Team evil

[Kobold_paladin?]

My party recently wrapped-up a campaign and one of them came to me saying that they wanted the next one to be evil vs good, with them as the evildoers. The truth is, I've never had to deal with an evil player. What should the campaign be like?
Thanks for the help -k_pal?

[Angelmaker]

My party recently wrapped-up a campaign and one of them came to me saying that they wanted the next one to be evil vs good, with them as the evildoers. The truth is, I've never had to deal with an evil player. What should the campaign be like?
Thanks for the help -k_pal?

Red fel, red fel, red fel. ( was that the summoning phrase? :) )

My take on this: it is played like any other campaigns, where you have certain goals, but the means to reach those are despicable and horrifying.

Example: torture is a common used tool to extract information. Betrayal of npc, if useful to reach a specific goal, is valid means.

For party cohesion, evil should always be treated as "utilitarian evil", so its useful to keep your allies in good shape, unless you play the demonic kind of evil. But that's gonna be a short campaign then, :)

[Lavaeolus]

A single Evil player is easier to deal with, but it also will depend on exactly how they interpret Evil. What you have to remember is that their motivations will be more selfish, so keep that in mind when making campaign hooks, but that doesn't necessarily prevent them from uniting with people of opposite alignments nor does it mandate the Evil player betray the party. And Evil in the sense of just being ruthless can fit in with a lot of parties.

A lot of CRPGs sort of fell into the trope of, 'Well, you may be Evil, but surely you wouldn't want to let the world be destroyed! That's bad for you as well!' They seem to want to fight forces of good, though, which would mean some creativity if both they and other players are friends. Of course, you could have a 'good'-seeming antagonist who is nevertheless a danger somehow (whether that be from zealotry, misguidedness, etc.)

In the case of a full Evil party, although I don't have personal experience with a direct Evil campaign, I'd recommend establishing two things early on:

Er, how evil are we? Imagine, if you will, that you have three Evil adventurers. One is Snidely Whiplash, cartoon villain: he cackles, has a large moustache, and is actively promoting the cause of Villainy. But somehow their evil rarely rises beyond PG-13, if it even gets to that. Another is Mr. Murderhobo: at first opportunity, he will stab someone, give a one-liner, and that's mostly all he does. He is, essentially, Belkar. Finally we have John the Cannibal. Among other things, he likes to vividly torture people, attack children, and also he eats them. Hence the name.

Is this team really going to work out? Maybe, but probably not. Snidely will be disgusted by John. John will hate Whiplash because his cartoonish antics clash with his gritty cannibalism. Mr. Murderhobo will just wreck any plan either of the other comes up with. These three players signed up for an Evil campaign, and seeking to be as Evil as possible, they all nonetheless made completely-incompatible characters.

How backstabby can we get? Now, it's one thing to harm some random NPC, but still, my guy's Evil. He doesn't care about the party; it'd be totally in-character for him to steal the others' items in their sleep. In fact, he should really do worse!

That's one way of playing Evil, but it might not be that conductive to a party-based game. Who needs enemies when every session ends in a PvP? But Evil can work together. Will we take it for granted that our players should be doing so? Our characters might not be Good, but you could ask that they at least still have some loyalty to the party as a whole, whether that be for twisted camaderie, or because they're working together to achieve some sort of Evil goal (which could be anything from 'get a lot of money' to 'raise the elder god').

[OldTrees1]

Okay 2 big details:

1) Evil characters can and often will do Good things. Evil for Evil's sake is not common (although I don't know if your players know this).
2) Evil characters pursue their own goals more frequently than Good characters.


Now I am a fan of sandbox campaigns. So what I would do in this circumstance is:

Have the players come up with their characters goals. I would require the goals to be mutually compatible. I would want to know the goals in advance.
Have the players, and myself talk about our limits and our characters' limits. Even though it is a game I can't stomach all kinds of malice. And characters probably can't either. I also want the players to work with each other. So I would limit pvp plotting (but that is a personal preference).
Then the campaign would start. The characters would pursue their goals. That would require obtaining resources & power. The means they use will be some mixture of moral, amoral, and immoral means. They may slay the local evil death cult but hire the local bandits. They may save a lady from an assassination, but then use her as a puppet. They may even found an orphanage and hire Paladins as mentors for the orphans. All means are on the table. The characters would choose the means that happened to be more effect or more satisfying. Good might be hard, but Evil is easy because you can do Good or Evil when you are Evil.
As the campaign progresses the characters will make enemies because they thought making that enemy was more effective/satisfying than the alternatives. I would have those enemies seek the characters' downfall, only for the characters to have a chance to triumph again.

