Have There Ever Being An Evil PC Or Evil Party That's Been Successful?

[Bartmanhomer]

I know there's Good PC and Good Party That Been Successful for winning D&D 3.5 games even Neutral PC and Neutral Party have their winning moments. But I don't know if there any evil PC and Evil party have their time to shine? Is there any Evil PC and Evil Party have their victory moments at all. If so, tell me all about it. :smile:

[Silva Stormrage]

Yes, I have run a decent amount of evil parties and quite a lot of evil PC's in a good/neutral party. The big thing to note is that evil characters don't mean they don't have goals or can't have friends. It just means they are generally more ruthless in achieving those goals.

People who play evil as "Oh I am going to backstab the party because evulz" aren't really playing the alignment, they are just kind being rude to the other players at the table.

Edit: Actual examples, had an evil rogue join in with a new party. The rogue was essentially a contract killer but stayed loyal up until the player retired that character for another. She was quite loyal to the party because the party was hired to do a job and the party working together led to a much higher chance of success and betrayal would of tanked her credibility later.

[ColorBlindNinja]

My brother and I did game where we were an evil adventuring duo in the Star Wars universe. We managed to kill Darth Vader and the Emperor and hijack the Death Star. :smallsmile:

He played a Knight and I was a Truenamer.

[Crake]

There have been hundreds of thousands of dnd games run across the world since the game was concieved. I'm sure most any game type you can think of has happened.

[Ualaa]

Up until the final battle, my players did well in 'Way of the Wicked' (by Fire Mountain Games).

In the end, the good guys won.
A couple of major blunders didn't help...

But it wasn't lack of cooperation on the part of the evil player characters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Of course. Evil doesn't mean stupid or irrational. Being a back-stabbing psycho moron may be -a- way to play evil but it's easily the least entertaining of the non-functional ways to do it.

[omnitricks]

I think one of my old parties would say that its only because I was an Evil PC that we were more successful than not. And thats because our self proclaimed party paladin leader (who will smite anyone who wouldn't obey him because they would be evil) distracts the party with whatever goody side quest he wants to instead of keeping their eye on the main prize.

The big bad man would have completed his ritual if it wasn't for me pushing the party to stop him lol.

[noob]

Yes.
Close to all the "good parties" are in fact quite evil.
The least evil good parties decides to only strip people of their agency on whenever to become good or not instead of murdering them.

[tadkins]

I'm determined to, one of these days, play a successful Chaotic Evil character in a game. Doesn't have to be a full evil party necessarily, but I think it could be a fun challenge even in a Good or Neutral one. Kind of a weird goal I know but reading these forums for so long has given me the inspiration to do it. Just need to keep in mind that being a betrayal-happy murderpsycho stereotype is not at all how one needs to be played.

[Efrate]

i have 2 players in 2 seperate gaming groups that are consistently south of neutral no matter what character sheets may say.

If anything evil parties are more successful because their lack of traditional morality. Vizer controlling the king? Murder him, or have someone do it who takes the fall, speak with dead to reveal plans. Its simple and effective. No one escapes, all bodies are throroughly destroyed or repurposed, and you can and will use almost any method to achieve your goals.

Hey that orphanage of all those pristine souls sacrificed to the nine hells guaranteed the devils' cooperation to facilitate the taking down of the real threat. They weren't going to be adopted anyways you just freed them from their suffering. Plus kids are annoying so wins all around. And the local thieves guild knows you mean business now and are your own low or no cost spy network.

[Long_shanks]

Some of our most iconic games were led by evil parties/PCs.

Our last campaing ended with our evil/neutral group having sucessfully created a idylic, zombie-fueled city-state to attract the best and brightest minds of the world in order to garantee our survival from the impeding apocalypse. Mind you, we didn't try to stop it, just to get through it and be kings/queens on the other side. We didn't play the campaing to said apocalypse; I'm pretty sure s*it would have it the fan at that point, but we had been extremely sucessful up until the end.

[Recherché]

Yes. One of my favorite games had the PCs as a crew of bloodthirsty pirates murdering and looting our way across the high seas.

[Quarian Rex]

Take a look at the Cattle Driving Necromancers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?325177-Cattle-Driving-Necromancers-Bizarre-Campaign-Journal). Besides being one of the best campaign logs ever written it is an inspirational example of the versatile outside-the-box thinking that can happen when moral constraints are loosened. It is truly a beautiful thing and the presence of a DM talented enough to roll with those kinds of punches fills me with envy.

