I was just curious to hear about peoples' experience with campaigns in which the group was predominantly evil, and/or involved in comparable activities, particularly in campaigns that lasted a while. What sorts of activities did you undertake? How did you keep yourselves busy, both on the short and long term? Similarly, I'd be curious to hear about peoples' experience with evil-ish characters.
I was eying the diabolist prestige class and got to wondering about its applications.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Upcoming, we are playing in a game for evil characters, and I have been on two campaigns where all PCs were evil. I played a Red Wizard necromancer in pursuit of lichdom, and a rogue ghoul who starved to death in prison.
My experience helped me as a GM, becasue it helped define the line for describing evil behavior. As a Christian, I want to refrain from words or depictions that would cause my witness to suffer and dishonor God. As a gamer, I want villains to be really villainous and not plastic. So it is important for me to strike a balance between creating a character that is playable and believable, and applying too much grit ot gratuity to the behaviors of such a character.
I think that's the important part of playing evil, including choosing who you play with. Some characters are not really roleplayed much in terms of being evil, they slap 'LE' on a set of numbers, so there's genreally not much risk there. But some players either want to explore exceedingly dark themes OR just aren't very mature (or both) and want to include content for its shock or giggle value. I have no interest in that and wouldn't alow such a game in my house. I got kids and a witness to protect.
Now, I like my movies and my gaming fairly gritty, so there is some level of that content. I play an evil character in an exceptional PBP here, though he is in an oritental culture than recognizes honor/dishonor more than good or evil. I might be about to offer a family geisha to a black dragon as a gift. Or my pole arm master in the upcoming game will have an inappropriate relationship with his mother. I am careful how I present that information because I want to be able to make someone's skin crawl or experience the high drama of explaining to the NPC that her misery and death is purchasing great favor with a powerful ally, so her past transgression will be forgiven and she will be rewarded for her sacrifice in the next life.
So, just be careful and choose carefully. Be grounded in who you are so that what you want out of the game is drama and exploration. Do not be unintentional or gratuitous because you risk changing your mindset when exploring themes that most of us don't intentionally dwell on.
And stay away from Gual's mother. She's an erinyes.
Playing an evil game right now in FR. I'm playing NE Inquisitor of Mask. The rest of the group is either neutral of evil as well. Most of the stuff we do is centered around greed. Most of the evil stuff I do is scheming and backroom deals with evil creatures. This generally leads our group defending the evil lair from would be adventurers trying to make a name for themselves. As well the back stabbing politics of competing dungeon bad guys leads to an interesting game. That's where most of the adventure goes on. Aligning yourself with one group against another to backstab one and join the third. The game a very "Last Man Standing" feel to it.
I've played in a few evil campaigns and an evil character in an otherwise good campaign.
They were all fun.
they can be fun, but you need something to prevent inter party strife. either something pre set as bob gets to be the warlord or the game focuses on a common religion. the one game we had now referee to historically as the bandit campaign we had a triumvirate going. we were each afraid of two of the others should we make a move sine none of us could handle 2 on one it kept things in check.
So, just be careful and choose carefully. Be grounded in who you are so that what you want out of the game is drama and exploration. Do not be unintentional or gratuitous because you risk changing your mindset when exploring themes that most of us don't intentionally dwell on.
I think the interesting point here is the potential conflict between who one actually is as a person and the set of values you see your character possessing. For myself, I don't think I could ever play a character whose modus operandi was completely divorced from my own motivations/experiences; rather, I find that my character conceptions simply highlight and focus in on various personal qualities that are already present, translating them into the context of the game or de/emphasizing them as I see fit. As a silly example, I don't think I could ever play a female character, for the simple reason that, as a man, I couldn't really "connect" with them. Similarly, I don't think I could play an evil character motivated by a predilection for wanton destruction - rather, they'd need to have a specific reasoning/purpose which led them to that sort of life.
I've had very mixed results with Evil centric campaigns over the years.
LE PCs seem to work the best as they still can have a code of honor and even fairly altruistic goals, it's just that they are willing to step on anyone in order to achieve them. It's really the other side of a LG/LN coin. The major problem is when the code of honor doesn't preclude backstabbing friends and fellow adventurers. If there really must be backstabbing it should be at an epic point in the game rather than looking to get a leg up every possible opportunity.
NE PCs have been a struggle for me at times to incorporate as NE often seems to be best represented by the big melodramatic BBEG who is ultimately a nihilist. Of all the alignments this seems to be the alignment most centered on making life a living hell for the most number of people. I'm not saying that a NE death worshipper can't be fun to play but I think I'd rather do it in a game other than D&D.
CE PCs have basically been the kiss of death in any games I've played in or run. Between rampant slaughter of any and all NPCs, the active PvP mentality that CE seems to encourage tends to make games extremely frustrating to everyone but the CE PC.
