|
I have been bouncing around the idea of running an evil campaign in the Darkmoon Vale area where the PCs are part of a werewolf pack who will eventually carve out a werewolf nation in Andoran. I want it to be very similar to the Kingmaker campaign, where they will need to slowly drive out, dominate, or enslave settlers of the Vale and establish territory for the pack while at the same time spreading their curse to strengthen their ranks or to throw settlements into chaos before moving in.
Of course the nation of Andoran will not be happy about this and run a campaign to drive back the werewolves, protect the citizens, and take back their territory.
I plan on giving the PCs the opportunities to make alliances with evil fey, evil dwarves of the Five Kings mountains, and neighboring countries to support and strengthen their campaign to create an autonomous werewolf nation.
I want them to start off as natural werewolves because I don't want to deal with uncontrolled transofrmations where I have to NPC the player since that takes a lot of fun away from a game session. I am worried though on how to execute the main classes in conjunction with the werewolves, since it seems Lycanthropy pairs with the physical classes more than it would with the magical classes. As far as I know, when in animal form a player cannot cast, but could they cast in hybrid form? If so then there is no longer a problem.
Just reading this, however, does anyone have any insight on problems that could arise or have ideas to add to this campaign concept?
|
I have wanted to play in an evil campaign for a while, but it's hard to do well. Most of the pitfalls are player / personality related.
Why is the evil group cohesive - in order for an evil party to work, they have to work together, at least on some level. You can have a campaign where the party members have to defend themselves from each other as much as the threats they're facing, but all of the players have to be on board for that and understand it from the get-go. I would not like that kind of campaign - the cooperativeness within the group is a large part of the draw of tabletop rpgs for me.
My preference for an evil campaign if I were to play in it is one where the characters don't consider themselves evil (even though they are according to the alignment system) - they consider themselves pragmatists, or they are so focussed on the success of those they consider part of their group that they don't believe they have any moral or ethical responsibilities with respect to others. the kind of group where the internal loyalties exist, for whatever reason, to mitigate a lot of the normal backbiting you would expect, even if the party is evil and does horrific things to "outsiders".
To run this, you need to do a frank evaluation of your player base, and a frank conversation with the players you think can do this on the same level, so that everyone clearly understands the default assumptions of the game. Everyone needs to be on the same page to keep the in character stuff in character, and to avoid too much drama.
There's my two cents. :)
I highly recommend reading Way of the Wicked book 1. It's a 3PP evil campaign I've been GMing and is very enjoyable.
In the first book, they have a few pages (3, I think) discussing the 'problems an evil campaign can run into' and it's worth the read. I would just paste that section here, but that's part of the content of the book so I probably shouldn't. It generally goes over problems like evil vs mindless violence and such. They articulate it better than I.
Sounds pretty cool.
Perhaps instead of limiting it to only werewolves, open it up to all werecreatures in hopes of unifying a lycanthrope nation. This would help diversify the group a little bit.
As to the casters, you could always allow them to take the natural spell feat to cast in animal form - even 'tho that feat is normally restricted to druids.
Keep in mind the LA of the lycanthrope template and adjust your encounters accordingly.
If you have or can find the book villians by neccessity, it showcases how an evil party can work together towards a common goal.
|
|
Oh I definitely agree - if you let the players just be chaotic stupid without any focus, things can get out of hand. Thats why I am really attracted to the idea of making them part of a werewolf pack, having that camaraderie already, and also giving them a specific set of objectives that will make them want to work together and even with others to accomplish a greater goal.
I highly recommend reading Way of the Wicked book 1. It's a 3PP evil campaign I've been GMing and is very enjoyable.
In the first book, they have a few pages (3, I think) discussing the 'problems an evil campaign can run into' and it's worth the read. I would just paste that section here, but that's part of the content of the book so I probably shouldn't. It generally goes over problems like evil vs mindless violence and such. They articulate it better than I.
I will definitely check that out, thanks.
Been DM'ing WOW.... they do it well.
First option is for them to be working under an evil overlord.
But
A better way might be to have a non-good game eliminating CE, CN.
Also the players must have buy in and be comfortable playing this one as adults. Childish behavior here will kill the game.
