Evil campaigns.

[Michellus]

Some info before i ask my question.

Our group has played an evil campaign. And while it was fun we were running into some issues. We have a pretty large group (like 8 i think) but the main problem was that everyone was evil. Sacraficing **** to demon lords. Making plots to sacrafice other players to opposed demon lords to screw them over. All in all it was nothing short of a miracle that this group still functioned at all.

But the way we saw it was that the rp was fine. I mean why would a group of evil people work together to save a city? I mean seriously. I think about half the group was actively sabotaging the groups efforts.

Things went bad when our party leader who ruled with an iron fist left the party. He kept the party organised and focused. Most people had a necrotic cyst while i had a deal with him. (probably because we could kill eachother in one turn.) But this way worked for us at the time. After he retired, the power vacuum was massive and while he appointed a new party leader. That didn't really do much to elevate the situation. I think the power vacuum left was just to large for such a large group to ignore and not attempt to seize.

So my question is, how can you as an evil group stay focused without anyone ruling like a tyrant? How do you prevent people from backstabbing eachother and trying to gain leverage over one another. Since that is sort of in the nature of evil people. Also how do you stay focused if the goal the group pursues is neutral at best. Why should anyone in the group care what happens to the city?

[OldTrees1]

Evil does not have to stand alone. Evil does not need to be backstabbing Stupid Evil. An Evil group stays together because the value their allies as allies more than as food.

As for the city, isn't that where they keep their _insert valuable(s) here_. Think about it, Asmodeus (a pinnacle of Evil) would fight to protect the material plane from destruction. Lesser evils can be motivated in a similar manner.

[Brookshw]

Seems like its an issue with how your group chose to play an evil campaign, not with playing an evil campaign itself.

The solution is simple, discuss what kind of campaign you want to play as a group. Political backstabbing campaigns can be fun but disruptive if only half the groups up for it.

Alternatively the dm has a tool box for dealing with these sorts of things though it can be a bit heavy handed, overwhelming threats that require the party to work together, slapping people with geas, etc.

[Spore]

So my question is, how can you as an evil group stay focused without anyone ruling like a tyrant? How do you prevent people from backstabbing eachother and trying to gain leverage over one another.

You gave the answer in your post yourself. Balance of power. Every member knows that they could easily kill each other off within seconds (mostly if prepared).


Since that is sort of in the nature of evil people.

You haven't seen much good antagonists in films or met several really terrible people in real life, have you? Evil is not just stabbing like a maniac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zdrZo0Zk24). Thats stupid evil for me. Evil people also pretend to work an orphanage in best shape while keeping the most money for themselves keeping the kids like cattle. Evil people often try to undermine the minds of great individuals so that they can reign surpreme. They influence the mayor that the homeless shelter gets torn down to set up a shopping center for their contractors. Or think African Warlords. They kidnap children from villages to make soldiers out of them to expand their area of power.


Also how do you stay focused if the goal the group pursues is neutral at best. Why should anyone in the group care what happens to the city?

Just like any other character. They find a personal goal within this seemingly altruistic behaviour. Saving the city ensures thanks from the people and a save place to live. The established trade routes bring prosperity, the local industry creates goods to trade. It is foolish to think the evil overlord could or would want to eat summoned food and water every day because they killed all farmers last season. You don't kill "just for kicks". And you certainly defend those who are useful to you.

As for staying focussed. That's the main problem with evil characters. Most characters have their own "sub-plots" when no leader is aboard. I am sure one player will want to be the diplomatic bastard that leads the group's efforts. Talk about it beforehand. Out of character. Then in character. Also a power struggle in the group is certainly a thing that should be roleplayed. You don't sign up for evil campaign without having a little PvP.

You could organize a little "last man standing" for your group. Someone provokes the appointed leader and attacks him. Then the next guy shoves the attacker because the moment of betrayal has arisen. Fight until your HP reaches zero (maybe have your DM say all automatically stabilize....or not) and the last guy standing (not cowering in the shadows) is the new leader.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The problem is approaching the situation as an evil campaign rather than simply a campaign in which the PC's just happen to be evil.

Why band together to save the city? Because it's our city. Because if we don't then it won't be possible /practical to take it over ourselves later.

Insisting on the players coming up with reasons to be less bastardly to each other than they are to everybody else isn't an unreasonable demand to make as a DM if you insist on emphasizing the evil rather than the campaign.

[Michellus]

Well part of the problem was that most of us had little to no connection to city. It was a small city that only our previous party leader had any use for. At some point as an evil character you should decide this city isn't worth my efforts. The city was facing a full scale war. It was going to be attacked by atleast 400 iron golems and a lot more non golem combatants. Why risk my life if i could just as easily start over in another city or better yet perform a coup on the attacking army and make it your army and then make the city yours.