The thing that also seems to bog down evil campaigns is that many of the incentives for adventuring for Good and Neutral PCs simply aren't as prevalent. Why put your life at risk when you can take what you want from the town or village? Sure PCs will still want to level up but IMHO evil campaigns often turn the PCs into reactive forces instead of proactive forces. The PCs often seek to conquer and fortify a base of operations and then focus on strip mining it for resources. This at times has forced the GM to bring the fight to the PCs rather than the other way around.
I'm not saying it can't be done, it obviously can, but it has a set of unique challenges that simply aren't as prevalent in the standard Good/Neutral campaigns.
truth
+1
Looking back, all of my evil characters ahve been LE and all the NE or CE characters have always been at the mercy or kept on a leash by the LE characters in the party.
I always play evil. Fortunately, that's just part of the job description as a GM. ;)
My last several campaigns were generally about 50% to 80% evil. Most of the PCs were the NE mercenary type (willing to kill just about anybody, as long as they get paid) or LE ruthless type (willing to do just about anything to accomplish their goals, plus bonus sadism!). Had a couple of CEs but I don't recall them playing big roles in the game. They frequently got whacked by the LE/NE types for screwing up the mission, so they didn't tend to last real long.
I never had much problem with mixed alignments because the campaigns were usually structured such that the PCs were cooperating against a greater evil that would destroy them all if they indulged in too much infighting (although this did not prevent them from killing each other a few times when they could afford the losses), OR they were up against NPC villains that all the PCs really really hated and would therefore cooperate to take down. The LE and NE types were pretty consistent about cooperating with good and neutral PCs because it advanced their own interests to do so, and the good/neutral PCs would generally hold their noses and go along with it because the LE and NE types were so stat-optimized that they just destroyed the opposition. So it was pretty much a matter of "these allies are worth having" on both sides.
It didn't always work out that way, of course. I had one LG dwarf wizard who got dirtnapped twice by evil PCs (and subsequently resurrected by other good-aligned PCs) and still ended up adventuring with them for lack of better allies. As far as I know he never did go after them for revenge.
We've had good luck with short evil campaigns in the past (2-4 months). Low level evil campaigns work best because there needs to be stronger evil/good npcs to keep them in line. Sometimes they've devolved into PvP but no one really cares since everyone understands the campaigns are not meant to last. We use them to try out character concepts and to break up the adventure paths.
Some of the best roleplaying occurs during these evil campaigns. For some reason people really like getting into evil characters.
So, just be careful and choose carefully. Be grounded in who you are so that what you want out of the game is drama and exploration. Do not be unintentional or gratuitous because you risk changing your mindset when exploring themes that most of us don't intentionally dwell on.I think the interesting point here is the potential conflict between who one actually is as a person and the set of values you see your character possessing. For myself, I don't think I could ever play a character whose modus operandi was completely divorced from my own motivations/experiences; rather, I find that my character conceptions simply highlight and focus in on various personal qualities that are already present, translating them into the context of the game or de/emphasizing them as I see fit. As a silly example, I don't think I could ever play a female character, for the simple reason that, as a man, I couldn't really "connect" with them. Similarly, I don't think I could play an evil character motivated by a predilection for wanton destruction - rather, they'd need to have a specific reasoning/purpose which led them to that sort of life.
My "evil" characters are more self serving than overtly evil. He may let villagers die of plague in order to avoid it himself, but he wouldn't start a plague for Poops and giggles.
CE "kill everything in the world" characters are best reserved for NPC's. They tend to not work well in groups. Or at the very least they have something/someone very powerful keeping them in check (such as drow society).
Morally Grey is more fun than overtly evil.
I've ran a very successful evil campaign before. You just need to have party cohesion,
I refer to this as "the tie that binds." In good parties it's always "to save the planet," "for the common good," bla bla bla. It's an easy justification.
With evil parties its harder. For example drow campaigns. Usually you'll need to be from the same house, or at least have allied matron mothers that will punish you for killing an alli's child.
being from the same cult/religion/guild are also good ties that bind.
In evil campaigns having reasons to travel together is a more intrinsic plot point than good.
Although, even evil PC's generally understand that they can accomplish more in groups than alone.
Part of the reason evil campaigns work better on the RP side is that people actively think about their characters and their connection to the other players and a dm's effort to keep it going.
Oddly when a common theme for the party is proposed for heroes (good) it is often dismissed which is too bad really, the best campaigns I have played forced players to play within certain restrictions. Too many people looking for creativity outside of the box while the inside of the box is unfortunately rather empty.
I'm running Serpent Skull evil, and so far so good. That AP is written very well to go either way.