[cZak]

Best game I've ever had.
Ran for about three+ years with a great group of players & a fantastic DM who ran a very sandboxy game & was just supremely adept at plot hooks as well as off-the-hip ideas to our actions

We were not the cliché chaotic evil, kick puppies, kill children types.
All the characters were dedicated to each other. Very Us vs Everyone/Thing else mentality.
Our goals were to advance our group's interest; wealth, power, influence, etc... We just used methods that were inherently 'non-good'; manipulating factions, raiding caravans & towns, plaguing/desecrating areas, building networks of henchmen/factions/serfs, etc...


Most of the group broke up/ moved away, but occasionally a few of us get back at the table. And reminiscing about 'That Game' and it's characters almost never fails to be mentioned

[King of Nowhere]

i have 2 players in 2 seperate gaming groups that are consistently south of neutral no matter what character sheets may say.

If anything evil parties are more successful because their lack of traditional morality. Vizer controlling the king? Murder him, or have someone do it who takes the fall, speak with dead to reveal plans. Its simple and effective. No one escapes, all bodies are throroughly destroyed or repurposed, and you can and will use almost any method to achieve your goals.

Hey that orphanage of all those pristine souls sacrificed to the nine hells guaranteed the devils' cooperation to facilitate the taking down of the real threat. They weren't going to be adopted anyways you just freed them from their suffering. Plus kids are annoying so wins all around. And the local thieves guild knows you mean business now and are your own low or no cost spy network.

On the other hand, using evil ways means that people will be less likely to cooperate with you, most authorities will try to stop you, and random heroes will want to fight you. All of your allies will be of suspicious loialty, and may backstab you when yor goals don't align with their anymore.

I wouldn't say that evil is more effective than good. both have pros and cons.

Also, you don't have to play stupid good. you can still kill the vizier in a good campaign, if the guy was sufficiently despicable.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Also, you don't have to play stupid good. you can still kill the vizier in a good campaign, if the guy was sufficiently despicable.

Or if he's evil. If evil people are doing evil things, that's usually free licence for good aligned characters to kill them.

[Elkad]

Evil just gives you more options.

Bandits have kidnapped the villagers and are holed up in a cave!

As the good guy, you have to defeat the bandits and escort the villagers back to town. Possibly managing surrendered bandits as well.
As the neutral guy, you defeat the bandits and free the villagers for the reward. Good stuff above is optional.
As the evil guy, you send in a cloudkill, which defeats the bandits and villagers both. Neutral or Good stuff above is optional.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Evil just gives you more options.

It is worth noting that there are a number of spells that you can't cast if you're evil, namely Sanctified spells.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are Corrupt spells, but you don't have to be evil to use them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I played a Lawful Evil blue goblin factotum//psion in a Good/Neutral party at one point, and he was very much loyal to the party. Sure, he manipulated them and was technically forced to be a mole for the BBEGirl, but he wasn't happy about that last bit, which was upon threat of death and the destruction of his soul. He played the party against the BBEG, sprinkling just enough truth amongst the lies to get the party into trouble, though never enough that he couldn't get them out of it.

He actually liked the party, though he'd deny it vociferously if accused of it, and vastly preferred being with them to being alone. He was absolutely vicious in battle, wringing as much pain out of his enemies as he could get away with, which is where a lot of his sociopathic outlet came from. He also liked children and small animals, though he'd deny that too, even as he secretly donated food to the local orphanages and the occasional animal shelter.

Still didn't stop him from going Psycho on the local orc population, though. There was a time and a place for his sadism, and that was it.

There's a reason he was Lawful Evil, as he had very strict rules of behavior he forced himself to follow.

He also solo'd the ***** who forced him to betray the party. Made her ugly arse explode in a most satisfactory way.

[GrayDeath]

Yes, obviously.






























What? That was what you asked.

A small hint: It is much more helpful if you actually think about how you formulate the things you ask a wee bit before posting.
That way not only will you get more useful answers, it also will not make you seem quite as naive as you do (and cant possibly e, given you ahve been active on these forums for a while and simply reading a percent of the D&D Threads should "enlighten" or "Corrupt" you to a satisfactory level ^^).

Now as a guide, I would ahve asked it like this:

In my expcerience, Evil Parties and Characters tend to not work out well.

Please post your experience with them, ideally the ones that worked.

Thank you.


Or something like that.