It also didn't help alot that almost every character was a selfish douchebag. I think my character was the nicest person in the group and i was LE. Which isn't saying much but i prefer to scheme. It is a great feeling when schemes work out.

All in all i think the RP went fine but it was just hard to keep working for a common goal when it made more sense to abandon the goal and start over or do something else.

Or would that still make us stupid evil?

The DM gave us the freedom to do what we wanted and at some point we as players had a talk with the dm that this wasn't going exactly as planned and it might be better for the dm to save his awesome plots for a non evil party that would actually try to acomplish them instead of trying to screw over the world for their own gain.

[Killer Angel]

How do you prevent people from backstabbing eachother and trying to gain leverage over one another. Since that is sort of in the nature of evil people.

It depends on the player's approach. Strangely, even evil people can have friends, and sometime, they can even trust each other.
It's the players' choice to act in one way or another.

[Spiryt]

So my question is, how can you as an evil group stay focused without anyone ruling like a tyrant? How do you prevent people from backstabbing eachother and trying to gain leverage over one another. Since that is sort of in the nature of evil people. ?

Eh, no it's not, at all.

All sorts of evil acts are being done in quite harmonic collaboration since forever.

That leaving alone above mentioned actual friendships and liking of other evil or even non evil people.

[ArcturusV]

Kinda? I mean the problems you're talking about make sense if someone is Chaotic Evil.... Chaotic Evil does not work in terms of a player character. It really doesn't. I have never seen it work, even when people swore to me that they could make it work. I can't imagine how it'd work. Just look at the Paladin of Slaughter Code of Conduct for an idea of why Chaotic Evil doesn't work.

Even Neutral Evil doesn't really work. Neutral Evil is... well... selfishness personified. All that "Well why not just betray everyone, get rich, and get some tavern wenches" sort of problems are Neutral Evil territory, perfectly squared up. And the problems described are why Neutral Evil doesn't work.

Lawful Evil works because... well... you're Lawful. The distinction I like the draw though is that Lawful Evil doesn't mean "Must rule". It means "believes in orderly rule".

That's a thin line I admit. But it's what makes it work. If you're Lawful Evil, it's perfectly in your alignment to accept legitimate authority. You have no problem following orders, acting with honor, etc. The loyal flunky who does whatever the boss says, and has no compunction at all about "getting his hands dirty", basically a mook in most stories? He's Lawful Evil. You don't have to be plotting everyone's downfall all the time. In fact most Lawful Evil types don't want to plot someone's downfall because it's strong leadership and societies that keep them protected... as exampled by your previous leader. You're more likely to want to maintain a strong leader over creating anarchy in a bid for power.

Basically there's lots of reasons your party COULD have worked together. It could even be as simple as your characters jointly realizing "... hey... these guys are pretty handy in a fight. And they're loyal to me and trust me because we've put our lives on the line for each other over the course of our adventures.... why would I throw that away"?

That's stupid evil in part, sacrificing powerful, trusted allies just for some temporary advantage like the whim of a demon lord's favor. That's why villains have mooks. They know that someday someone is going to come knocking for them, and having a group of loyal cohorts, friends, minions, allies, etc, means you're more likely to survive when Archangel Michael comes down to kick your ass in person.

And if you think you can take him in a one on one fight? No, you're wrong. Bad call. Put ranks in Genre Savvy, how many "Ultimate Evils" have fallen because they didn't have even just one low level guy watching their back and calling out a warning?

But yeah. It's basically the problem with evil characters. People take it as a license to be ***** to one another. "Well I'm evil, of course I'm going to disrupt your game!"

When really it's up to the player to come up with reasons NOT to disrupt the game, no matter their alignment. Just like your Neutral Good Druid might have to say, ".. you know what... saving this city doesn't really protect nature, or align with my goals or anything... but it's a worthy cause and my friends want to do it... so whatever, I'll do it."

Similarly your evil character has to come up with a reason. That's your job as a player, and not the DM's job to somehow twist your arm into it. Even if it's as simple as your Neutral Evil guy going, "... you know what... we've been in this city for a while... I really like that tavern down by the docks and the hot ass wenches that fawn over me down there. That's worth saving."

Really that's all it comes down to.

[Spore]

Well part of the problem was that most of us had little to no connection to city. It was a small city that only our previous party leader had any use for. At some point as an evil character you should decide this city isn't worth my efforts. The city was facing a full scale war. It was going to be attacked by atleast 400 iron golems and a lot more non golem combatants.

What you are starting to do now is figuring out why the heck this settlement is so important that you throw 30 MILLION Gold worth of Iron Golems against it? If we aren't talking about an item that provides demigod status or at least being the key to reign the entire country then I am disappointed.

[ArcturusV]

Also good logic. And shows just how simple it is for even an evil character to come up with a reason to go along with a plot hook.

