|
Recently my players have shown some interest in running some games where all the PCs are evil. Now while I'm not opposed to this, my idea of games involve heroic PCs. So I really don't have any experience with running this type of game.
Anyone have any experience (with some success) in running this type of campaign?
Trent
Infinet Media & Design
DigitalDungeonCast.com
I ran an evil campaign. It can be interesting. In my games you don't necessarily have to pick an alignment, rather what develops is the character's morality over the first several adventures as chosen by the player. So for example in my campaign there were 5 pcs. Each of them when presented with moral dilemmas in the earlier adventures proved to be increasingly evil, but they were very good players and so it wasn't simply rape and murder but rather an increasing drift from neutral moral flexibility to deliberate seeking after power and wealth by any means necessary.
As the pc group got more powerful they began taking over an entire country in a rather jesuitical fashion--basically starting out by powers behind the powers that be and then either making deals or removing them. It was one of the most fascinating games I ran since the pcs were very much into the intrigue scene. There were occasional bash sessions but a lot of it was sneaking around, assassinating people, bribing, blackmailing and kidnapping. They turned the Assassins' Guild into a tool of the state, adopted slave labour as a means of production, murdered political opponents (if they had to) and subjugated certain smaller countries to serve their purpose. Brutally if need be. I'd say that they were more or less lawful evil. The interesting thing is that they handled it so well that they were popular leaders--they managed to always blame anything nasty they had to do on their enemies.
On the other hand an evil campaign can also be a 'band of desperadoes' kind of game. It could feature for instance people right out of "A Song of Ice and Fire" who are basically brutal folk trying to make a living in a brutal world.
What is your campaign setting? What kinds of things will your pcs have opportunity to do?
|
|
What is your campaign setting? What kinds of things will your pcs have opportunity to do?
The campaign setting is fairly generic enough that I could drop in anything that I want to. However about 1/2 of the group wouldn't be interested in a Machiavellian power manipulation game. I'm afraid that it would simply become let's kill everything and take their stuff.
|
A lot of people will take the whole "evil" thing as "lets screw each other over at every possible point we can and get each other killed."
It depends on the people, but I haven't found anyone that can role play an evil character without being an ass that all he does is undermine the group so that they get killed in the very first session of the campaign........ Selfishness gets toned up to an insane degree they will leave each other at a moments notice.
I've gotten tired of having allies that play this way, even when they play supposedly "neutral" or "good" characters. I've gotten left to die more than a few times and it doesn't make for a very fun game. If you're going to run an evil campaign, make sure they are mature enough to do it.
A lot of people will take the whole "evil" thing as "lets screw each other over at every possible point we can and get each other killed."
It depends on the people, but I haven't found anyone that can role play an evil character without being an ass that all he does is undermine the group so that they get killed in the very first session of the campaign........ Selfishness gets toned up to an insane degree they will leave each other at a moments notice.
I've gotten tired of having allies that play this way, even when they play supposedly "neutral" or "good" characters. I've gotten left to die more than a few times and it doesn't make for a very fun game.
Yeah, but it's pretty damn funny.
All kidding aside, though, I completely agree: An character, no matter what alignment, can still be loyal to his companions.
However about 1/2 of the group wouldn't be interested in a Machiavellian power manipulation game. I'm afraid that it would simply become let's kill everything and take their stuff.
You are probably doomed to failure, then.
I have both run and played in successful evil campaigns, but I have yet to see one work with more than one player thinking that Evil means "psychopathic personality disorder." (You can overcome one player, because the peer pressure usually has an ameliorative influence, but two of these jokers together will scuttle the game within a few levels.)
In a nutshell, these are the definitions I use when thinking of alignment:
Law / Chaos: There is a natural order to things that must be maintined as a preferred state VS. Order is a myth and any system that exists is an artifical creation that will break down as soon as it's no longer supported
Good / Evil: Altruism for altruism's sake. Heavy emphasis on empathy for one's fellow man, elf, dwarf, lizardfolk, whatever because it's the right thing to do VS. What's in it for me?
Now, the "What's in it for me?" can be handled lots of ways. Evil doesn't mean that you don't care about anyone but yourself (though obviously there can be MANY PCs and NPCs like that), it just means that personal investment is more important to you than serving some "greater good". So running an evil campaign just means that you have to make things a little more personal to give the characters a reason to bite the hook.