Key for any campaign seems to be to make sure the PCs have common cause. The pcs could be good, evil, could like each other or hate each other, as long as there's a compelling common cause, there's a reason for the party to remain a party.
I've played in a really enjoyable evil campaign in which the characters were a coalition of evil lords that started out at mid level working for a vast overlord and thwarting the attempts of the good guys from toppling our empire in the making. As we neared epic level our character discovered that our boss was attempting to unravel reality and remaking it in his image. A vision that didn't include us. needless to say the characters weren't going to let that happen.
However at this point the good guys were on their last legs thanks to us and all that stood between the end of creation as we knew it was us, the bad guys. I was playing a Ming the Merciless style character and had a blast hamming it up.
My own attempts at evil campaigns were less than stellar but still enjoyable while they lasted. Experience has taught me what several others have already mentioned: if you're going to run an evil campaign don't allow Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil character always, in my opinion and experience, end up destroying the party.
Of course I feel the same way about Chaotic Neutral most of the time.
You need mature players, and you also need to be conizant that you or the other players may ultimately at some stage of the game become uncomfortable with the actions of one or another PC, depending on how dark the game actually becomes.
My last campaign I ran had a slim majority of evil characters, then neutral, plus two good characters. Thing is, they all had reasons for being there and working together so that (for the most part) they never had remotely any reason to come into conflict because circumstance and/or enlightened self-interest united them. Evil doesn't have to mean bathing in the blood of the innocent.
-insert comment by my board alt Tegresin the Laughing Fiend: "But it's oh so fun sometimes!"
It can simply be greedy and self-serving, or someone who truly is merciless but keeps it out of sight such that he doesn't spoil the relationships he needs to keep on the up and up. LE and NE often work better than CE in this regard.
That particular party had the following:
NE/CE tiefling rogue/shadowdancer/wizard worshipper of Shar
N/NE arcanaloth/lupinal half-breed
LE drow wizard (with a lesser incarnate of pride sitting on his shoulder as a familiar)
CN psion (that immortal psionic race whose name I forget)
NG elven cleric
LG human fighter
and an NPC:
LN rakshasa who was there from the start of the campaign
For myself, I don't think I could ever play a character whose modus operandi was completely divorced from my own motivations/experiences; rather, I find that my character conceptions simply highlight and focus in on various personal qualities that are already present, translating them into the context of the game or de/emphasizing them as I see fit. As a silly example, I don't think I could ever play a female character, for the simple reason that, as a man, I couldn't really "connect" with them. Similarly, I don't think I could play an evil character motivated by a predilection for wanton destruction - rather, they'd need to have a specific reasoning/purpose which led them to that sort of life.
I completely agree with what you are saying about your PC being an extension of your own personal qualities and character. I find that the majority of my characters reflect different aspects of me as a person where I ramp up certain characteristics, beliefs, and values while dulling others.
I am a Theatre Major, though, with an emphasis in Acting, so it is always nice to play a character that doesn't outwardly share something in common with yourself. There is a little bit of all of us in an evil character, though. It gives you the chance for more exploration. Also, as everyone can say, villains are infinitely more interesting most of the time. Dare to be the bad guy. After saving orphanages from the clutches of the stock bad guy with no personality and then rejecting a reward for your efforts for the millionth time can get old.
Something we're studying in Greek philosophy right now is the Euthyphro dialogue. You should read it! Socrates and Euthyphro debate over what "virtue" and "piety" are. While I won't type out this entire dialogue and analysis, one of the aspects of this debate is that most people believe what they are doing is good. A lot of villains wholeheartedly believe that what they are doing is the right path, which isn't the case for ALL villains, but I believe the villains who see their actions as "right" and "justified" are fascinating.
Well, nothing like getting your thoughts out there in long form for everyone to read haha. Thanks :)
Evil campaigns requires a certain contract of expectations between the players, as a group, and also between the players and the GM. While I would shy away from taking anything off the table, the players should have a sense that if they want to continue in a evil campaign for any amount of time, there's a certain measure of restraint that is required on their part.
I joined an evil campaign once. At first, I didn't really understand it was an evil campaign, so I had a LG fighter-type. I was an African-themed warrior in a Euro-centric campaign (I remember describing myself as looking like Isaac Hayes on the cover of "Hot Buttered Soul") and I was able to chalk up the morality-disconnect to "cultural differences" for the first adventure arc, but after that I retired him and tried to create a character a bit more evil. When in Rome...
So, I created a LN cleric of a LE god. It was mostly fun, even though I had to attempt to reign in the really distasteful behavior of some of my party members.
Eventually, however, the CE halfling rogue and I had a tactical disagreement and later that night he killed me in my sleep. I (the player) was a stranger in that group and I decided to step outside for a cigarette. When I came back in, the other players had killed his character and yelled at him for being a jerk. He then started crying. I was, understandably, a little uncomfortable and went home.