[Michellus]

What you are starting to do now is figuring out why the heck this settlement is so important that you throw 30 MILLION Gold worth of Iron Golems against it? If we aren't talking about an item that provides demigod status or at least being the key to reign the entire country then I am disappointed.

That actually makes alot of sense. I can't believe we didn't think of that.

[Spore]

That actually makes alot of sense. I can't believe we didn't think of that.

Then tell us?

[Michellus]

Then tell us?

Well we basically assumed the citys only use was to supply us with materials, subjects, etc since most of us were arrogant douches. We never really stood still and thought why the hell they were throwing such a huge force at such a small city. Looking back that was a failure on our part.

[angry_bear]

What you are starting to do now is figuring out why the heck this settlement is so important that you throw 30 MILLION Gold worth of Iron Golems against it? If we aren't talking about an item that provides demigod status or at least being the key to reign the entire country then I am disappointed.

Maybe the invaders just happen to have a lot of golems? The city could just be a stepping stone on the force's attempt at world conquest. It doesn't automatically mean that the city itself is the reason that 40 Iron Golems are being used.

That being said, betrayal and personal greed should be common in any evil campaign. The important thing is for each player to remember that their party is an important tool for their goals, even if it's temporary. It's best to double cross, or manipulate the other members in ways they don't realize, and so that they remain useful afterward. Also, should they really let some other BBEG conquer this city with an army of Golems? That's your turf, if someone messes with it, you're basically giving them permission to mess with you directly later on. You can't stand for that, you're an evil butt kicking force of nature, they should be kowtowing to you; not forcing you to run.

[Michellus]

Maybe the invaders just happen to have a lot of golems? The city could just be a stepping stone on the force's attempt at world conquest. It doesn't automatically mean that the city itself is the reason that 40 Iron Golems are being used.

That being said, betrayal and personal greed should be common in any evil campaign. The important thing is for each player to remember that their party is an important tool for their goals, even if it's temporary. It's best to double cross, or manipulate the other members in ways they don't realize, and so that they remain useful afterward. Also, should they really let some other BBEG conquer this city with an army of Golems? That's your turf, if someone messes with it, you're basically giving them permission to mess with you directly later on. You can't stand for that, you're an evil butt kicking force of nature, they should be kowtowing to you; not forcing you to run.

While it might be our turf. My character had no turf but still. I think 400+ iron golems make for a compelling argument when saying its no longer our turf. I think the main problem was that we were to douchebaggy evil. And that we should try more sneaky ways of being a douche.

[Segev]

For a good example of how an evil party can work together, look to Tarquin and crew in the current plot arc of Order of the Stick.

Evil people can have friends. Evil people can value allies. Even neutral evil can work and play well with others as long as there's something in it for him. Enlightened Self-Interest has a hazard of turning you neutral or even good, but at its core is what constrains evil people from being Stupid Evil and simply backstabbing people for every first-order advantage they can find.

First-order advantage is immediate gain. In A.I. systems, it's called a "greedy algorithm." It goes for the largest gain in the next move, with no consideration for any move beyond that. (As an example, in chess, a "greedy algorithm" will take the opponent's Bishop rather than the opponent's Pawn, even if taking the Pawn would set it up to capture the Queen in the following move.)

Neutral evil characters will even go so far as to take risks for their allies - calculated risks, certainly, but still risks - for little immediate reward aside from having helped their ally not lose something precious to that ally. They are pursuing at least second-order advantage: they are setting things up to gain more later on. The calculated nature of it evaluates that they are likely to gain more in the long run by preserving their relationship with this person who's proven reasonably trustworthy than they are by betraying said person and taking the immediate gain.

It could even be higher-order advantage, though it tends to lurk towards Lawful Evil at this point: valuing your word and your commitments even in the face of disadvantage can bolster your reputation overall, making others trust you even if they don't like you. Their trust is valuable overall because it means they will help you with fewer material assurances, and will allow you to help in exchange for payment you say you want because they trust you honestly want what you say you want and will live up to your end of the bargain even if proffered the chance to renege and still get what you wanted.

(I will state that what can keep you neutral rather than lawful is if you calculate and evaluate in each case, and renege when it's in your best interests to do so even with the cost of the loss of reputation. Generally speaking, even neutral or a few good people renege under such circumstances, if they're not Lawful. It is one of those things that can trap Lawful people, when the conditions change such that the bargain is actively a BAD one and they're still bound to it. A neutral good person is as likely to renege on his deal to give over the idol he's been keeping when he discovers it's meant to slaughter a kingdom and raise it as the villain's minions as the neutral evil person is to renege on the deal to help the hero get the Awesome Sword of Awesomeness when it turns out that it's going to take far more time and resources than the ring he originally bargained for was worth. At the very least, the NE guy is likely to seek to renegotiate for more pay, and since most mercenary types would likely do the same, it's not going to harm his reputation much as long as he's rather up-front about it.)