When I"m trying to explain alignment to new players, I actually use my husband as an example of a Lawful-Evil alignment (though he'd really be somewhere between Lawful-evil and Neutral-evil).
He follows the rules because he doesn't like the negative consequences that would be applied to him if he didn't (jail). He doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body, nor does he admire those who do as being in some noble state. And he really doesn't care about natural disasters that don't affect people he cares about. Really. He doesn't.
However, he is EXTREMELEY loyal and protective of the people in his life he cares about, is someone who will absolutely be there when you need him (provided that has been reciprocated), and will go out of his way to do whatever the people who are important to him need him to do.
The people who are his friends would never think of him as evil (unless they know him REAL well). Strangers who irritate him would DEFINITELY call him evil.
It's a matter of perspective and what's important to an evil aligned person, and I think you can actually get much deeper and meaningful storylines out of games where you're motivating evil PCs because you have to go deeper than just "This village we happened to crash in for the night is having a Goblin problem in the hills West of here. We planned on continuing south this morning, so it really doesn't have anything to do with us, but whatsay we go way the hell out of our way to deal with it anyway just 'cause?"
Now, if your group WANTS to run a maurauding horde that crosses the plains like a pack of humanoid locust, that's what they should ask for, but "Evil" doesn't necessarily mean that's what the game would look like.
I am currently running an evil party through Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde, and it is going splendidly. My players know that just because they have an evil alignment, it doesn't mean they have to be backstabbing and counterproductive.
The key to running a successful evil party is to provide a common goal for the characters that they will have a much easier time achieving by working together.
Also keep in mind that most evil characters would probably not see themselves as evil....even Hitler thought he was doing good works. And even Hitler had friends.
...My players know that just because they have an evil alignment, it doesn't mean they have to be backstabbing and counterproductive.
The key to running a successful evil party is to provide a common goal for the characters that they will have a much easier time achieving by working together.
Also keep in mind that most evil characters would probably not see themselves as evil....even Hitler thought he was doing good works. And even Hitler had friends.
QFT
The biggest trick to running an evil party is for their back story to provide a reason they're together. A common goal or interest works wonders. This means they know and trust each other. Otherwise, as was said, they tend to turn on each other.
Evil adventures can be the same as good ones, it's just a different motivation (gold, power, joy of killing...)
|
The common goal is key. I ran a lengthy evil Greyhawk campaign whee the PCs were for the most part angry Shield Land knights that felt that the church of Heironeous had been ineffective at fighting Iuz and that it was time to "take off the gloves" - a position that won them no friends in their beloved homeland. They essentially fought the good fight in the name of the Shield Lands and Hextor - they even thought of themselves as Knights of the Shield in good standing.
I''ve run Evil groups for years - even ones that didn't feed on themselves!
You can read all about how they played here:
Adventure Path Evil Variant 2004-2005
and here
Adventure Path Evil Variant 2005
and here
The AP Evil Variant Goes Good 2005-2006
This journal covers almost the entire Shackled City AP; the party got near-TPK'ed two Adventures short of completing it. Of the three survivors, one fled and two surrendered into the service of the Temple of Wee Jas...
M
Yeah, they were Republicans.....and the ones who fed on themselves were Democrats! ;P
|
|
Bleh, bleh, bleh
Republicans CE. Democrats LE.
We know this.
Only the truly liberal Independents and Green Partyers are LG.
But as for the D&D game, if you want to try it Go For It.
I always allow my PCs an option to have an evil alignment. Here's my conditions:
1} The Player must define what personality traits and "goals" or whatever make him LE or NE or CE (or CN for that matter).
2} The Player must create a character concept that will not ruin the game (fun) for everyone else.
3} The Player's PC must not hinder another PC's specific "good" alignment... In other words, if one Player really wants to run a Paladin of Bahamut and another wants to run a CE Cleric of Lamashtu, and the Player with the Paladin has a backstory indicative of "stamping out" all of Lamashtu's evil clerics & monsters, well, the second Player will not be allowed to run the CE Cleric. The "Good" PC gets priority.