Now to actually answer the question I think you were asking:

Yes. My recentmost Campaign, in Fact, at this moment consists of Lawful Evil Characters and a True neutral one (that we intend to .... persuade southward, shall we say? ^^), and both the fact that we do not need to limit our options much and acting logcially (we are at the moment trapped in a Demiplane, and need each otehr to escape) have led to a very satisfying and quite effective Group.

[Malphegor]

My first and only character so far is ostensibly lawful neutral on paper but is one bad day from lawful evil. Still working it out with my DM.

He cares for civilisation, and craves power. Individuals can be ground up by the system if that is their place. Everything has purpose, a resource to be spent. All shall be subjugated and put into an orderly line.

He dreams of himself, towering before a city, shrouded in smog whilst the workings of industry and progress occur upon a foundation of broken backs and destroyed morals.

He seems to be going ok. Guy simply won’t die even if I play him really stupidly.

My backup character though... She’s going to be mind controlling her fellow PCs, spying and giving people virulent necromantic cronenburgian body horror explosions.

Everyone else in my group is on board for this if my city boy dies, and things are groovy.

We are largely neutral on the good-evil side. We do good, but we relish comedically too-evil evil in pursuit of a good goal like burning orphanages to draw out a posessed mayor.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The trick to making a successful Evil character is to make him/her/it loyal to the group -- at least enough to earn some trust. Sure, your character might be a conniving, backstabbing, lying thief, but s/he won't do that kind of thing to his (or her) allies, as even most Chaotic Evil characters know that there's strength in groups, and one can use allies to shield one from the consequences of one's actions.

You don't even have to like the party. So long as you don't do things that will screw them over, and your party can trust you enough to get the job done, you should be good.

Remember, there's a reason why kender are one of the most hated races in all of D&D, even the Good ones. Their very presence pretty much auto-screws the party because they are insane kleptomaniacs that seem to have a major affinity for bringing hell down on their companions' heads, much of which they do on purpose.

[Kesnit]

I once played a LE Artificer in a 4e game. He was the only PC to survive from start to finish of the campaign. He had a goal - power. He was loyal to the party because they helped him become more powerful. When they weren't useful (like the time there was almost a TPK and only my PC survived because he ran away), well, things happen...

The campaign ended with my PC ascending to godhood. The ritual required he sacrifice his entire party. Just before completing the ritual, he fired all the other PCs and hired a bunch of LVL 1 nobodies. They were now his party, and he happily sacrificed them.

In the next campaign, I played the manifestation of his "one good thought" - when he fired the PCs so he didn't have to kill them.

[Quertus]

What does the good character's victory look like? They defeat the BBEG.

What does the evil character's victory look like? They defeat the BBEG.

No, really.

The difference is, the evil character probably has *more* possible success states than the good character, and is *more* likely to successfully reach one or more of them.

Really, the question is, has an actual good party ever achieved a victory? Because, IME, evil gets stuff done, parties with evil characters are more successful, while good is the karmic/success equivalent of the 3e Fighter/Commoner, generally speaking.

[Kyrell1978]

I have an evil party running through Hell's Vengeance right now and they are absolutely rocking it. It's been a blast.

[SangoProduction]

The character in my signature (Journals of my D&D Campaign) was said to be an Evil Character...that was so obsessed with the paladin, that it tempered the...Evil impulses. Sorta like how society does in general for actual people. You want to steal that book from this store? Well you probably won't be let in again after you do, in addition to any other retribution.

But yes. Evil characters can be successful. Even evil characters can be successful, given proper reason to. Hell...depends on what you define as "successful".

[masamune1]

Not D & D, but I like the plot of the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie.

You THINK it's about a standard LotR-style quest with the wizard Bayaz recruiting a ragtag bunch of misfits to find an ancient weapon to help them defeat an evil empire which is invading the kingdom, except that the wizard is a big of a LN / TN jerk and his misfits include a couple of barbarians and snotty aristocrat with no real-life experience who turns out to be heir to the throne.

However, it eventually transpires that Bayaz is less a gruff Gandalf and more of a psychopathic Saruman and is LE/ NE, and the "heroes" are all just pawns in his evil scheme. The evil empire they are fighting are certainly very bad, but he is mostly fighting them to save his own skin as one of the main reasons they are invading is to take his head for crimes he committed in the past. The story ends with him using the ancient weapon to destroy the enemy army but also reveals that he's secretly been controlling the kingdom all along and the aristocrat is actually just the latest in a long line of pawns he sets up as the new king. The story ends with Bayaz winning and everyone being worse off for it- a straight-up villain victory.

