Honor among thieves (suggestions for keeping an evil party together)

[RealMarkP]

I'm running a campaign where the PCs are evil. I've read stories online where an evil campaign falls apart due to the inherent nature of an evil being. Players generally favour inner conflicts rather than team work, which causes a player to turn against another.

What kind of things could I introduce into the campaign that might curb character-on-character conflict while role playing?

[Edge of Dreams]

First, remind your players that being Evil doesn't necessarily mean doing evil acts 24/7. There are plenty of evil people who are capable of being nice, working in teams, etc. but only do so because it furthers their own selfish ends. You can be an evil wizard who has a lovely wife and cares about his children while also desiring to slaughter all elves or whatever.

Second, give them a common goal that they can all agree on. They need a reason to work together that is bigger than just loot.

[RealMarkP]

Second, give them a common goal that they can all agree on. They need a reason to work together that is bigger than just loot.
Of course, I will have other quests and goals for them to do. Each character has a personal goal that they want to attain; be it amassing knowledge, building a keep, assassinating a certain person, etc. Each of which will need the help of the others to succeed. Could you give me some other suggestions or ideas in this regard?

[DrDeth]

Talk to them OOC, ask them not to over-indulge.

[Raven777]

Tell your players they'll be more effective ruthless bastards if they can actually trust each other to watch each other's back. Tell them, as in, state it as a rule at your table for this campaign, that it's ok for them to be evil as long as their characters get along. Maybe genuine friendship, maybe just convenience, but actually ask them to role play in that direction. Kinda like "Team Player" Belkar does.

[Krobar]

Tell your players they'll be more effective ruthless bastards if they can actually trust each other to watch each other's back. Tell them, as in, state it as a rule at your table for this campaign, that it's ok for them to be evil as long as their characters get along. Maybe genuine friendship, maybe just convenience, but actually ask them to role play in that direction. Kinda like "Team Player" Belkar does.


It's far, far easier to take over the world, or wipe out a good religion, or whatever else ... if you all work well together.

[Dissonance]

while it is all well and good to talk to them and have them swear on religious texts to act nice, its an act and some of them might still be prone to chronic backstabbing disorder.

If your going to have them get along, your going to have to unite the party. not just get them to work together toward a common goal, but have them each WANT to see the fruition of the goal. Whether you do this through a despicable villian (hero?) that gets every single character AND player wanting to do dance a little jig on his corpse or through a clever weaving of each of their goals. Point is this will get them to genuinely want to work together because it will provide tangible benefits for each of them. While Evil may be harder to forge friendships with then good, it would be easy for them to develop a "war buddies" bond over the course of the adventure.

[jaynus006]

Call in cheap tactics. Each one of them is privy to one part of a secret that requires all of the parts to work. They kill off one another before then and the chance may be lost forever. It's worked for dozens of movies :P

[Mnemnosyne]

Evil characters aren't all amoral heartless bastards that care about nothing and no one. Many of the most compelling evil characters are evil because they care about someone. Insist that your players create characters that have strong reasons to care about each other and remain friends.

Many of my evil characters have a pretty simple way of dealing with this. They see three kinds of people in the world. There are enemies, who are to be actively destroyed at any opportunity. There are those who are just there, who are mostly irrelevant but can be helpful or a hindrance depending on the situation - they're useful as tools and can be readily sacrificed for your interests. Then there's the people I actually like, who are important enough to me that I'm willing to make some sacrifices in order to make them happier, and who I'm willing to take significant risks to assist.

Such evil characters are great friends to the friends they have. They are loyal, dependable, trustworthy, friendly, can be loving and generous, and so on. To everyone else, on the other hand, they could easily be seen as complete tyrants and the most blackhearted of villains. This is a character who would burn down a village because someone there hurt her friend's feelings, who would torture people for convenience or effectiveness, who keeps slaves and consorts with fiends...and she'd storm the gates of Celestia to help a friend in need, or enslave a city to present as a gift to her lover.

[onemorelurker]

Encourage your players to create characters who already know and like each other when the campaign starts. You can do this through the structure of the campaign ("So you're all part of the same evil cult..."), or even just talking about it during character creation. Give XP rewards if that's what gets your players motivated. If you want to go this route, I also strongly suggest devoting the first session to character creation, so everyone can talk through their characters' relationships together.

[ArcturusV]

I personally disagree with the whole "You must be heavy handed" approach and FORCE evil characters to work together.

Stupidity, as I say, knows no alignment. Just look at most Paladins, and most Chaotic Evil NPCs. Both are very high on the Stupid Scale, typically. Though in differing ways for the same reason (trying too hard to play up alignments).

You don't even need a more overriding goal than "Finding Coin to do whatever I want with the wealth and power it represents."

