I'm not sure you really need to make any changes for an evil party. The adventures revolve around threats to the PCs' kingdom, and presumably PCs of any and all alignments would want to protect their land.
For adventures 4, 5, and 6, there is a story that unifies 4 and 5. Irovetti sends a mercenary army to Drelev. Drelev surrenders, so the army continues to move east, and attacks the PC kingdom. Afterwards, Irovetti claims that he only hired the army to attack Drelev, and the attack on the PC kingdom was Armag's fault. Then he plans the trap for the PCs at the Rushlight Tourney.
Adventure 6 is its own event. It could happen years after the PCs defeat Irovetti. Nyrissa's ritual to capture the Stolen Lands is finally ready, the sword has been revealed, and the PC kingdom comes under attack.
There are many ways to strengthen the story. Foreshadowing the various NPCs and their goals and personalities helps a lot in my opinion.
A lot of it depends on the sort of evil your PCs are. Lawful Evil PCs who care about their kingdom and the people in it could run through the whole adventure with no change, because it's built on the assumption of you wanting to protect your people.
If you want good guy Drelev, you could make him a Paladin of Erastil, possibly Akiros' former boss. (This works a lot better if Akiros lives through Book 1 and becomes a part of the kingdom, obviously). Since Drelev's war as written is unprovoked, you'll need a provocation which will probably come from the evil PCs instead. Perhaps Drelev requests - and later demands - Akiros be turned over to him. Perhaps Kisandra Numesti flees to HIM to report on some fell evil the PCs are up to (like keeping the Eye of Abaddon and opening the way for the Horsemen) to provoke the war (they're bound to be up to something evil that can offend him). I'd lean the opposite way of your PCs on the Law/Chaos axis for Drelev. If they're Lawful tyrants with an emphasis on rules, Fort Drelev is a relaxed low-tax do-as-you-please chaotic community. If they're Chaotic Evil who act at a whim, then Drelev is a rules-and-honour focused Lawful ruler.
I'd leave Armag and the Gyronnan cult as they are. You'll have to mess with the plot quite a lot to get a version that works with Erastil in their shoes, and an angry barbarian champion reborn is everyone's problem including the PCs. If Drelev is Good, then he rebuffs Armag's assault rather than caving under it but can't press against the Tiger Lords while engaging the PCs kingdom.
That puts Vordekai as pure evil, Drelev as some variant of Good, Clockwork Irrovetti as a force of neutrality resolving a threat to his power, and perhaps Nyrissa as a good force of peace who wants to liberate the kingdom from the evil PCs and put it into a bottle where it's citizens can live in peace. It's a good mix.
One thing I'd look at is what to do with Grigori, the bard in Book 2 who taunts the PCs. This is a pretty popular encounter designed to be solved with brains instead of brawn, predicated on the assumption that it's wrong to simply bloodily murder the guy and raise him as an undead servitor simply because he's talking smack about you. Evil PCs are much more likely to move straight to the killing and bypass any interest in the encounter. I'd make Grigori a Paladin/Bard here, talking (rightfully) about the evil the PCs are doing and rallying the citizens to not lose hope. I'd sponsor him from Drelev instead of Pitax, and then I'd lean on the PCs to not bloodily murder him by having them fear the citizens retribution (it depends how evil and tyrannical their kingdom is) or back him with the church of Erastil, or emphasis the 'Say What You Will, I Live Free' aspects of the River Kingdom and that butchering him for his words alone is a big deal.
|
I know it's a bit of a repeating topic, but here I am looking for advice for a Kingmaker campaign with an evil group.
I agree with @Spatula that there's very little you would need to change because the game envisioned good and evil kingdoms. The threats will come regardless of the party's alignment, and evil doesn't have to be about slaughtering anything good. It's about selfish gain of power, and that's easy to do. People will still flock to strength once the PCs take over.
How Brevoy reacts, however, should be considered. After all, it's the new neighbor to the north and could easily squash a pesky upstart kingdom (if it weren't so consumed by the threat of civil war and who will occupy the throne!)
Book 1: The Greenbelt is left blank in several places for you to add stuff. So, consider adding an evil temple. Who says all the prior kingdoms that may have been in this land were all good? Same with Jhod. The kingdom will have more leadership roles to fill than players. So, the PCs need to make friends they trust. Why not make Jhod a dark priest sympathetic to their cause, perhaps looking for his enemy's temple to desecrate and convert to his own?
Between Book 1 and Book 2: The "capital venture" was our last play session. I would do this a bit differently, however. I intended on roleplaying each offer, but that took way too much time. Instead, I would put a time limit to "work the room" and print out each offer along with a chart of each NPC (which I did eventually). This way, players have to split up to make deals, giving each player a chance to make decisions, instead of what happened at my table. The game slowed down as every deal had to be talked about and voted on.
Book 2: Hargulka is a great enemy. To him, the PCs are a food source, not allies simply because they both tend evil. Personally, I'd leave him as is.
Beyond that, really, everything works regardless of alignments. As to the Barbarians, they're just opportunistic thanks to their belief in Armag, so not evil. Drelev is a wimp, and Pitax might actually be the kingdom protecting everyone from the big threat (if you use some alternate versions others have).