I strongly recommend this; it's worked for me for years.
If the whole group wants to be evil, fine. The best advice I can give here is to make it obvious to them that the NPCs that are against them are a whole lot more powerful and the only way the "evil" PCs have a prayer in hell at even living is to work together.
They may distrust each other; they will have different ambitions; they won't mind betraying each other. Any of this can ruin the game and so for metagame reasons they should be wary of it. But knowing this the DM has a responsibility to make the BBGGs that much more powerful.
Think of the lioness and the hyena sharing the same carcass quietly with each other only inches away; they know if they make noise other hyenas and lions will come and steal their food. It's better to share with the one you hate than to get nothing at all.
-W. E. Ray
A lot of people will take the whole "evil" thing as "lets screw each other over at every possible point we can and get each other killed."
It depends on the people, but I haven't found anyone that can role play an evil character without being an ass that all he does is undermine the group so that they get killed in the very first session of the campaign........ Selfishness gets toned up to an insane degree they will leave each other at a moments notice.
I agree on the first part but have played with people who can roleplay evil characters and still have some kind of party cohesion.
It does bring new tensions to party but is fun when done right.Personally, none of my "good" characters are paragons of virtue, so my "evil" characters are not paragons of vice either.
But it depends on players, how they can do it without the campaign falling apart in second session.
|
|
I'm running the age of worms campaign at the moment where the party is evil. Rather than letting individuals complete evil acts at the expense of other players, I try to write in situations where their actions have bigger consequences which I describe to them. They then get to choose whether they still want to go through it or not.
Two examples - The party managed to ambush a group of guards and had defeated most of them when two of them surrendered, begging for mercy. I gave the group the option to kill them in cold blood or not. This gave them an option on how evil they wanted to be.
- They had the chance to destroy the floating citadel of one of their enemies (we're playing in Eberron and were in Sharn at the time) but doing so would plunge its ruins into the city below, possibly killing hundreds. The choice was theirs and consequences clearly spelled out.
I make sure we don't travel down too dark a path (no abductions or rapes or anything evil with kids) but I do give them morally ambiguous situations to make judgements on. I also don't go into too much graphic detail, merely outline bigger picture stuff.
I also give them social consequences. They're currently wanted Criminals in Breland becasue of the tower incident (guess what they chose) and are being chased by a group of Paladins. However they all love the fact that when they walk into a town where they're recognised they're given every courtesy by the locals due to the fear they instill. Power trippers, every one of them.
The biggest trouble I had was giving and keeping motivation for the group to continue on the path of the module and not run off on their own agendas. You'll have to do some serious rethinking on backgrounds if you're going to run pre written modules, as they're designed for good guys.
Hope this helps
Evil adventurers can and likely will still combat evil - it doesn't all have to be wanton destruction.
One of my favourite experiences as a player was in an old campaign where we all played a group of C/E brothers, out for for ourselves - like the family in Lorna Doone. Our enemies were the Lawful/Evil rulers and knights of corrupt city-states around which we operated. Tyrants who meted out cruel and unusual punishments to 'common criminals' like ourselves, but who were involved in clandestine evils of their own.
Arrests would usually lead to public humiliation in one-sided city arena battles, or hard labour in cruel prison mines - all good RP fodder : )
I wished I hadn't been such a bad boy when our deeds attracted the unwanted patronage of a demon prince, who began to make demands of us. Harrowing stuff.
I have a terrible time trying to run evil campaigns. Part of it is my fault. When I actually play, I almost always play good PCs. Even when I try to play Neutral, it comes off as more of a taciturn Chaotic Good. My biggest problem is wrapping my brain around the idea that these PCs can run around being villainous without heroes popping up to smite them.
I have the most success when the PCs don't know they are evil. I tell them not to worry about picking an alignment, just play their characters. If they turn out evil, I'll deal with it when it matters, like if someone uses Smite Evil.
If I tell the PCs they can play evil, and they are of a certain mindset, I eventually have to dust off my prepared speech that starts off with, "There's Chaotic Evil, and then there's Chaotic Stupid..." That probably sounds insulting, but I'm not actually insulting them, just explaining that an evil character knows when his behavior is threatening his own existence by sabotaging his relationships with his allies, or various other stereotypical poorly roleplayed evilnesses.
