|
You mess with me, you mess with my whole family!
Though the family angle seems contrived most of the time and getting players to agree on it can also be a problem. Not to mention that families can be just as hostile to be a member of as any other option listed so far. I think, regardless of what the group make up is, the key we're getting at is the party needs a stong commonality which will keep them connected despite any social conflicts resulting from alignment issues or moral beliefs.
...IF CE characters really were homicidal maniacs, how do Drow cities survive?
What does make Drow CE?
For me Drow are a perfect example of LE. They have Houses that exist for millenia relatively unchanged. They have a very rigid hierachy where the strong surpress the weak. They plan the downfall of the surface Elven Nations and scheme against each other in decade spanning plots to become the top of the heap. All LE to me.
For me this is a perfect example of misusing the CE alignment. Just because you have a CE goddess that is in need of some really impressive followers, you invent a whole civilisation until it's - by design - Lawful enough to hold together, be consistent and more interesting than a ravening orc horde, changing leaders by the month.
Hardly, at best some Drow are Neutral Evil. They have virtually no regard for loyalty or promises. They would push tradition aside in a heartbeat if got in the way of some goal (Second Darkness has some good examples where the PCs are concerned). All at a very individual level. The biggest difference between Drow and a band of Orcs is time, Drow have a lot of it if they don't get themselves killed. This makes the backstabbing and ragging more protracted, creating the illusion of stability. Where an Orc may seek vengeance for an insult with a few seconds to hours, Drow can and will wait (decades even) until there is less likely hood of reprisal. It has no relation to any tradition or rules, or even a personal code. It just happens slower so it looks more orderly. Contrast that to Hobgoblins in Classic Monsters Revisited.
Even a car crash can look orderly if slowed down to a frame a minute.
I've long argued that an experienced player can run Chaotic Evil without being an ass. The "bad guy" surrendered? Give him a good solid non-lethal boot to the head for good measure. Is that peasant holding back valuable intelligence the party needs? Belt him one across the jaw. Same for a noble who's stalling, and take the gold tooth you knocked loose (touch of greed). It's all about using meta-experience with the game to know when and where you can display your character's Evil without disrupting the story.
Personally the biggest tools for CE PCs are non-lethal damage and improved grapple. Generally as long as you don't kill things during fits of violence the story can continue unhindered. Violence is not the same as killing, and I think to many inexperienced players don't grasp that.
Attempting to use real-world examplars for D&D alignments makes for a rather poor fit. Real people just don't fall into such pigeonholes. We're too complex, and we don't have pantheons of pigeonhole-inhabiting deities directing our activities through unequivocal displays of their existence and power. Social norms direct our activities more than anything else, even if our inclinations toward selfish and altruistic behavior make us seem chaotic, lawful, good, and/or evil at times. This is true even with people who exhibit extremes of behavior.
Exempli gratia: Pol Pot, head of the notorious Khmer Rouge, led a hierarchical group; was he then lawful evil? His group was a revolutionary movement; was he then chaotic evil? He was almost certainly motivated to some degree by a personal desire for power; was he then neutral evil? Were nearly all of his followers of the same alignment as him? These really aren't answerable questions.
More to the point of the thread, as with any campaign, the key to an evil campaign is the players. Mature players who aren't asses in and out of the game can make just about anything work. I've been in evil campaigns that fell apart within a few games because one of the players used the alignment system as an excuse to be a jerk. I'm currently in a months-long drow campaign in which most of our characters are decidedly chaotic evil, and it's working extremely well with a great deal of fun being had by all. It's the social contract around the gaming table that allows that to happen.