So, it'd be interesting to see a DM set up a game like that, where the "heroes" are just Neutral at best and ultimately revealed to be pawns of an evil character.

[Wraith]

All three flavours of Evil can succeed in a game, but it's up to you - the player - to apply it in such a way as to be an Evil Character without being an ******* Player. The latter is usually where conflicts arise in my experience, and when that happens it's very rare for a game to last long enough for the character to cause trouble.

Broadly speaking, you can successfully be Evil by being selfish in a way that benefits the party. The example that I always think of in this context would be a classically Neutral Evil character - the books say that this character is inherently self-centred, always looking out for a way to benefit only himself. They'll cheat and backstab whoever is in their way so long as it gets them what they want and they don't have 'friends' as such; just nearby acquaintances who he can manipulate conveniently, like tools.

As a Neutral Evil character in a party, you just make the decision that your party members are *valuable* tools to you - so valuable that it's usually worth the minor inconvenience of indulging them sometimes rather than immediately getting your own way, because they'll be more use to you in the long run.
You're Evil and selfish, but not stupid after all; having a group of highly skilled and heavily armed murderhobos of any alignment nearby that thinks that you are one of them is hugely profitable in a multitude of ways. Backstabbing them on a whim might be funny, but it's going to cost you a valuable and irreplaceable resource, so maybe think twice...

...And so on. The player has to make this conscious decision at the start of the game (and they might also want to think of a good excuse for later when they are inadvertently mistaken as being loyal), but it is for the good of the game that they do.

[masamune1]

I'm not sure why people seem to be talking more about evil PCs in a Neutral / Good aligned party but nobody is discussing Evil parties going on Evil quests. Do players not never play as the villains of the story?

[Efrate]

The total evil is a bit harder to run but doable. Evil are results focused so they adventure just fine, but finding the right result can be tricky. A BBEG that isnt them throwing weight around might be enough. Same as your good party just more ruthless.

Power, glory, wealth, fame are as much motivators for evil pcs as good ones, just the final form might be different. Instead of rooting out the thieves guild, take it over and insure loyalty. Or establish one to reap the benefits in goody good town. Slaying the rampaging dragon still works, maybe its a silver and you are part of the orc horde its targeting.

The one that is harder to work is apocolypse cult. Why would any group of people want to end it all instead of rule it all? Or at the extreme why kill everyone including you, as opposed to everyone but you? You can have an epic memorial campaign if you can answer that. You raid holy armories for pieces of an anceint evil mcguffin hounded by paladin orders and such as you go along, as opposed to cult complexes and being hounded by assassins.

As long as you have a clearly defined final goal all steps in between do not have to vary much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not sure why people seem to be talking more about evil PCs in a Neutral / Good aligned party but nobody is discussing Evil parties going on Evil quests. Do players not never play as the villains of the story?

There's fundamentally little difference between a good/neutral party and an evil one. Unless you're going the conquest by force route (kind of a dumb game to play if you want to maintain your power for any length of time) you have largely the same goals in adventuring; wealth, fame, leveragable political clout, etc. The difference is in the methods you're willing to use to get there; murder, torture, violent intimidation, etc; and which jobs you'll take.

[masamune1]

There's fundamentally little difference between a good/neutral party and an evil one. Unless you're going the conquest by force route (kind of a dumb game to play it you want to maintain your power for any length of time) you have largely the same goals in adventuring; wealth, fame, leveragable political clout, etc. The difference is in the methods you're willing to use to get there; murder, torture, violent intimidation, etc; and which jobs you'll take.

Exactly. So is it a rare thing to play evil parties like that?

Honestly seems like it would be a lot of fun. It would be like playing Skeletor and his whacky minions as they search for objects of power and kick puppies along the way. Nyeh ha ha ha ha ha!

[Kelb_Panthera]

Exactly. So is it a rare thing to play evil parties like that?

Honestly seems like it would be a lot of fun. It would be like playing Skeletor and his whacky minions as they search for objects of power and kick puppies along the way. Nyeh ha ha ha ha ha!

Couldn't say, honestly. I've played and GMed evil characters but the idea of an "evil adventure/campaign" just doesn't hold much appeal since it is essentially just a normal, mercenary campaign to me.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Couldn't say, honestly. I've played and GMed evil characters but the idea of an "evil adventure/campaign" just doesn't hold much appeal since it is essentially just a normal, mercenary campaign to me.