I like to start off any "evil" PC group by reminding them that evil, even chotic evil has to work together or there would be no CE races, because they couldn't work toghere long enough to dreate the race let alone make villages, or cave settlements or whatever. Setting the goudnwork for basically woriing together is the only way to start and continue to run any typ of evil game setting.
|
I'm currently running an evil campaign. It's not going how I'd hoped, but that's due to lack of interest from my players.
I've found 2 good modules recently though. Have you ever heard of ''World of Whitethorn''? You can run it for good characters, or let an evil party do the evil henchman stuff while you play ''the heroes''. Alternatively, if you feel up to it, you can run it for 2 groups who oppose each other.
The only time I've seen an evil campaign where a group of supervillains actually worked together, was when evil PCs both were strapped with control devices that forced them to behave, and had a mutual enemy they all hated more than anything else. There was another game, where evil PCs were basically b##%!es of equally evil NPCs and needed to band together for power grab or suffer, and there was cooperation, but we (due to RL issues) haven't got to "dividing the spoils" part, which is the problemating one. Also, players were in unusually cooperative mood. Otherwise, even if there are major incentives against just going on a murderous powertrip or ganking each other, the evil parties just didn't really work, because everyone had their own goals and either plotted against each other from the beginning, or basically did their own stuff without paying much attention to everything else.
My two copper here.
First YOU as a DM need to be ready to have to deal with the fact that in the D&D setting evil is simply more powerful.
Fact one if you have a cleric in the party get ready to have some undead as his disposable mions, be very carefull about shadows because say the shadow that your cleric commands has killed a npc and then waits a few rounds for him to rise as another shadow under the control of NOT the cleric but the shadow the cleric controls thereby by-passing the HD limit for undead that a cleric can control. Oh and Libris Mortis is a great resource for ramping up a undead controlling cleric to ungodly powerful levels.
Second, IF you use the Book of Vile Darkness(which I recommend) be prepared for some truly powerful magic that can lay waste to an entire continent if used properly. Be very careful with the evil weather spell and apocolyps from the sky when you maximize,empower,and widen through items,sudden feats and rods.
I have played evil before and it is an amazingly liberating choice for players to be able to cast some of the really powerful spells that they have only seen but have never been able to use because of alignment hits.
Don't be afraid to let your players get really evil, My cleric of Velsharoon, god of undeath and magic, in the forgottbn realms was one of my most favorite charecters.
I and my party were able to defeat a band of npc do gooders, a pally,a female mage ,a monk and a ranger. We killed the monk and made all the others go negative expect for the pally. I held his girlfriend(the mage) hostage and told him I would kill her on my alter if he didn't agree to be my totally loyal and devoted servant for one year and a day. I wouldn't kill him or command him to do anything that would cause him to lose his paladin hood but he had to obey me in letter and spirit or else the girl died. He agreed and after a few weeks of dealing with me he broke his vow,lost his paladin hood and I ended up makeing him a undead servant bound to my temple.
The biggest thing about running evil is give them a goal. If BBEG has a world destroying toy why wouldn't the PC's take it from him.
I hope you enjoy the flip side of D&D as much as I have. If not at least you can say you tried.
|
|
We're playing an "evil"-ish campaign right now. I'm CN (or CE, depending on your POV), A fellow DM is running a LE monk/assassin, a couple of other people are playing variations of N, etc.
One thing the group as a whole decided on was that welfare of the group comes first. Everything goes into a party fund, unless someone can use it. In fact, we recently had a new player who decided to take things that belong to the group...his demise is imminent, but he won't know who killed him, since everyone has a motive to do so, and it'll be while he sleeps. It'll go something like: make a fortitude save. You fail? You wake up dead, roll a new character.
They have rules they established when they created the party that basically catered to each person's needs, and if someone breaks the rules, they either die or get a very stern talking to (this actually depends on whether the group feels that they were acting in character when they did it).
They adventure for more mercenary reasons, but they may help people if it is in character that they do so, or if it may get them intangible benefits later on (rescue the princess to gain favor with the King, etc).
|
well, had a longer post earlier, but it got eated by the postmonster.