Unless a character is both Low Int, and Low Wis, they SHOULD realize that by operating as a team, they can accomplish feats much greater than if they went it alone. This even applies to Broken OP Wizards to an extent. Having someone who's skilled enough to survive the sort of stuff you get suckered into (Even thrive on it), is more than enough reason NOT to backstab them at the first opportunity. Sure a Good character might look at it in terms of "But they haven't done anything wrong, why would I backstab them?", a lawful character might look at it in terms of "Well... we had a deal and they are holding up their end so I'll hold up mine.", but an Evil character will think, "... someday... I'll need a capable thrall or ally who owes me... if I help them out, and protect them now... they'll be that guy down the line."

Even Chaotic Evil people are able to make that leap of logic.

[Laserlight]

I'm running a campaign where the PCs are evil. I've read stories online where an evil campaign falls apart due to the inherent nature of an evil being. Players generally favour inner conflicts rather than team work, which causes a player to turn against another.

What kind of things could I introduce into the campaign that might curb character-on-character conflict while role playing?

Players with sense.

[Twilightwyrm]

There can be any number of factors that keep the group together. Of one character saves another's life, they may (despite their evil nature) feel some debt of gratitude towards them. They may simply find their company stimulating or enjoyable, which is reason enough not to stay traveling with them. They may indeed form legitimate bonds of love or camaraderie. They may all be party to a dark secret, which if revealed could leave all of the vulnerable, and they want to help each other for fear of one or another exposing their secret. or any number of other reasons. They may simply enjoy the protection.
The thing you must also keep in mind is, what does each character get from the others? If they are getting something, and/or if the other person is too dangerous to mess with, they will not likely betray or mess with one another (Incidentally, never let "because I have an evil alignment" ever be a justification for the action of one of your players). Unlike with good, or even neutral characters, however, they are more likely to abandon or betray the others when they don't have much left to gain from the others. So, make sure there the relationship is always mutually beneficial, and the evil members will have no reason to betray each other.

[Pickford]

Whoever said greed isn't a good motivation?

Alternatively if the characters hate each other, they could have a boss somewhere enforcing their working together. (Perhaps they're in a guild or merc company, or have the same liege lord....)

[Story]

Kinda like "Team Player" Belkar does.

I think Tarquin and his friends might be a better example.

[Scow2]

I'd say "Genuine Friendship". It's not restricted to good people.

After all, what's the fun in slaughtering the orphanage if you don't have someone to appreciate the effort you put into it, or brofist after putting on a particularly brutal-but-awesome display?

[dspeyer]

Give your players the adventure hook ahead of time (e.g. the party is going to kill and rob and ancient gold dragon) and then tell them to devise characters who have good reason to work together on this project. Let their creativity work for you.

[Flickerdart]

Nothing quite like a common enemy to get people to cooperate. A powerful good adventuring party has assembled itself, each member somehow wronged by the evil party. They are at least as strong as the PCs, and through help from locals who want to see the bad evil guys driven out of town are often actually more powerful...in-fighting means that the good guys will catch up, and if there's fewer baddies, they're going to lose the fight for sure.

[Xzar]

This is quite relevant to me as I am thinking of starting a zhentarim campaign, personally I want to strike a happy medium in which players can betray or kill each other, but won't be doing so every five minutes. There must be a possibility of infighting, otherwise part of the pleasure of it being an evil campaign is lost.

Essentially I am going to emphasise the fact that keeping their allies alive is generally in their best interests and that they are accountable to their superiors if the mission fails. If I keep the challenges tough then hopefully characters will realise their self-interest lays in cooperation. But I will reserve the right to veto acts of stupid betrayal on the basis of poor roleplaying.

In addition I might try to encourage the players to find reasons that bonds them on a personal level to at least one other person in the group.

Lastly however, if the group self-destructs then so be it. It will be fun whilst it lasts.

[Curmudgeon]

Players with sense.
While that's a requirement, it's insufficient. You need PCs with sense. One house rule I've flirted with is setting a minimum INT of 12 for Evil PCs. Another is a minimum WIS of 14 for Chaotic PCs. (In my experience, Chaotic PCs tend to be more disruptive than Evil PCs. And, ironically, Chaotic Good is the alignment experience tells me is most strongly associate with evil*BAD*evil behavior, as plugging in that "Good" component is a player's feeble attempt at justifying evil roleplaying acts.)

A PC who thinks things through will realize that sharing the risk of adventuring with others increases their own personal survival chance. As soon as you break the basic trust of shared interests, you suddenly reduce your own survivability. Simply put, betraying one of your companions risks losing the support of all of them, or even having all of them unite against you. Any halfway intelligent character will evaluate the risks and rewards and decide that their Evil nature can be fully exercised outside the party, without any need for internal strife.