Let us know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the players must have buy in and be comfortable playing this one as adults. Childish behavior here will kill the game.
This is the key.
If you, the GM, want to run a mature game with an evil theme and you have several, or maybe even just one, immature player who wants his "evil" alignment to be a license to be a jerk and a bully to everyone, including NPC allies and even PC companions, then this game will break down very quickly into a gank-fest.
It almost always does anyway, but in order to give you the best chance to complete a full campaign, you MUST have all the players be on the same page about what it means to be evil, what it means to have companions and allies even when you're evil, and how NOT to be a jerk about being evil.
Star Wars doesn't work. You can't be Darth Vader and kill every commanding officer who has a bad day (especially if your commanding officers frequently encounter "heroes" - good guys who are expected to usually win). Even the Emepror's plan of ruling through fear and villainous power fails to the inevitable alliance of EVERY oppressed victim of the evil regime and/or fails to internal treachery as equally ruthless underlings plot to destroy the villainous leader.
Evil campaigns need unscrupulous anti-heroes who work together for a common goal, are loyal to each other, recognize the successes and abilities of their allies and figure out how to USE those allies instead of just killing them off, and REWARD those allies to ensure their loyalty, etc. In fact, except for alignment, an evil campaign usually ends up being exactly the same kind of campaign as a good campaign, doing many of the same things for the same reasons, except for minor details about the individual small-scale ruthlessness of the anti-heroes.
In fact, except for alignment, an evil campaign usually ends up being exactly the same kind of campaign as a good campaign
This is the gist of it.
A properly played Evil party is exactly like a good party. They fight monsters, solve problems, and generally forward a tangible goal.
The problem I usually see, is that Players think that PC villains cannot get along, or must find ways to betray one another. If all evil was so self-defeating, why would there be a need for Heroes and the forces of Good to get involved at all?
Every Adventure Path contains some form of wicked organization/faith/philosophy working together to be antagonists to the assumed Good PCs, and they never buckle or implode before the adventure is over, ceasing their threat to the world in favor of petty politicking or hollow bravado.
Any Player who wants to be Evil just to get his official jerk license and frustrate the other players at the table isn't someone who is mature enough for such a game. All in all, its about knowing your players.
Also, keep in mind that interpersonal conflict between the PCs should not be just the domain of evil campaigns. I think that it should occur in groups consisting of good PCs just as much. As for the lycanthrope nation idea, it should work just fine. White Wolf pulled it off quite well.
I am worried though on how to execute the main classes in conjunction with the werewolves, since it seems Lycanthropy pairs with the physical classes more than it would with the magical classes.
I don't know if this is something that fits your conception or not, so I apologize if it's not useful. It might be worthwhile to consider using the ARG's race builder section to create your own "Werewolf" race rather than using a template. If you use the Flexible or Human Heritage Ability Score Modifier Qualities, then they could fit the race to any character class they want.
It might even mesh well with the idea above to use multiple types of were-creatures, giving them all the same base chassis, but allowing them to choose between one of however many specific alternate forms(or heck, tie it to Monstrous Physique and allow them to choose whatever the heck they want).
Anyway, that's probably how I'd do it if I were starting a campaign with the setup you discussed. I'm not sure if it'll be any help, but there it is.
In fact, except for alignment, an evil campaign usually ends up being exactly the same kind of campaign as a good campaignThis is the gist of it.
A properly played Evil party is exactly like a good party. They fight monsters, solve problems, and generally forward a tangible goal.
The problem I usually see, is that Players think that PC villains cannot get along, or must find ways to betray one another. If all evil was so self-defeating, why would there be a need for Heroes and the forces of Good to get involved at all?
Every Adventure Path contains some form of wicked organization/faith/philosophy working together to be antagonists to the assumed Good PCs, and they never buckle or implode before the adventure is over, ceasing their threat to the world in favor of petty politicking or hollow bravado.
Any Player who wants to be Evil just to get his official jerk license and frustrate the other players at the table isn't someone who is mature enough for such a game. All in all, its about knowing your players.
All of this.
I'm currently playing in an Evil campaign. We've got some personal conflicts, but nothing more than what I see in good parties as well.