For very successful Evil games, the key is to listen to your players.
Like any good Megalomaniacal BBEG, they'll plot, connive, scheme, and have machinations. Quite often, their plans will have redundant failsafes, fallback plans, and the like.
Get them to talk about all this at the table, sort of "League of Evil" style, then run with their worst case scenarios. You'll need a good stock of NPC's to keep coming at them, but that's easy enough...just recycle old Good or Neutral PC's, with a scattering of monsters here and there.
Trust me, they'll always remember the epic fight at Evil Wizard's secret volcano lair, where (GI Joe style) a familiar Good NPC swings in, with army in tow. They'll be more concerned about property damage and the like, and you can feel free to go nuts...Earthquake, Fireball, arson and the like are fair game when done to the Bad Guys.
Make sure you have the leaders surrender, and hope to hope they'll toss him in a weakly guarded cell or have an elaborate, long-timed execution room out of direct view. If they don't comply with the melodrama, just throw more Good Guys at em...they've got free refills, after all.
Basically, let the players drive the "why" and "where," and be ready to supply plenty of "who" and "how". "When" is one of those factors you'll have to toss back and forth. I'm sure they'll eventually get the Scry-And-Fry tactic in their armory, so ambushes and the like become more and more key.
If you have any of the AP books, Council of Thieves (run backwards, where the PC's ally with the bad guys, and the NPC's take on the role of the Heroes of Westcrown) and Curse of the Crimson Throne both have excellent structures in place for Evil operations. Mining them for NPC's, encounters, and maps would prove very profitable.
I'm not saying our group gets on PERFECTLY well....we just know there are certain lines that must not be crossed. I mean honestly how easy can it be keeping peace between an elven assassin and a drow cleric of Lolth? They are almost REQUIRED to hate each other.
However each knows that if they were to strike down the other, they would have to contend with an irate crusader and a less than pleased dread necromancer. The assassin proved his worth to the party when he one-shotted an ogre at 2nd level, and what party would willingly part with a cleric?
The crusader is imperious and arrogant, and the dread necromancer is.....creepy, preferring the company of his undead minions to that of the living. No one in the party actually LIKES anyone else, but each realizes how the whole is more potent with each of its parts intact.
Dang, now I wanna play this party. Its been a few months!
I just want to add my chips to the "have played an Evil campaign and enjoyed it" pile. Our DM - who was a bit new and definitely in over his head with a party of experienced players deciding to go Evil, which was the cause of the campaign's end rather than in-party strife - still had the sense to give us a solidified party goal and a good reason not to want to off each other left and right.
My NE Tharizdun-worshiping sorcerer didn't get along with the CE magic-hating barbarian and the NE/CE soulknife assassin resented the LE binder being the one in charge because he was a noble, but we knew that if any of us died we'd have a lot more trouble completing our missions and making our way home to our own world (we were playing a "visit, scout, invade, and conquer" campaign) so not only did we stay our hands at stabbing each other in the back but also went out of our way to make sure our compatriots survived normal combat.
It can be done, and it can be a blast. It just requires an experienced DM who's willing and able to roll with the punches, and players that understand that Evil may eventually always turn upon itself but for the sake of the game it's best if you hold off on that for a while unless given a -very- good reason.
Soulknife: I have plan for when we reach village. What we need to do... is combine our skills! I am good at killing people. You are good at making jerky.
Barbarian: Bring me the meat, I don't care where it comes from.
Soulknife: We'll make a killing! We'll sell the villagers back to the villagers!
Sorcerer: I hate to say it but I like this plan.
DM-OOC: I'm going to enjoy your deaths.
I ran a short game where the PCs were evil and selfish but not chaotic destroyers. During a war, they end up becoming public heroes when their attempt at seizing political power backfires and elevates their beloved, rightful ruler.
It'll go something like: make a fortitude save. You fail? You wake up dead, roll a new character.
Hmm, you could have told him: "You wake up undead, bound to the necromancer's will," but then that's just the kind of evil campaign that I've played in.
It'll go something like: make a fortitude save. You fail? You wake up dead, roll a new character.Hmm, you could have told him: "You wake up undead, bound to the necromancer's will," but then that's just the kind of evil campaign that I've played in.
