{Interest Check} Evil campaigns

What are some of your Ideas on Evil campaigns? how do you get the characters Not to kill, steal, or abandon the party? I have ran two evil campaigns in the past and it is hard to keep the players on track. both ended in the gutter quickly. the first one THE Rogue killed someone in cold blood in the city streets with 13 or so people watching the city guard was close by and the evil team abandoned him to his fate. late they all decide to burn a whole halfling village to the ground on the fact that the guards didn't like the looks of the dark cleric who was wearing vestments of Nerull it didn't help that the barbarian was treating them with his axe. my second try at Evil when even more smoothly The party got it in their head to try to rob a 12 lvl monk for his gear the 5 of them all at level 5 got there ass handed to them, shit rolls for them and great rolls for the monk. I started lvl four and TPKed them in the three sitting with dumb luck. as a Dm do you just go with the flow and let the party raid, kill, and murder anything in there way? is that what a evil campaign is about? So rollers whats your take on evil campaigns?

Sounds to me like these scenarios were pretty successful. You had evil characters going around doing evil things. Killing, stealing and causing general mayhem is part of being evil so you really shouldn't be surprised when your evil players start doing it in your evil campaign. After all, they're evil...... "as a Dm do you just go with the flow and let the party raid, kill, and murder anything in there way? is that what a evil campaign is about?" I dont do anything in meta-game terms to stop them, but I let it be known that the people in the world can and will respond realistically to their actions. That's normally enough to give players the heads up that they're going to have to put a bit of thought in if they want to get away with it. The outcome is that players who play evil/stupid characters don't tend to last long, while players who play evil/smart characters generally have a longer life span. I grant them quite a bit of leeway though, after all my job as GM is to entertain the players and if they all want to be evil, its up to me to provide them with opportunities to do so.

Evil is a broad term. It can be a simple as stealing food or as crazy as killing an entire village. the line needs to be drawn between senseless acts of random evil and that of acts that serve a greater purpose. No great evil character in any genera became great with just senseless random violence and evil. It is a waste of energy and time. It was a strict course that allowed and justified their actions for whatever purpose. Therefore an evil character needs to have something that guides their actions. A game full of senseless evil characters just gets out of control and goes nowhere. This is not GTA...enough said.

i must join this..

tell me how when and where

But GTA is fun! In fact sales figures prove that it can be an enormous amount of fun. If players in your "evil" campaign find GTA fun and wish to emulate it, why would you impose *your* idea of evil on them just to satisfy some higher ideal? As GM you are there to entertain them not the other way around.

The GM is part of the group and if the GM is not having fun, it will affect play just as much or more (since the GM controls the world) as when a player is bored/annoyed. Most people, I have found, for some reason can only play Stupid Evil, so if you want to play an evil group make sure that the group creates their characters together with bonds between them and a common goal. Make them family ('family above all!'), make them old comrades, make them a bandit group that is used to working together in order to survive at all in the harsh wilderness, anything. Something. This ensures that they -should- stay together unless something extreme happens. Another thing to do would be to give them a common goal. The family estate and everything was destroyed, they are the only survivors because they were sent off to check on a somewhat far-off farm/mill/dam/whathaveyou and when they return everything and everyone is destroyed or dead. Want revenge? Great, they have a common goal. Most importantly though, really make sure that they understand that all evil is, is the opposite of selfless, really. At least imo. An evil character working towards a goal with the party could manipulate, steal, murder, bribe and many other things to get the party closer to their goal... but smartly, damnit. Not killing someone on the open street with guards and people watching, not trying to bribe someone that they haven't investigated first to make sure that person isn't the most loyal guard/whathaveyou in town, not stealing something from the most locked down place ever without at least 2 backup plans. Thats the hard part, really. Once you say 'evil campaign' everyone wants to play the Joker for some reason and that character just doesn't work in a group.