[Segev]

Being evil, done right in a game, isn't about "being evil." It's about being goal oriented. If you happen to have vices that involve cruelty, so be it, but those aren't for indulging in on screen, and they absolutely aren't for indulging in with your party.

Your party are your allies. At best, they're friends and compatriots, and you wouldn't do unto them things you wouldn't do unto yourself. It's just not cool. At worst, they're useful tools. You don't screw over your friends, and you don't break your tools. Vices that pertain to cruelty, if you have any, are directed towards unimportant people (i.e. those who can't do anything back and won't have opportunity).

But primarily, as the bad guys, you WANT something. And you're willing to do unto others to get it. It's not just that you're into being jerks. It's that you have a morality that says might makes right and you're the mightiest.

The biggest pitfall to avoid is intra-party conflict. It's all too easy to assume Team Evil is internally abusive. Because it can be, but...that rarely makes for a fun game. The second biggest pitfall is pointless cruelty and torture-porn. "I'm eeheeheeheevil, so I have to murder this beggar for getting in my way!" is ... not really fun for anybody except MAYBE the perpetrator. MAYBE. Evil isn't something you rack up points for. Evil is something you do callously. Torture-porn is...well, unless your table's into it, I'd just avoid it. Keep any vices like that to fade-to-black, back-room stuff, the same way you'd play a muscle-bound barbarian's steamy but off-screen night with the tavern wench.

[HappyDaze]

PCs might be loyal members of an evil group (e.g., nation's nobility, wizard's guild, religious order, etc.) that maintains a dark status quo. However, there are do-gooders out there that are trying to destroy their world! They might want to usurp your (corrupt) bloodline and take the throne. They might want to burn all of your books (on summoning demons). They might want to tear down the temples of your (hateful) god. Whatever it is, these fools have a plan that will ultimately lead to your destruction...unless you and your plucky band of do-badders can come together and stop them.

[Kobold_paladin?]

Ok, I got some information from the group. I... I don't know what to day but here's the big thing: they are a tribe of LE kobolds. There goal is to have freed Kurtalmak by the end of the campaign and have their tribe grow and rise in power. Yes, these ambitious little rascals want to unleash an evil God and rule the world. I don't know what to say. Maybe I should run like a video game where they go on skirmishes, gather resources, talk to people, build items, and upgrade rooms. I'll propose the idea to them but I want thoughts on this.
Peace out.

[OldTrees1]

Nice, your players made a solid plan that told you their goal and why they will work together.

Now figure out what obstacles stand in their way and detail the world so there are resources for the players to make meaningful choices about.

Oh, and research Kurtalmak. IIRC their origin according to 3rd edition (Races of the Dragon excerpt here: http://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Kurtulmak) paints them as a champion of a people that needed a champion. A hate filled champion but a champion none the less.

Who wants them trapped? Was it Garl Glittergold again?
How are they trapped?
Will a ritual with powerful catalysts be required? If so I suggest having the recipe be multiple choice. That gives the players more meaningful choices in who they bargain with and who they take as enemies.
Who would assist them? Who can be subjugated into assisting? Who can be tricked into assisting?
Obviously some of these catalysts might be logistically impossible to reach initially. What resources might the tribe want to acquire?

If they need to travel a long distance, what options are there? A month long caravan? A Ship? A gate? Bargaining for a teleport?
What if they need to excavate a catalyst? What are the options there?

[Kobold_paladin?]

Nice, your players made a solid plan that told you their goal and why they will work together.

Now figure out what obstacles stand in their way and detail the world so there are resources for the players to make meaningful choices about.

Oh, and research Kurtalmak. IIRC their origin according to 3rd edition (Races of the Dragon excerpt here: http://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Kurtulmak) paints them as a champion of a people that needed a champion. A hate filled champion but a champion none the less.

Who wants them trapped? Was it Garl Glittergold again?
How are they trapped?
Will a ritual with powerful catalysts be required? If so I suggest having the recipe be multiple choice. That gives the players more meaningful choices in who they bargain with and who they take as enemies.
Who would assist them? Who can be subjugated into assisting? Who can be tricked into assisting?
Obviously some of these catalysts might be logistically impossible to reach initially. What resources might the tribe want to acquire?