That would require a will save methinks, after the fort. ;)
I would prefer it personally, though, as it keeps the character in the game and thus prevents the other player from having to reroll. Especially if it's a new player (which I think you mentioned) it might be better that way.
I have to say, playing an evil game was one of the most fun and memorable experiences in D&D I have ever had. We played an evil game for about a year, and the first time we did it our characters died in short measure because they simply couldn't work together(of course, as always, the Bard survived...). We almost ended the game, but we decided to continue and this time I played a LE paladin(house rules) with underwhelming stats, so I made him a kid- perhaps 14 years old or so. One of the other players was a knight(knight) that was born solely to protect him, so we had good roleplaying cohesion. The adventures we had were mindblowing, we did our best to be heroic...as we defined it. The other people in the party were of course also shades of evil, but after a while we all became friends, if only because few other people in the world "got" us. It also gave us an interesting perspective on prejudice in the D&D setting with respect to detect evil spells and such- we were once set upon by a group of "heroes" just because they didn't like what their own paladin said about us. The game itself was full of one liners and just overall fun- so much fun that it disturbed the DM, who ended the game after another near TPK.
|
|
It'll go something like: make a fortitude save. You fail? You wake up dead, roll a new character.Hmm, you could have told him: "You wake up undead, bound to the necromancer's will," but then that's just the kind of evil campaign that I've played in.That would require a will save methinks, after the fort. ;)
I would prefer it personally, though, as it keeps the character in the game and thus prevents the other player from having to reroll. Especially if it's a new player (which I think you mentioned) it might be better that way.
I should explain a bit, methinks. The player is sorta-new he's been talking about making a character for three months, and only JUST NOW decided to play. And then he decides to make a Geomancer...in a Ravenloft campaign. Which isn't unmanageable, just unwieldy.
His second mistake was not knowing how Geomancer actually functions, and basically overpowered his character (we caught it before it became a problem). If you are going to play a prestige class, at least know what the hell you're doing. It's basically mystic theurge with a shiny coating of new on it. Not that hard to understand, especially if you've supposedly been researching the class for 3 freakin months.
And then, while investigating a haunted house, he used warp wood underneath some monster's children (who had yet to do ANYTHING), dropping them into the basement...which upset the assassin, who murders child abusers regularly. And then in his wolf form, chose to pee and bite a captive they were trying to set free.
His final mistake? Taking loot the party found and instead of giving it to the party fund or using it himself, he intends to sell it for his own profit...which in this (mostly evil) group, gets you killed outright. That we've chosen to coup de grace him in his sleep is a blessing for him, he'll never see it coming.
If you get the feeling we don't like the new player-yup, we don't. But we'll handle it in character, and if his new character acts anything at all like the old one, he's going to get coup de graced in his sleep too.
|
|
our current DM is running an evil game, and its awsome, few pointers that have made his game awsome!
1) don't force the party to stick together (infact in this game our characters hardly know of each other)
2) allow your characters to do anything they whant (oh the evil bwahahaha)
3) reward your player's schemes (example my changeling is now king!)
4) punish your players for sad/stupid/ect moves by sending them a party of adventurers! with a pally or what whever
(self proclamation, my character, after being completely unuptimised and completely useless in combat, a pwan for 3 people, and weakest of all the players, in 1 session became king of an entire kingdom and key to about half of all the evil plans of that setting! woooo)
His final mistake? Taking loot the party found and instead of giving it to the party fund or using it himself, he intends to sell it for his own profit...which in this (mostly evil) group, gets you killed outright. That we've chosen to coup de grace him in his sleep is a blessing for him, he'll never see it coming.
If you get the feeling we don't like the new player-yup, we don't. But we'll...
I take it back. By "new player" I generally assume you meant "new to the game" rather than "new to the group"... this guy sounds like he's been a problem for some time. In that case I also would be less likely to pull punches.
|
|
I take it back. By "new player" I generally assume you meant "new to the game" rather than "new to the group"... this guy sounds like he's been a problem for some time. In that case I also would be less likely to pull punches.His final mistake? Taking loot the party found and instead of giving it to the party fund or using it himself, he intends to sell it for his own profit...which in this (mostly evil) group, gets you killed outright. That we've chosen to coup de grace him in his sleep is a blessing for him, he'll never see it coming.