I showed up the next week and no one was their except for the DM and his wife. The other three players never came back. We started a new campaign and I made a goblin paladin named Doodlebug Anklebiter. It was the most roleplaying fun I've ever had.
Anyway, my story probably has more to do with the ridiculously immature and fragile personality disorders of the other players than with their evil characters.
Something we're studying in Greek philosophy right now is the Euthyphro dialogue. You should read it! Socrates and Euthyphro debate over what "virtue" and "piety" are. While I won't type out this entire dialogue and analysis, one of the aspects of this debate is that most people believe what they are doing is good. A lot of villains wholeheartedly believe that what they are doing is the right path, which isn't the case for ALL villains, but I believe the villains...
Yeah, this is pretty on track with what I was saying earlier - my personal take is that I'd need the character to have a source of justification for his actions. Part of the "being evil" bit for me is that this justification would supersede the societal norm of right, i.e. he's aware of the (at least potential) evilness of his actions, only that he's okay with this because of such-and-such a reason.
Haven't read Socrates since my brief stint as a philosophy major during undergrad; maybe it's time to put it back on the to-do list...
Thanks for the great responses, All; they've been some really interesting reading.
That particular party had the following:CN psion (that immortal psionic race whose name I forget)
Elan?
Curious choice. Not the race, but the NE-leaning party.
I've had great times running a purely evil game. As other have said, it all depends on your players. My campaign ended up running about 3 years and ended at high-level. We all had a blast playing it and recall it fondly, even the PCs who were brutally betrayed and ganked.
The most important thing is finding a plausible way to both keep the party together and keep them from killing one another, or at least for party PvP to have serious repercussions. In my campaign I did this by plopping a crazy-powerful artifact in their midst that gave them all sweet powers and let them come back from the dead, but also drove them all slowly and inevitably insane.
The inevitable PvP did occur, but always with the knowledge that whomever the player screwed over would eventually come back. It ended up pretty adversarial at the end, but the players put a great deal of thought into it, and there was an awesome amount of Machiavellian scheming and backroom-alliance-forging.
In the end, evil campaigns aren't that much different than the standard "good" game-- PCs need far-reaching, long-term goals to strive toward, and the DM needs a good reason for the party to stick together, as well as a plausible adversary. Everything else that happens is up to the maturity and comfort level of the group.
That particular party had the following:CN psion (that immortal psionic race whose name I forget)
Elan?
Curious choice. Not the race, but the NE-leaning party.
Elan, that was it. :)
And as for the NE leaning party: nothing helps to unify you like being on the bad side of Bel, Cantrum of the Dark 8, having one PC related by blood to an arch-yugoloth (Larsdana Ap Neut) and conflicts within that side of the family tree spilling over to them, and then the main campaign antagonist, Gith. The person, not the race. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
So, just be careful and choose carefully. Be grounded in who you are so that what you want out of the game is drama and exploration. Do not be unintentional or gratuitous because you risk changing your mindset when exploring themes that most of us don't intentionally dwell on.I think the interesting point here is the potential conflict between who one actually is as a person and the set of values you see your character possessing. For myself, I don't think I could ever play a character whose modus operandi was completely divorced from my own motivations/experiences; rather, I find that my character conceptions simply highlight and focus in on various personal qualities that are already present, translating them into the context of the game or de/emphasizing them as I see fit. As a silly example, I don't think I could ever play a female character, for the simple reason that, as a man, I couldn't really "connect" with them. Similarly, I don't think I could play an evil character motivated by a predilection for wanton destruction - rather, they'd need to have a specific reasoning/purpose which led them to that sort of life.
Yeah..let me be clear: I don't eat people or have inappropriate relationships. : }
Actually, I am a pretty tightly wound LG/LN guy at heart. But I love the departure of palying a scion of barbarians-turned-lawful headhunters who consign one warrior every few geenrations to the service of Dis. I really dug being a lich nationalist for a slaver nation of wizard rulers. I am anxious to play a bard politician who uses the primordial language of evil in his abilities, and who manioulates, seduces and sins. And my favorite evil character of all time is my rogue/chameleon, who, donning multiple identities, forced a civil war among the dwarves, elves and humans of Silverymoon while corrupting the nobility into a fetish cult of ghoul priests of Doresain.
All these evil characters are the exact opposite of me in almost every way. The ghoul was the best rendition of CE I have mustered to date - an architect who could get on with the party so long as they didnt endanger his plans, but who craved a feeding and risked too much to satisfy it on several occasions.
So, it's like enjoying a villain you really hate. That one game we had both the Joker (my friend Dash) and Kaiser Soze (me) terrorizing a city. It was fun to abandon ourselves and set the good guys agaisnt each other.