If they need to travel a long distance, what options are there? A month long caravan? A Ship? A gate? Bargaining for a teleport?
What if they need to excavate a catalyst? What are the options there?

i'm sorry for the confusion but, i never said they where trapped.
the rest of your post sums up an interesting idea. i'll think about it.

[Kobold_paladin?]

oh yeah, here's there characters:
lvl.1 kobold LE fighter Kunzie copperclaw
lvl.1 kobold LE sorcerer Punpun biggletooth
lvl.1 kobold LE cleric Pikinaka pinappletoe

(they have the most ridiculous names, i'm so sorry.)

if i run it like a video game i'll probably give them 3 NPC kobold tribespeople.

[FabulousFizban]

Sounds like you are the DM so I will approach this as if that is the case.

The players will do what the players want to do, that is really the fun of an "evil" campaign - being free to try whatever horrible little thing comes into your horrible little mind. Your job will mostly be to react to it in a meaningful way. This is not to say that you shouldn't have a few broad plot points mapped out, but the players will largely be directing things this time out.

So what should your evil game include? Bounty hunters, lots of bounty hunters. Once the party begins committing evil deeds, the lawful society they live in will try to bring them to justice as a necessity. They will send people after the party, in proportion to the collective ill done by them - up to and including the king's own army should the players be enough of a menace, or a nuisance... Some of these guys should be disposable, but don't let the players kill all of them. They make great recurring "villains" for the players.

Notoriety means wanted posters, it means familiarity and unfriendliness by townsfolk - even fear can be warranted. It means marked up prices at inns and shops, it means town guards rallied against the outlaws. Many of these attitudes will depend on the circumstances: are the party trying to keep their villainy hidden, or are they flagrant in their misdeeds?

Either way, don't hesitate to let the players know they are the bad guys. Let their enemies be knights and paladins, calls them curs and scoundrels. And let them relish in it too. It should be fun to be the bad guy. Ham it up, so when the paladin bounty hunter who swore to avenge the town they destroyed delivers his righteous monologue on why they so bad, they feel devious and sinister instead of like they are being lectured at.

Otherwise, let the players set the pace. Have fun, let memorable moments happen, and if all else fails and you don't know what to do: roll behind a screen and give the action a 50/50 chance of success.




EDIT: so the evil thing they decided on was (basically) unleashing the tarrasque on an unsuspecting world. Very cool, heroes will definitely step up to stop them once their plans become known. There are plenty of plot beats for the party here - recovering the ritual to make it happen, recovering the materials/relics to make it happen. Maybe it needs to be done in a specific place and the party's enemies have rallied there to stop them?

Involve the players in this process. It is their god right? presumably they know some of the things needed to summon him. Ask them what these things are, maybe where or what protects them? Make the players generate sessions for you.

[Guy Lombard-O]

PCs might be loyal members of an evil group (e.g., nation's nobility, wizard's guild, religious order, etc.) that maintains a dark status quo. However, there are do-gooders out there that are trying to destroy their world! They might want to usurp your (corrupt) bloodline and take the throne. They might want to burn all of your books (on summoning demons). They might want to tear down the temples of your (hateful) god. Whatever it is, these fools have a plan that will ultimately lead to your destruction...unless you and your plucky band of do-badders can come together and stop them.

When I was planning a goblinoid-only campaign, I had it very much a militaristic theocracy goblinoid legion for a home base, with missions handed down from the priests and war leaders to the PCs. I got far enough to plan a couple of small quests:
-to recover some tribe member hostages from the local small town of wood elves
-to have them fight to recover the tribe's silver mine from an infestation of greedy diggers (dwarves)
-to have them fight off an immigration of tribal orcs, only to discover that the orcs were in turn being driven forward by an invading army of the darkblind (humans)

Nothing that original, but I think it might be fun to have them taking slaves and desecrating the temples of their foes, all for the glory and majesty of Maglubiyet and his gang. If I ever manage to pull it all together. Kobolds would work just as well, I'd say.

[OldTrees1]

i'm sorry for the confusion but, i never said they where trapped.
the rest of your post sums up an interesting idea. i'll think about it.