If you get the feeling we don't like the new player-yup, we don't. But we'll...
That whole story all happened in the FIRST SESSION. We really don't care if he comes back or not. The guys is like, 20 something years old, and was informed on our playstyle before hand, so we (the group) don't really have much sympathy for him.
Evil doesn't mean idiotic, in fact in order to be successfully evil, you need to be smart about it. Essentially shouting your alignment and intentions in a setting where Paladins are relatively common is tantamount to suicide. We don't want to have a complete TPK because of one idiot.
That whole story all happened in the FIRST SESSION.
I have no words.
|
Back on topic. The Kingmaker adventure path works great with evil PCs. What villain wouldn't want to forge an evil empire, lawfully execute his foes, see his enemies driven before him and hear the lamentations of the women? Since the PCs can explore and build however they choose, nothing gets broken by evil motivations.
|
|
Back on topic. The Kingmaker adventure path works great with evil PCs. What villain wouldn't want to forge an evil empire, lawfully execute his foes, see his enemies driven before him and hear the lamentations of the women? Since the PCs can explore and build however they choose, nothing gets broken by evil motivations.
I thought all they really wanted was hot water, good dentistry and soft toilet paper?
My savage tide group consists of 3 neutral characters and 3 evil characters. We have played about half of the campaign now and things are still running absolutely smoothly. Strange thing is that they are still working for Lavinia (who is firmly on the side of good), reason being she is easy to manipulate.
I introduced one rule when starting the campaign, and that was that the group should stick together as a whole. As DM I promised to introduce no plot lines which should pit the PCs against each other.
I also started the campaign with them awakening on a ship, kidnapped by a mysterious organization.
Then I introduced some illegal faiths in the campaign, and of course all my players chose an illegal faith for their character.
So now this group is played as "we against the rest of the world", which creates a sense of loyalty between the characters. After all, they are all hunting this mysterious organization who kidnapped them, and they are all hunted by an inquisition-type organization because of their illegal faiths. They also help each other cover up their evil deeds, since when one of them is discovered, they all will be.
They are almost level 10 now, and their evil manipulations are slowly taking shape, but most of the time they still spend fighting off enemies (not necessarily good ones) who are after their hides.
It is a fun campaign. Hope yours will be as well.
A campaign with evil PCs can work just as well as a campaign with good PCs. The only real differences are with motivations and intra-party relations.
In some respects, motivations can be more predictable than with a good party. Greed usually works better with an evil group than with a good group, since they're less concerned with means and collateral results. Revenge is also at least as effective with an evil party.
One of the biggest potential problems with evil PCs is that some players use their alignment as an excuse to attack, betray, steal from, etc. the other PCs. This is just a player being an a%+*%@*. Yes, evil characters are callous and selfish, but they aren't necessarily psychopathic idiots who can't work with others, either.
Some of the potential pitfalls can be reduced by requiring compatible backgrounds and goals, just as with any party. Even good groups can have problems when there are conflicting backgrounds and goals, but it's more important to minimize with evil groups.
The last potential problem is evil PCs who don't think about the consequences of their actions. This is not unique to evil groups, but can be more of an issue as their actions can cause more extreme consequences (i.e., killing random NPCs "because I can," etc.). Again, this is just a player being an a#@~&~*. One thing to stress to the players before starting play is that evil PCs still have to follow the local laws (or not get caught) if they want to avoid trouble. Also, while good groups will probably help each other, even if they have differences, other evil groups are probably enemies and/or rivals.
|
|
Typically 'evil' games in D&D have to deal with a lot of weenies who believe that it means 'insta-PvP!' or that 'roleplaying' an evil character means that the character will flip out and murder anyone who even annoys them, usually on the spot. (That's not evil, that's 'psychopath with zero impulse control,' and, even by the standards of real world psychopaths, kinda rare.)
Having played a ton of Vampire, where the entire party is pretty much evil by definition, I've seen plenty of evil parties work together like well-oiled machines, and those same players, brought over to D&D, can continue this sort of gameplay. Similarly, players who started with GURPS, which has no alignment system at all, in my experience, don't 'flip out' the second they put an 'E' on their sheet when introduced to D&D.