True, but if the players are having great fun and the GM isn't, because the players are not playing according to *his* grand vision of evil, then I would think that the GM is the one with the issue and the campaign is doomed to failure because of *his* attitude. Yes I find that especially in D&D type games, chaotic evil translates directly into stupid evil and its a pretty popular path. Its not so bad in the supers genre because you don't have that "chaotic" descriptor ingrained into the system to act as an excuse for stupidity. But as GM I always try to reward clever thinking and punish stupidity, no matter whether the character is good, evil or neutral. As a selection mechanic it tends to work reasonably well.

"Hence, nobody wants to GM. Perhaps players should try to make the game fun for the GM as well...either by falling into obvious traps, or at least trying to complete quests." Well I just think that everybody needs to be on the same page. It can and does work. Edit: Also, who cares if they are not playing your exact definition of evil? If they are all having fun then you have totally succeeded as GM and they will love you for it. That's the definition of success as GM, not forcing your players to play in a way that makes you happy.

If everybody is on the same page on what kind of campaign they want to play -and- GM, then everyone is going to have fun (hopefully), including the GM. Its not about forcing players to do your thing, its about finding the right group first where the 'right' campaign is played and evolves naturally.

Evil campaigns can work really well, sometimes better than your usual good/neutral band of adventurers. All it takes is the right sort of bonds and plotsauce to be established that prohibits players from running wild like dicks. If you're talking D&D or pathfinder, consider using a unifying element that is still broad enough to allow class diverrsity. Like a Drow/Underdark band of adventurers in service to a House, a Church of Asmodeus or devil worshipper group, a Thieves guild, or a group of Vampires who share the same maker/master. Scenarios like these sort of provide guidelines, benefits, consequences, and structure for evil PCs to attain their goals and imagine higher plateaus of powers above just random thuggery. Also another thing, campaigns can go south easily regardless of party alignment because some people just don't take the RPing aspect of tabletop gaming seriously and will act out stupidly or immaturely just to show off for a few kicks. It's petty, attention seeking behavior It's best to avoid them and be selective on who you bring into a campaign. Hold tryouts or pre-game sessions to get a feel for people. If you're stuck with them, don't shy away from making an example out of them early on so the whole party can learn a lesson without being penalized on the whole. If the party starts acting stupid overall though - just take them aside and explain OOC how things will fail and how they should be more respectful/constructive/not wasting peoples time. When they want to mass murder a village over a dispute over fashion - they're really straying from the point of having an epic adventure or furthering the cause of evil. As for an evil campaign, I'm interested as long as it has a general theme involved. If you're running pathfinder I'd strongly recommend the supplementar books called Blood of the Night, Princes of Darkness (both volumes), Blood of Fiends, and any other appropriate books for setting inspiration. If you're doing D&D 4e or 3.5, theres an even longer list of appropriate materials out there.

This is totally what I wanted to read to better understand evil campaigns.

g-lich said: What are some of your Ideas on Evil campaigns? It's like any other campaign: Find the right players who buy-in to the premise and agree to work together to make it fun for everyone. For this, you must all agree on the vision of the game and the social contract to get you there prior to play. I would submit that an "evil" campaign is best played with systems that are not D&D. D&D is many things, but primarily it is a game for heroic fantasy action/adventure. It does that bit best. It's not a horror game. Or a mystery game. Or a game of political intrigue. Can you use it to do those things? Sure. Does it do them well? Not without heavy buy-in from the players and DM. Yes, yes, I hear all of you: You ran an "evil" campaign back in Band Camp with D&D and it worked fine. That was due to buy-in from the players and DM, not because of the game system. At least first consider other games that support evil themes and character-vs-character conflict better before reaching for D&D. D&D does neither all that well. I'm sure others can recommend game systems for this. Perhaps it's WoD or Apocalypse World or the like. how do you get the characters Not to kill, steal, or abandon the party? Easy - ask the players not to do that. There is a whole world of things to kill, steal from, and abandon that aren't other players' characters and who won't get pissed off if you do it to them. So go bother them first! Include in your premise: "You don't have to be friends, but you do have to be allies and trust one another at least for the purposes of the group's in-game goals." The how and why of that is up to the players. All you need them to agree on is that the statement is true first and foremost. They can add details to explain it further in a way that makes sense to them. As well, ask the players to agree to the following: "Any sort of hindering of, stealing from, or attacking another player's character will only be successful if the other character's player consents. There will be no dice rolls of any sort to determine this. If you want to attack Ragnar, Ragnar's player decides how well you affect him. If Ragnar wants to steal from you, you decide if he nicks your purse." This is especially important if the game system does not inherently support PVP options such as D&D. as a Dm do you just go with the flow and let the party raid, kill, and murder anything in there way? If that's the game we agreed to play, then yes. If it is not the game we agreed to play, then no. Players and GMs should stick to their agreements. If those agreements need revising later, that's fine. But nobody gets to unilaterally decide that. Games like GTA aren't necessarily fun because you can do "evil" stuff. They're fun because of the amount and variety of player agency you can exercise in the game . D&D is like that by default , even without being an "evil" campaign. Oftentimes, a hue and cry for an "evil" campaign is really just the players saying they want to have more freedom to do what they want in the context of the game. So consider playing heroic sandbox (a game that D&D supports) rather than set your game to evil. Just be sure you know how to run a sandbox before doing so or else it'll be GTA anyway when your players get frustrated and bored at what you're presenting. is that what a evil campaign is about? It can be, yes. It can also be about anything else. As above, discuss and agree on a premise and proceed from there.

