me have said) a mature group, these are not insurmountable.
The biggest suggestion I can make is that at least a few of the characters have mutual backstory. For example, I played an evil Dragonlance campaign once; there were two draconians in the party. The Aurak was, during the War of the Lance, the Kapak's CO; they had both saved each other's lives countless times and had a distinct camaraderie, which ensured that they were typically united against any opposition. A Cleric of Chemosh (god of Death/Undead) had worked previously with our druid of Zeboim (goddess of the sea) to destroy a fishing town, so they had a definite alliance.
These were the two major power pairs in the campaign, so the other two PCs were typically in one camp or another, which helped direct the group very well. It also meant that, in times of stress, there were always allies to watch each others' backs. So the party kept itself in check far better than six individuals would have.
So, mature players, and mutual, roleplayable backstories. Those are my suggestions. Always a good time, evil campaigns.
"It is better to be the right hand of the devil, than to stand in his way."
- Bennie, "The Mummy"And we all know what happened to that poor old Bennie at the end of the movie. My players suffered the same fate, metaphorically speaking.
I believe, that even if you play the biggest, nastiest, evilest character possible, then you'll only become someone else's stepping stone.
Ultradan
But isn't every character someone elses pawn? Even the powers of good are manipulated and cohersed into doing things that aren't in their best interests. Offeres of money fame and glory are just as persuasive as power. Alignment has little to do with being a pawn.
Evil isn't the issue. your players perception of evil is. In my group we have alot of evil characters who work side by side with good characters provided the have a common goal( Wealth, survival, common enemy, Etc.) The problem come from people who cannot reconcile playing an evil character with their own concience (A problem that none of my players have.) My wife (Tigerlilly) relishes the chalange of submerging herself in a character that is contrary to her normal personality. I myself have a dark personality that makes it harder for me to play fluffy lawful good characters, than to play evil incarnate. We have players that only play good characters, and some that usually play evil. it just depends on their mood and what they want the character to be.
The real question on good and evil is is your world black and white, or shades of gray? Everes Cale is a good example of a neutral evil character working with a chaotic good character (Jak Fleet) working with a lawful evil character (Drasek Riven). It makes for some very intense moments.
|
|
Blackdragon is entirely correct
with evil characters it comes
down to common cause and usefulness
of others...
for your players it's all about the
personality, one player I knew years ago
could and would never play anything but
good characters, but realized and was
understanding that I usually play evil
characters, so he was never that upset
when I killed him...
I ran an all-evil campaign a few years ago and my players loved it. We had a few inner-party struggles, but for the most part they all realized that a bunch of evil PC's working together could accomplish a lot more than just fighting among themselves. There was a rather large body count by then end of the game, and everyone had played more than one character since nobody ever got raised. (Evil PC's split up fallen PC's loot rather than raise them)
I had a good time running them through normal adventure from Dungeon and seeing what they would do. At lower levels, they basically did what a good aligned party would do. Once they got a little power though, there was rampant murder in every town they went into. They ended up with half of the party being wanted criminals and being chased around by bounty hunters, necromancers, and even a small army.
I would recommend using the Porphyry House Horror from Dungeon 95 for an all evil party. It's for 10th level PC's so if you're starting from level 1, you'll need to work up to it though. It was a really good adventure. I also used the gladiator adventure from Dungeon a few years back...I can't remember which issue. Arena fights were fun for a bunch of evil PC's
M@
The biggest suggestion I can make is that at least a few of the characters have mutual backstory.
I agree. I ran an evil campaign in 2d ed. with the Menzoberranzan box set. All of the characters were drow, and all of them exiled from their respective houses. All of them were also a member of the same mercenary company, modeled after Bregan Daerthe, of course, so they had the added incentive of their superiors watching to insure they kept the infighting to the minimum. They at least had to be very careful.
Another trick I used was to put them someplace where the only people they can rely on is each other. I had them visit a rival city, and they were nervous enough about getting randomly killed, that they behaved themselves amongst the group.
Best part though, was the male priest of Lolth who bought every aspect of the religion. He happily did everything the women told him...