[jedipotter]

So my question is, how can you as an evil group stay focused without anyone ruling like a tyrant? How do you prevent people from backstabbing eachother and trying to gain leverage over one another. Since that is sort of in the nature of evil people. Also how do you stay focused if the goal the group pursues is neutral at best. Why should anyone in the group care what happens to the city?

There is the real life answer, of course. While it is loads of fun to play an evil character and back stab other evil characters....well, you need to keep in mind that if that character is a player character, then your effecting a player in your group. And again, while it can be fun to mess with another player and ruin the game for them and piss them off.....you could also just not do that.

And if you really get to the point of ruining the game for a player or making it so they can't play.....then they might just leave, you know for real. And if you do the ''one evil to win'', then you can quickly have just one player.

So, being evil to the other players is a bit loose loose. Unless you want to play the game by yourself.

But you do have a whole fictional game world of characters to be evil too. And just as Bort is a made up character does not make your evil lesser or anything. You can still have fun being evil.

[Red Fel]

Evil campaigns require a lot more vetting than good campaigns, for reasons a lot of people have mentioned. A common misconception is that Evil = Selfish, and that Selfish = Does Not Play Well With Others. As a DM, this would require more cautious vetting of character concepts pre-game, to determine that the characters can play well together without some form of fiat. Finding concepts that mesh well is an excellent workaround. For instance, I once played a LE Minotaur in a mostly-Good party. It worked because I had collaborated with one of the other players, and my character owed his a debt of servitude. The party knew that my character was evil, but that he would not betray them and that he would honor their requests, at least to the letter if not the spirit. It worked.

Being part of something bigger is also an excellent mechanism for cooperation. For example, in one evil campaign I played, the PCs were consultants being employed by the Red Wizards of Thay. We had disparate perspectives and goals - one was a Forsaker, one was a Demon, one was a Red Wizard, and so forth - but having a common employer and wanting to be on their good side is a solid motivation even for an evil character. (Admittedly, that campaign fell apart for other reasons. Party cohesion was not the downfall, however.)

Other posters have correctly pointed out several things.

1: Just as Good is not always Nice, Evil is not always Mean. Evil can be friendly, amiable, even caring. Yes, Evil can feel love. Evil can invite you to dinner without intending cannibalism. Evil can have friends. Evil simply means that, if it came down to it, he would not only choose himself over his friends, he would offer them up on a silver platter if it meant getting what he wanted. But that doesn't mean he would be stupid about it.

2: Evil is not Chaotic. There is a specific alignment for that. It's Chaotic Evil, and as mentioned by others, it's bad for PCs. CE characters basically need to be kept on a leash. But non-Chaotic Evil characters aren't simply creatures of id, ready to stab any available target for kicks. They have goals, plans, dreams. Use that. Build Evil characters with an agenda, a desire. Collaborate with other players and see to it that your goals align. Even if they clash a bit - such as if two Evil characters seek world domination - you may be able to find some common ground. Lex Luthor was willing to settle for Australia from Zod, for instance, and Zod was willing to repay Luthor's loyalty with it.

3: Evil is not monolithic. A thousand times this. If Evil were a single, monofaceted force, there would be no Blood War. Evil is nuanced. Evil is complicated. Evil is a Succubus who falls in love with a Celestial, becomes an LG Paladin, and then falls, harnessing her powers for dark purposes. Evil is a well-intentioned Cleric of the Silver Flame going on a late-night romp through the forests and purging Lycanthropes without running a background check. Evil is a desperate, starving man who has come across a book, uses its contents to summon a horrific Thing From Below, and makes a deal for a loaf of bread. Evil is complicated and awesome and tragic and funny and charming and friendly and a sharp dresser. It is anything your players want it to be. And if all they can think of is "I reserve my action so I can stab my friends in the back," they probably shouldn't be playing in an Evil campaign.

[Michellus]

Well most of the people were CE and backstabbing was pretty much happening all the time. Some were more sneaky about it then others. One player actually sacraficed another player to Grzzt. Which was a hilarious play to say the least because they tried sacraficing eachother and one came out victorious. Alot of fun was had but i think we are fortunate that we have a good group of close friends to play with so we don't have to worry about people leaving. And like with alot of people. Payback can be a bitch.

For me i was employed by the previous tyrant of the party and was sort of the odd one out. My archivist was there for knowledge. And that was basically all i did that and chilling out with the black dragon i had forced into submission. I only had that dragon for a few sessions before we quit but i was waiting for the time it would betray me. It would have been great.

All in all great fun was had but i figured id ask some advice on how to handle this in the future if i find myself playing an evil campaign again.