Basically, we're evil. Our goals are often not nice. Mostly it comes out to the methods we're willing to use. My character did some fairly dark things (mostly pledging himself to evil powers) to protect his family. We're working with a vampire and a lich (though we may well turn on them due to not trusting those NPCs at all). I want to become king of my home nation and reform it. I intend to lie, cheat, steal, and murder my way there. I'll use similar techniques to break the power of factions that interfere with the king's power.
One party member is now a god (divine rank 0 in 3.5). We accomplished this by killing a god fragment and stealing the divine spark, not by anything benign. Yet that god fragment may have done worse harm to the world than we would.
While we sometimes end up fighting good-aligned foes, we often end up fighting creatures that are more of a menace to the world than we are. Because I don't want to rule a world that's been burned to cinders by a half-demon dragon. In a few cases we've even worked alongside celestials, because the more pragmatic ones are willing to work with the lesser evils (us) to get assistance against a greater evil that other typical champions of good discounted. Or because if they closed their eyes, we would take care of it, in a way that no good character could.
Basically, all your players need to be mature enough not to use "Evil" on their character sheet as a license to go off and stab each other's characters to death. Once you've got that, sit down with the party and figure out why they trust each other (in this case, all part of the same werewolf pack), and how their individual goals can not conflict (too strongly, at least), with each other.
Then also talk about everyone's comfort level with in-game evil. Both in terms of what's ok for the characters to do, and in what detail. Certain things may be triggers for players, and then there's a vast difference between "I torture him for information, here's an Intimidate roll", and playing out a torture scene in detail.
I would try to give players a good example of what an evil character is that would work in your game.
For example, I would give the example of Darth Vader. Was he evil? Sure. Was he crazy? No. Did he just randomly destroy stuff and make life a living hell for everyone? No.
So, how exactly was Darth Vader evil? Well, his goal was to dominate and unite a galaxy (probably a noble goal in his mind), and thus decided to eliminate anything that got in that way. He lies about things (sending a fake distress signal), cheats on deals, and uses torture but rarely kills. He primarily rules his henchmen with fear, with the occasional execution.
Or you could think about the movie The Godfather. Were they bad guys? Sure. Did they just go around wacking people randomly? No. Why not?
Also note that most of the leaders of the villains end up killing the other villains that provoke retaliation from the good guys or act in a way that puts the evil organization in trouble.
It becomes clear that those who are bad/evil who also think strategically about when to perform bad/evil acts tend to last longer and avoid the "good" guys in most stories. Contrast this with the random punks on the street who steal/rob/kill. They tend to end up in jail or dead rather quickly.
So, if you can get players to think along strategic evil values, an evil campaign can work. If players want to be the random punk on the street, they'll get killed or tossed in jail rather quickly. That might be fun for a game session or two, but for a campaign, evil requires strategic thinking.
I think that's what people mean by being "an adult" when playing an evil campaign.
Also the players must have buy in and be comfortable playing this one as adults. Childish behavior here will kill the game.
This is the key.
If you, the GM, want to run a mature game with an evil theme and you have several, or maybe even just one, immature player who wants his "evil" alignment to be a license to be a jerk and a bully to everyone, including NPC allies and even PC companions, then this game will break down very quickly into a gank-fest.
It almost always does anyway, but in order to give you the best chance to complete a full campaign, you MUST have all the players be on the same page about what it means to be evil, what it means to have companions and allies even when you're evil, and how NOT to be a jerk about being evil.Evil campaigns need unscrupulous anti-heroes who work together for a common goal, are loyal to each other, recognize the successes and abilities of their allies and figure out how to USE those allies instead of just killing them off, and REWARD those allies to ensure their loyalty, etc. In fact, except for alignment, an evil campaign usually ends up being exactly the same kind of campaign as a good campaign, doing many of the same things for the same reasons, except for minor details about the individual small-scale ruthlessness of the anti-heroes.
Right.
Make sure they are mature. Otherwise the game degenerates into burning villages, killing peasants, and raping barmaids. 'cause it's fun.
Talk about PvP, allowed or no? Generally, “no” is the right way to go, but it needs to be ruled on