Evil, like good, wants to win.
You can't 'win' D&D by attacking other PCs, because that leave you one body short (at least, as well as having wasted resources in that internecine squabbling) for the next CR appropriate challenge. D&D is a team game, like football. You don't 'win' football by slamming the knee of your own quarterback. The proper 'evil' technique is to slam the knee of *the other team's quarterback.* This isn't tennis.
There can be, very occasionally, some fun to be had in an anything goes backstabbing game, which is why things like Diplomacy and Paranoia exist, but an evil D&D game that focuses on that sort of mentality is only good for a one-shot beer and pretzels game. This isn't Counterstrike, and PVP'd characters don't respawn 10 seconds later for a shot at revenge.
|
|
I have a story for you guys. Last Sunday I played a game with my other gaming group, and we were playing through Carnival of Tears. This is what happened:
I wanted to save the townies and decided the best way to do that was to destroy the kegs. The second I destroyed the first keg...initiative with 31 townies (commoner 1). Their stated intent was to stop me via grapple (+6 extra because all the townies around me assissted) and make me drink the beer). I decided I was trying to save them and slung my mace and started doing unarmed strikes for subdual. And because my STR, AB, etc was so high I flat out killed them WITH SUBDUAL in one punch. The only way for me not to kill them was to roll a 1 on damage. And I couldn't escape because they were blocking me.
So I said fk it, and took out my mace and cleave, cleave, cleaved...and after dropping 20, died, as my allies had left the tent because they didn't want to be seen slaughtering villagers. Was I wrong? There was no way I could convince them thanks to the illusion, and they were trying to kill me. What would you have done?
|
|
I have a story for you guys. Last Sunday I played a game with my other gaming group, and we were playing through Carnival of Tears. This is what happened:
** spoiler omitted **
um...assuming you're a cleric (since you're using a mace)
Channel Negative Energy? that many commoners, they're bound to drop fast.
|
|
I have a story for you guys. Last Sunday I played a game with my other gaming group, and we were playing through Carnival of Tears. This is what happened:
** spoiler omitted **
um...assuming you're a cleric (since you're using a mace)
Channel Negative Energy? that many commoners, they're bound to drop fast.
Um, 3.5 ruleset, so no. They kicked me out of the group for laughing (OOC) while I slaughtered the commoners. But that's fine-in the 8-10 8 hour sessions of gameplay, I've never leveled up once, nor recieved a magic item. I got 100 gp once...but f*$@ that s&%!. I already had a gaming group on the side and was making excuses to go to (I have work this Saturday, etc). And they play Pathfinder.
It was really weird, I got the guy to buy the Core rulebook and setting, and he made comments about how it fit his homebrew, but he never used them. Everytime I said something like "they actually made that a little better in Pathfinder" everyone rolled their eyes. F&~+ them. They want a cohort to eat our exp (because it doesn't clarify that in the core book), then fine. They want to believe that Neutral isn't an alignment that an adventurer can play, then fine. But they aren't doing it with me anymore, and thank Christ.
|
I'd like to add something that recently came up in an Evil campaign a friend was running (that I eventually joined and enjoy):
One of the players was asked to play a cleric in a game to ensure there was less character death. The player said fine, but wanted to be a cleric of Dagon posing as a cleric of Pelor. The DM, interested in the concept, said okay.
One of the other players was a holy rogue of Pelor (basically a street hafling who was saved by the church). The Rogue player had no idea that he was with a CE cleric the whole time. When he later found out (there was a general alignment shift across the group, the cleric didn't lose any powers), he got angry, and eventually left the gaming group.
If your going to allow an evil character, and you don't think your players can handle them being duplicitous (either just in character or in general), don't allow it.
As a note: The game is still going well. There's now:
N Psion
LE Warrior of a Devil Lord
NE Cleric of Dagon
and myself (prior to dying):
LE Assassin sent to spy on the party.
We got along very well, as the adventure we're on is all about a common goal. The players never knew I was a spy (I was about to turn on my employer due to greed anyway) and we all get along. The DM allowed it because he knew the remaining players would be fine with it.