But you can grow a twirly mustache! And try to take over the world! :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

But you can grow a twirly mustache! And try to take over the world! :smalltongue:

I can do that anyway unless one of the other PCs is a do-gooder, leaning-towards-exalted type. Even then it they're not too bright.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I can do that anyway unless one of the other PCs is a do-gooder, leaning-towards-exalted type. Even then it they're not too bright.

In the last D&D game I ran, we had an exalted Healer. She occasionally butted heads with some of the more... murderhobo members of the party.

[ezekielraiden]

Yes.
Close to all the "good parties" are in fact quite evil.
The least evil good parties decides to only strip people of their agency on whenever to become good or not instead of murdering them.

Oh come on. "Everyone is actually evil because they engage in combat" is about as trite as it gets. Nowhere near "close to all" parties are murderhobos (hence why the pejorative name came into existence). Try another one.

OP: Yes, Evil parties and Evil PCs can definitely work out. It's trickier than non-Evil, but not dramatically so, e.g. a Lawful Stupid Paladin is quite comparable to a Stupid Evil character who is compelled to eventually betray the party. Both fundamentally don't respect the value of the party group. That's the real problem, as far as group cohesion goes.

Edit
Basically, Good and Law provide clear, obvious intrinsic motivators to respect the group. Good values the welfare of others generally, so it leads to warm fuzzies like loyalty, self-sacrifice, and compassion that can keep a group cohesive. Law values consistency, obedience, and fitting into a hierarchy or structure, and frequently works to curb impulses and such. Hence why a Lawful Evil villain can be convinced to help the heroes without direct benefit, because following through and keeping your word is *that important* to a Lawful Evil person, even if it occasionally costs you something.

Chaos and Evil both individually complicate things. It's not that they're inherently anti-teamwork, they just...emphasize values that tend not to care about teamwork and its benefits. Chaos tends to favor lone wolves and can lead to flipping the bird to ALL social norms, even small-group ones. That makes it hard to have a cohesive/functional team. Consider Monkey from Journey to the West--chaotic in the extreme, to the point that he literally had to be tricked into wearing a cursed outfit (that can be used to punish him) so they could keep him around for the journey (which he had agreed to undertake!) Evil is self-oriented, rather than individual-oriented, and that leads to potential conflict if/when the good of the group means giving up real personal benefit; Evil needs a compelling reason not to always take for itself to the exclusion of all others.

But such reasons are not hard to come up with, even for Chaotic Evil characters. They may require creativity and patience, but it's very possible to come up with something in nearly any situation.

[GrayDeath]

I'm not sure why people seem to be talking more about evil PCs in a Neutral / Good aligned party but nobody is discussing Evil parties going on Evil quests. Do players not never play as the villains of the story?


Nobody? Really?

Read my post a bit earlier. The Party is actually mainly Evil (and no, aside from the fact we have to kill the local Crazy Wizard BBEG to get out of his stolen Demiplane we are very much NOT just doing what the good guys do, jsut Evil", we are corrupting former good Sorcerers, ahve liberated an Evil Shadowdragon Wraith (who in thanks guards out Lair) and joined forces with a mutated floating Aboleth to take over a Village.

Fun times.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nobody? Really?

Read my post a bit earlier. The Party is actually mainly Evil (and no, aside from the fact we have to kill the local Crazy Wizard BBEG to get out of his stolen Demiplane we are very much NOT just doing what the good guys do, jsut Evil", we are corrupting former good Sorcerers, ahve liberated an Evil Shadowdragon Wraith (who in thanks guards out Lair) and joined forces with a mutated floating Aboleth to take over a Village.

Fun times.

I read securing allies, acquiring an exotic guard for your home-base, and conquest. 2:3 are what every party does. Even the conquest can be lawful or good under the right circumstances (although it might be called "liberation" at the time). The ones that are behaving oddly are the super-good types that go about meting out justice and rescuing randos with no expectation of reward.

[Florian]

Ah, well, Evil actually more or less always won since the invention of D&D.

Ok, that said, a rather more amusing one was my first play-through of the Kingmaker campaign: Party consisted of two guys from Cheliax (LE diabolic country) and two Hellknights (Think Judge Dredd). Coolest story ever: Establishing order in a lawless frontier region, going up against the fey realm, one-shooting an evil fey demi-goddess with a lance. Brilliant.