[Psyren]

While that's a requirement, it's insufficient. You need PCs with sense. One house rule I've flirted with is setting a minimum INT of 12 for Evil PCs. Another is a minimum WIS of 14 for Chaotic PCs.

Dumb + evil can work though, typically when they rely on the smarter members of the group to provide direction and (magical) protection. Thog falls in this category. So by restricting mental scores you can miss out on some useful concepts. A dumb evil character is also less likely to have the ambition/initiative to seize the reins himself, and could therefore be less prone to betrayal.

[hamishspence]

Many of my evil characters have a pretty simple way of dealing with this. They see three kinds of people in the world. There are enemies, who are to be actively destroyed at any opportunity. There are those who are just there, who are mostly irrelevant but can be helpful or a hindrance depending on the situation - they're useful as tools and can be readily sacrificed for your interests. Then there's the people I actually like, who are important enough to me that I'm willing to make some sacrifices in order to make them happier, and who I'm willing to take significant risks to assist.

Such evil characters are great friends to the friends they have. They are loyal, dependable, trustworthy, friendly, can be loving and generous, and so on. To everyone else, on the other hand, they could easily be seen as complete tyrants and the most blackhearted of villains. This is a character who would burn down a village because someone there hurt her friend's feelings, who would torture people for convenience or effectiveness, who keeps slaves and consorts with fiends...and she'd storm the gates of Celestia to help a friend in need, or enslave a city to present as a gift to her lover.
Sounds very like how Savage Species put it.

[Rakoa]

I believe somebody above mentioned Tarquin, and he is the perfect example. He is undoubtedly evil, but his loyalty extends to his friends. When Malack confronts him on being selfish when fighting and enjoying himself too much, Tarquin does not react in a stereotypical "evil" fashion by cutting down Malack for speaking against him, but realizes the truth in his words and admits he was wrong. Evil doesn't have to "evil", if you know what I mean. It is possibly the most difficult alignment to understand and roleplay correctly, other than possibly some variations on neutral.

http://www.easydamus.com/ probably has some of the most extensive alignment related information I have ever seen. I recommend it as reading to my players to understand what each alignment entails.

[Zubrowka74]

An evil person doesnt necessarely means they have the "evil" knob cranked all the way up to 11. They could be a lesser evil. They choose actions that profit them but perhaps they still have certain qualms. They will, for example, abuse people, lie, cheat, steal, maybee even rape and torture but will not kill needlessly. They could also be CE inside but fearfull of law enforcement. They dream of rape and murder but don't act on their fantasies.

Same with good characters, they CAN be lukewarm good and not all act like extreme lawfull stupid paladins. Extremes gets noticed but they aren't the majority.

[Kuulvheysoon]

An evil person doesnt necessarely means they have the "evil" knob cranked all the way up to 11. They could be a lesser evil. They choose actions that profit them but perhaps they still have certain qualms. They will, for example, abuse people, lie, cheat, steal, maybee even rape and torture but will not kill needlessly. They could also be CE inside but fearfull of law enforcement. They dream of rape and murder but don't act on their fantasies.

Same with good characters, they CAN be lukewarm good and not all act like extreme lawfull stupid paladins. Extremes gets noticed but they aren't the majority.

So... Even Evil Has Standards? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)

[navar100]

Tell the players just choose to cooperate. They control their characters. Their characters don't control them. If the game breaks down because of inter-party shenanigans, it's the players' own fault, not their characters'. They don't have to fully trust each other. They don't have to go out of their way to help each other. That what Good characters do. Just choose not to be a donkey cavity to each other for the sake of being a donkey cavity because "I'm EVIL!".

Give examples of fictional characters who are evil but nevertheless cooperate with their party - Magneto, Bellatrix Lestrange, Romulans, Cardassians.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm running a campaign where the PCs are evil. I've read stories online where an evil campaign falls apart due to the inherent nature of an evil being. Players generally favour inner conflicts rather than team work, which causes a player to turn against another.

What kind of things could I introduce into the campaign that might curb character-on-character conflict while role playing?

I've never had any real trouble with evil parties, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. OTOH maybe that makes me the right person to ask.

IMAO chronic backstabbing disorder comes from a belief that EVERYONE ELSE is required to cooperate with your character, no matter how much of a jerk your character is. I've never seen it from a player who DOESN'T think everyone else is required to ignore the fact that his character is an uncooperative jerk.

USE the fact that the party is evil. With an evil group a certain level of internal conflict is FINE. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for any PC to cooperate with someone he considers a drag on the team and not a personal friend.

If someone steals from the group, the rest of them demonstrate how cooperative they are by cooperating to kill him and taking his stuff. They're EVIL, what else would they do in this circumstance?! (Heck, that's what I'd EXPECT a Good group of adventureres to do, but with Evil there's no good excuse to expect anything else.)

