Good Versus Evil Campaign

[Quantumphear]

Hey guys, longtime lurker here. :biggrin:

I've done my fair share of DMing, playing, and brewing, but this is going to be my most ambitious project yet.

I'm planning to DM two groups of 4 players - the kicker is that one group is going to be playing good "with a capital G" heros, whereas the other group wants to play evil characters.
To make the game even more fresh, we'll be using the Dawn of Worlds world-builder as a group to create the game setting beforehand and give everyone a chance to influence what the world feels like.
I've got my players lined up and keen - The system is Pathfinder, including 3.5 material if needed.

However, i've never really done anything on this scale before - Mostly I've DMed groups of 5 at most, and had a wel-planned out campaign to follow through. So here's a shoutout to the players and DMs!

Have you tried to pull this off before? If so, what tips do you have to share? How do I keep the whole shebang from collapsing around me? And most importantly, what's the most satisfying (and fun!) way to conclude the campaign with a final battle of good versus evil?

[atemu1234]

It doesn't work well. Either you suspend disbelief on why the characters are working together (since good-with-a-capital-g doesn't play nice) or the campaign quickly breaks apart.

[OldTrees1]

It doesn't work well. Either you suspend disbelief on why the characters are working together (since good-with-a-capital-g doesn't play nice) or the campaign quickly breaks apart.

Huh? A band of moral adventurers gets along with itself just as easily as any other adventuring group. Sure they won't get along with the villain group, but wasn't that the campaign premise? (remember, using Good to represent the evils of the BoED is just a forum convention. The original phrase "good with a capital G" meant truly and exemplary good. Even then such a group still works together fine)


The biggest problem with having 2 groups of players in opposition is that of Time Sync. What happens when one group acts in their present but in the future from the other group's point of view? Normally nothing weird, unless the "in the past" group changes things in the process of reaching the "present".

This is at its worst during PvP unless both groups are present to play themselves. Otherwise you end up with 2 different combats happening in 2 different timelines.

There are other smaller problems too like:
PvP balance, RPing a player's character, campaign balance, satisfying resolution.

It is ambitious but would be great to see happen. Good luck and hopefully more advice follows.

[Geddy2112]

So, you are DM'ing 2 separate groups in different sessions, but in the same campaign world? Or there are 2 factions of your group of 8, 4 good and 4 evil?

The good/evil thing can be a major issue, as philosophical differences and actions can cause the party to turn on itself easily. However, good and evil can and often do work together. You are building the world with the players, this means the players can build in a how and why the good guys and the bad guys work together. A common cause or enemy is usually sufficient- if the PC's are all from the same kingdom and the kingdom is under attack from X, they can unite against X. Also have the players build in game reasons these characters personally work together and why. You don't want rogue agents, good or evil. Also, you don't want stupid alignments- like stupid evil jerkface kicking puppies and murdering orphans in front of the good guys for "reasons", or stupid good bleedinghearts insisting nobody uses lethal force against monsters, and adopts the goblin orphans and forces everyone to raise them to be good, etc. Make sure they have a plan(them, not you, force the players to make it) on how to deal with the fact that half of the group sees life as sacred and would make sacrifices for others, and the other half sees life as expendable and would hurt or kill others to get ahead.

For the final battle, it can be that the party defeats X, but then in the vacuum of power it goes to a good vs evil as the party fights over...whatever. They all save the day, but then only one side can rule, etc. This can be a valuable carrot to stave off PvP, as they know they get to kill each other in the end.

The biggest problem I see is DM'ing 2 groups in the same world, or having 8 players at once.
For the first scenario, make sure both groups get the same information, and keep them logistically separated throughout the campaign until the final battle where they would merge. Make sure their choices impact each other, but they do different things.

For the second, you need to have a plan to manage the group. Have a player assigned to handle mundane tasks, like keeping party loot lists, information the players know, rules questions, and maybe tracking initiative, etc. Don't allow a ton of table talk, or focus too much on a single player. Don't design encounters that one player will dominate and the rest will sit bored. Don't let one character go off and do their own thing, or talk for hours to some NPC about their backstory. In combat, have a 5 second rule-players have 5 seconds to start their actions(I move and cast spell x, attack, etc) or skip them-no looking up spells for hours or deliberating on what to do. Make sure your players know the rules relevant to their character, it is not your job to tell them how to use their class. I would also consider restricting or banning minomancy-any class that can abuse action economy through an animal companion, familiar, eidolon, or just spam summons. Likewise, outright ban leadership feat, don't let the party hire on hirelings, summon and bind planar allies, etc.

Designing combat for that many players is hard-a single enemy is easily overwhelmed by 8 PC's. Even if it of much higher level. Use AoE spells, hordes, swarms, and other things that can focus on them all, and things the PC's can't gang up on and quickly kill.

[Quantumphear]

Thanks for the answers guys - Just making a point of clarification here.

There will be two seperate groups, playing at seperate sessions. That is to say, at any given session only 4 people will be playing. 8 people party sounds like a madhouse.

Generally they will be adventuring around the game world at the same chronological time. This means that as each group plays, they will hear about the actions of the other group. I'm hoping that the two groups can even progress to actively undertaking plots while attempting to thwart the plans of the other group. Which should eventually lead to a good vs evil showdown.

[ATHATH]

I suggest doing this via Play by Post, and delay turns until both sides have gotten up to that chronological point. Do separate threads for both of them, so that they can make plots without the other side overhearing them.

[kellbyb]

I suggest doing this via Play by Post, and delay turns until both sides have gotten up to that chronological point. Do separate threads for both of them, so that they can make plots without the other side overhearing them.

Seconded. This works well for campaigns like these.

[KingBiscuit]

This idea sounds amazing!

I would write separate plots for each group, which are related, but geographically distant. Then I would somehow weave the plots together to intersect in multiple places. At each of these points, I would get both groups in the same room and let them at each other. They may fight to the death, so you may have to find a way to get one of the groups back on track after that.

I think the hardest part of this idea would be avoiding railroading the plot. In a big, sandbox type world you can work with the group to have some give and take in the "plot" as you build it. I think for this idea to work well your plot would have to be fairly structured.

Good luck! It sounds like a blast.