Of course, for our group, we wouldn't have any problem with the rogue who gets arrested while acting as a courier. Our characters would be pretty darn unhappy, and there would be in-game consequences, but that wouldn't be a campaign-shattering event (if the message were that important, even MicMan's super-chaotic ADHD-ridden rogue should be able to keep his nose clean long enough to deliver it). Instead, we players would find it an amusing event. In all likelihood, we'd follow it up by having a grand time busting our foolish compatriot out of jail.
|
|
So I'm thinking of campaign ideas and am thinking Midnight would actually be a pretty good setting to host an evil campaign. One of the biggest complaints the setting gets is that it is overwhelmingly oppressive in it's presentation of evil having won, leaving good to try to fight to survive. A recommendation to GM's for the game that gets tossed around a lot is to set an objective and make it the end goal for the campaign. That's because the game focuses on good fighting against overwhelming darkness. I think an evil campaign approach would make it less oppressive since you would either be fighting on the same side or working against it. The last approach I think would be the best since it pits the characters not only against forces of good, but also against a greater evil that they could work to usurp. It also feeds into why forces of good might let you go, presenting the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as well as "the lesser of two evils".
The only evil campaign I ever ran successfully was when I first started DMing. We did a player driven game (this was in 2nd edition days) with a LE Anti-paladin of Bhaal, a CE rogue, a NE cleric of Bhaal, a NE ranger, and a Necromancer (i think he was NE too but he might have been lawful). I sat them all down in front of the table and I said something along the lines of this: Ok you're all evil people, you tend to be selfish jerks, but there isnt one person here who can beat ME (the DM). So I dont want any backstabbing, stealing from the party, assassination attempts on each other, or any other disruptive play styles. Your evil but youre still a party and I expect you to work together or not play. Besides if you were to off one of your allies the rest would hang you out to dry.
I never had a problem with them. Sometimes there were disagreements on how to handle things, and sometimes one or more members got kicked around by the rest of the group (Like when the anti-paladin tossed the halfling rogue into a portal to see what was on the other side) but I nver had any disruptive play. Sometimes it really just takes a stern GM to set the players straight and if that doesnt work, the party lynching any offenders works very well too
Anyway, we had a great game after that, probably the most fun Ive ever had as a GM. They told me what they wanted to do I would give them rumors, news, or other hooks and if they liked the idea they would go out and kill and pillage to their hearts desires. Probably the most fun was when the rogue convinced (read: blackmailed) a duke to hand some land over to the group. By the time the game was over they got to restore an old fort and build all sorts of things in it including a temple of Bhaal, a magical tower for the necromancer, a thieves guild, and an exotic creature fighting ring (think cock fights with Dinosaurs and similar beasts)
Anyway, evil can be fun. You just have to put your foot down and tell the players that the group is their allies and they need to work together. If they want to murder, pillage, blackmail, and cannabalize people thats what NPC's are for
[On topic movie quote]
"Eeeevil is good!"
[/on topic movie quote]
One of my last 3rd edition games i was in was an evil campaign. There was only 2 of us playing and the DM kind of just let us go at the start. We where both LE mercenaries that had been covering each others back for a long time. I was a tiefling rogue/wizard, he was a Hobgoblin rogue/fighter, by both being rogues we did alot of stealth hit and runs. And soon the game took on a life of its own, being in middle of a 3 sided war and selling our servers to different groups. One of the funnest games i have ever played in.
I'm involved a very interesting evil-party dynamic right now. Each of the PC's chose their alignment and class without each other's knowledge, and the end result is a LE Half-orc Monk(myself), a NE Halfling bard, a CN elven wizard, and a LG human ranger. Now, we've just started this campaign, but I think it holds quite a bit of potential. Don't forget, alignments can theoretically be changed. As the campaign started, we were in a prison and 200 miles from any sort of civilization. Instantly, a "we're all in this together" dynamic took place. Now it's turned into a "let's peer pressure this goody two-shoes into not being such a square" dynamic, and that's been fun. My half-orc's skills with intimidation(improved intimidation was a good choice of feats) and LE alignment and the NE bard's silver tongue and charming, non-threatening demeanor have created a "good cop, bad cop" team that's ridiculously fun to roleplay, while our wizard sits back and relishes the chaos of the whole thing. It's like a sit-com, only with giant insects, drakes, and undead. So that's an example of a good mixed alignment campaign.