"Their goal is to have freed Kurtalmak"
The PC's goal is to "have freed" Kurtalmak.
To "have freed" someone, that someone needed to have previously not been free. Perhaps even trapped.
So you implied the Players implied Kurtalmak was currently trapped.
Honestly that sounds like a great hook for the players to hand you.

[Kobold_paladin?]

"Their goal is to have freed Kurtalmak"
The PC's goal is to "have freed" Kurtalmak.
To "have freed" someone, that someone needed to have previously not been free. Perhaps even trapped.
So you implied the Players implied Kurtalmak was currently trapped.
Honestly that sounds like a great hook for the players to hand you.
Actually I just looked up a bunch of kobold lore and found that.

[Cheesegear]

What should the campaign be like?

The most important part of an Evil campaign, is that it's no different to a regular campaign.

The party has goals.
The characters have goals.
The party has contacts and NPCs that help them when they need it.

It's just...Backwards.

Instead of going to a tavern to sign up to kill bandits, a seedy man comes out of the shadows and offers the party a percentage to raid a caravan.
Instead of going out to kill a bunch of Hobgoblins, Hobgoblins contract the party to assassinate the local lord.
Instead of going into a cave to stop a blood ritual, the party raids a temple and kills the local Cleric to start the blood ritual.

If your adventure begins and ends with 'Being evil means stealing stuff and killing people.' then the campaign will derail immediately.

[MaxWilson]

My party recently wrapped-up a campaign and one of them came to me saying that they wanted the next one to be evil vs good, with them as the evildoers. The truth is, I've never had to deal with an evil player. What should the campaign be like?
Thanks for the help -k_pal?

You're going to need to learn how to say terrible things without killing the game. Here's a primer: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/945/story-games-101-saying-terrible-things/

Furthermore, if the players are down with it, this might be a good chance for you to run a lot of Dungeon Keeper-like scenarios, where the PCs set up a lair as a series of defenses/set pieces, and then by surprise the good guys try to invade it and capture them. They might even take turns playing the good guys.


Ok, I got some information from the group. I... I don't know what to day but here's the big thing: they are a tribe of LE kobolds. There goal is to have freed Kurtalmak by the end of the campaign and have their tribe grow and rise in power. Yes, these ambitious little rascals want to unleash an evil God and rule the world. I don't know what to say. Maybe I should run like a video game where they go on skirmishes, gather resources, talk to people, build items, and upgrade rooms. I'll propose the idea to them but I want thoughts on this.
Peace out.

Make sure you find out how the players feel about winning and losing. How are they going to feel about these kobolds if they fail to raise the god, and instead TPK gloriously against a mighty host of heroes, leaving behind the legend of the Nightmare Kobolds Three, Who Shall Not Be Named? Is this concept about the destination or the journey?

[Kobold_paladin?]

When I was planning a goblinoid-only campaign, I had it very much a militaristic theocracy goblinoid legion for a home base, with missions handed down from the priests and war leaders to the PCs. I got far enough to plan a couple of small quests:
-to recover some tribe member hostages from the local small town of wood elves
-to have them fight to recover the tribe's silver mine from an infestation of greedy diggers (dwarves)
-to have them fight off an immigration of tribal orcs, only to discover that the orcs were in turn being driven forward by an invading army of the darkblind (humans)

Nothing that original, but I think it might be fun to have them taking slaves and desecrating the temples of their foes, all for the glory and majesty of Maglubiyet and his gang. If I ever manage to pull it all together. Kobolds would work just as well, I'd say.
This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, but it won't work currently because the kobolds are the remnants of an obliterated tribe. They can't exactly take orders from superiors when the superiors are all dead.

[Kobold_paladin?]

You're going to need to learn how to say terrible things without killing the game. Here's a primer: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/945/story-games-101-saying-terrible-things/

Furthermore, if the players are down with it, this might be a good chance for you to run a lot of Dungeon Keeper-like scenarios, where the PCs set up a lair as a series of defenses/set pieces, and then by surprise the good guys try to invade it and capture them. They might even take turns playing the good guys.