You come back at least one level lower, with no stuff because someone just looted your new character. And since you're a new addition to the group no one else has any intention of actually trusting you.

DO NOT under any circumstances let an evil party kill a member, take his stuff, and the new guy comes in with full gear. Replacement character gear is worth roughly what the old character's family or church recieved in his will that the rest of the party actually gave away as instructed.

If someone tries to stab the rest of the party to death in their sleep, this is the time to estimate just how loud the first guy's death gasp is ("realistically" following anything short of a near instant beheading it will be more than enough to wake everyone up, and the "thunk" sound of a blow hard enough to insta-decapitate someone is also more than enough). That makes it one guy against the rest of the group, they gak him and use his gear to pay for the Raise Dead on whoever he gaked.

Cooperate or die. It's a nasty world when you're evil, go off on your own from an evil party and the BEST you can hope for is to be a standard patrol encounter for some good party (kerthump).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Tell the players just choose to cooperate. They control their characters. Their characters don't control them. If the game breaks down because of inter-party shenanigans, it's the players' own fault, not their characters'. They have to fully trust each other. They don't have to go out of their way to help each other. That what Good characters do. Just choose not to be a donkey cavity to each other for the sake of being a donkey cavity because "I'm EVIL!".

Give examples of fictional characters who are evil but nevertheless cooperate with their party - Magneto, Bellatrix Lestrange, Romulans, Cardassians.

Depends on which version of Magneto you're using. He runs the gamut from genuine good guy to anti-villain to megalomanic tyrant.

D&D examples include Mind Flayers, Zhentarim (FR) and the Drow (although they're a specific exception - they'll work together against something that threatens them all, but they're scheming against each other all the while. Even so, they won't necessarily go through with their plans; see the War of the Spider Queen series for an example. Pharun could have easily killed most of the party at one time or another during Lolth's Silence).

[Zubrowka74]

So... Even Evil Has Standards? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)

Not necerraly all Evil. I'd say "Evil has various degrees of intensity." The FR series of PC RPGs has an alignment system that was measured in two numeric measurements, morals and ethics. You could be 66 or 75 % good, 33 % lawfull and such, depending on your actions.

[Story]

If someone tries to stab the rest of the party to death in their sleep, this is the time to estimate just how loud the first guy's death gasp is ("realistically" following anything short of a near instant beheading it will be more than enough to wake everyone up, and the "thunk" sound of a blow hard enough to insta-decapitate someone is also more than enough). That makes it one guy against the rest of the group, they gak him and use his gear to pay for the Raise Dead on whoever he gaked.

That could easily backfire. Combat Reflexes means they're dead as soon as they try to get up. One prepared and buffed up combatant against a prone flatfooted party with no spells? Good luck.

[Doug Lampert]

That could easily backfire. Combat Reflexes means they're dead as soon as they try to get up. One prepared and buffed up combatant against a prone flatfooted party with no spells? Good luck.

Why no spells? They still have EVERYTHING they went to sleep with. You don't lose spells for sleeping. And they take ONE HIT, at worst for trying to get up, assuming they don't simply attack from prone and assuming that their bedrolls are all in reach from one spot.

Nope, it won't backfire except at level 1 with a very small party, which is where the now lone guy with lots of mundane gear gets eaten by a wolf on his way home.

[Story]

I suppose it might be difficult for a melee character to pull off. A spellcaster on the other hand can just summon a bunch of minions to coup de grace everyone simultaneously.

[Arbane]

I suppose it might be difficult for a melee character to pull off. A spellcaster on the other hand can just summon a bunch of minions to coup de grace everyone simultaneously.

Then the game's over. Unless they can solo whatever the original mission was, they've lost.

The webcomic Another Gaming Comic (http://agc.deskslave.org/) has done evil campaigns as plotlines twice: The first one, all the villains were united by a curse from an evil god, the second time they were promised massive personalized rewards from an evil mastermind.

In both cases the backstabfest occurred, but not until AFTER the mission was completed, so maybe that's not the best example... :smallamused:

Probably the easiest way to hold together an evil group is to give them a common target they all despise.

[Story]

I was actually thinking of Rugaru when talking about the AoOs earlier. He'd actually have a good chance at taking someone out on an AoO.

[RealMarkP]

Great discussion guys.

I agree that giving the party a common goal will foster companionship and cooperation. I'm definitely going in this direction and will be tying it into a plot hook that leads to RHoD. However, one thing I'd like to add is that nothing brings a party together more than creating, building, and managing something in common. It will bring out pride in once's work.

As an example, I thought about giving the party a town to build, run, and defend. This is much better than just a common enemy because you can always ignore him if your will is strong enough. Another option is to give them a thieves guild to start and run (I think someone previously mentioned it). Having something you've conceived and built questioned and attacked invokes a knee-jerk reaction to defend it. It can spur the highest level of cooperation.