Headhunter Jones said: Games like GTA aren't necessarily fun because you can do "evil" stuff. They're fun because of the amount and variety of player agency you can exercise in the game . D&D is like that by default , even without being an "evil" campaign. Oftentimes, a hue and cry for an "evil" campaign is really just the players saying they want to have more freedom to do what they want in the context of the game. So consider playing heroic sandbox (a game that D&D supports) rather than set your game to evil. Just be sure you know how to run a sandbox before doing so or else it'll be GTA anyway when your players get frustrated and bored at what you're presenting. Building on this thought of mine I quoted, check out this article: Sandboxes and the Roguish Work Ethic . It may give you some insights on why players clamor to play "evil" campaigns and how it might be a symptom of a lack of player agency in your current game. (Am I saying that if your players want to go evil you're running a bad game? No. But critical self-analysis of your approach plus an open dialogue with your players only costs you something if you don't do it regularly.)

Headhunter Jones said: I would submit that an "evil" campaign is best played with systems that are not D&D. D&D is many things, but primarily it is a game for heroic fantasy action/adventure. It does that bit best. It's not a horror game. Or a mystery game. Or a game of political intrigue. Can you use it to do those things? Sure. Does it do them well? Not without heavy buy-in from the players and DM. I agree with pretty much all your points except this one. I don't think there's anything about D&D that makes it any less (or more) suitable as a candidate for an "evil" campaign. I guess it's possible that the "chaotic" in chaotic evil might act as a convenient excuse for players to think that acting "stupid / evil" or even "stupid / neutral" is what's expected of the alignment, therefore ruining an otherwise promising game. If that's what you're referring to then I can see it. But without the meta-game baggage of alignment - which some GM's including myself completely ignore - I wouldn't think that D&D or fantasy games in general would be different to any other rpg as far as evil campaigns go.

This may be heading in a different direction than you intended, but.... There is a Savage Worlds campaign called Necessary Evil. In a nutshell, the pcs are super villlians who are part of the resistance movement after aliens invade and kill off the heroes. By the nature of comic superhero genre, the players are megalomaniacs, rather than sociopaths. The world book and product manager who support it both give great advice on how to manage the players to insure they use their powers on the the aliens instead of each other. One of my favorite bits of advice was to give the villians fans. Yep, to the human survivors , the villians are the new heroes. When my pcs stumbled into the comic and game store and found action figures of themselves it was priceless. (And it was even better when a villian found his fig deeply discounted due to his unpopularity!) Anyway, if you want to try 'evil' this is a great setting to play with. My pcs loved it. <a href="http://www.peginc.com/product-category/necessary-evil/" rel="nofollow">http://www.peginc.com/product-category/necessary-evil/</a>