Make sure you find out how the players feel about winning and losing. How are they going to feel about these kobolds if they fail to raise the god, and instead TPK gloriously against a mighty host of heroes, leaving behind the legend of the Nightmare Kobolds Three, Who Shall Not Be Named? Is this concept about the destination or the journey?
Actually, after our first session, each kobold has a different perspective on how to get him out. Punpun want to explode as many rocks as possible in the maze to open up an exit. The fighter (I forget his name) wants to raise a glorious army that will be the first kobolds to fanaticly fight and die on a battle field. He believes that this will empower the kobolds into zealously excavating their God. Pineapletoe or whatever wants to have so many acolytes that kurtalmak will be empowered and tear his own way out.
If they fail, they want to set an example for the other kobolds.

[Bloodcloud]

So, basically they want to be rampaging through the countryside, looting and killing and pillaging.

That's... fairly easy. I'd start them hungry and with minimal gear near a human settlement, and they need to gather some basic supplies, maybe like, a few chicken. Then they must free a couple of Kobolds that are being bullied by some other creatures, and escalate from there. Place a couple of faction they can help, betray and doublecross. Maybe the thief guild is willing to trade with the kobolds, an orc tribe wants to subjugate them, an evil wizard offers them scrolls and such to protect his tower...

[Guy Lombard-O]

This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, but it won't work currently because the kobolds are the remnants of an obliterated tribe. They can't exactly take orders from superiors when the superiors are all dead.

Cool.

But maybe the tribe's not entirely obliterated? The PCs find out that some venerated tribal elder is being held in (place that you want them to go sack). And venerated elder has just the sort of tribal, secret knowledge that the PCs want about how to break one of the bonds trapping their god.

Hooray, it's a rescue/pillaging mission! And completing it will give the PCs their first true claim to leadership over their brethren as the true Champions of Kurtalmak.

[Kobold_paladin?]

Cool.

But maybe the tribe's not entirely obliterated? The PCs find out that a some venerated tribal elder is being held in (place that you want them to go sack). And venerated elder has just the sort of tribal, secret knowledge about how to break one of the bonds trapping their god.

Hooray, it's a rescue/pillaging mission! And completing it will give the PCs their first true claim to leadership over their brethren as the true Champions of Kurtalmak.

cool idea, next session i'll use this.

[Kobold_paladin?]

I just got back from our next session of playing and I think it went pretty well. They mostly spent their time foraging and exploring, leaving the boring tasks to the NPCs. While exploring they encountered some tribe survivors and a tribe of hostile goblins. They started a war and went through a few skirmishes. Not much really happened except one major thing. A longsword. Could the fighter carry it conveniently? It's freaking huge compared to the tiny little scamps, so there was a bit of an arguement whether he could use it.
Thoughts?

[MaxWilson]

This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, but it won't work currently because the kobolds are the remnants of an obliterated tribe. They can't exactly take orders from superiors when the superiors are all dead.

...unless they are crazy, or haunted.

[Veldrenor]

I just got back from our first session of playing and I think it went pretty well. They mostly spent their time foraging and exploring, leaving the boring tasks to the NPCs. While exploring they encountered some tribe survivors and a tribe of hostile goblins. They started a war and went through a few skirmishes. Not much really happened except one major thing. A longsword. Could the fight carry it conveniently? It's freaking huge compared to the tiny little scamps, so there was a bit of an arguement whether he could use it.
Thoughts?

The fighter can use the longsword. As long as a weapon doesn't have the Heavy property, a small race like kobolds can carry and use it without issue. Small races can even use heavy weapons if they want, but they have disadvantage while doing so.

[Kobold_paladin?]

The fighter can use the longsword. As long as a weapon doesn't have the Heavy property, a small race like kobolds can carry and use it without issue. Small races can even use heavy weapons if they want, but they have disadvantage while doing so.
Ah, thanks.
He probably looks stupid with it, though.

[Kobold_paladin?]

...unless they are crazy, or haunted.
Actually, I never thought about this.
Cool idea!

[Mikal]

The most important thing about an evil game is that the group has a reason to stick together, and not betray each other.

It’s too easy for an evil campaign to degenerate into backstabbing and messing with each other versus a goal.

Not to say you shouldn’t have ANY of that, but keeping it to a minimum helps this to become an actual campaign and not just a few sessions.

[HappyDaze]

The most important thing about an evil game is that the group has a reason to stick together, and not betray each other.

It’s too easy for an evil campaign to degenerate into backstabbing and messing with each other versus a goal.

Not to say you shouldn’t have ANY of that, but keeping it to a minimum helps this to become an actual campaign and not just a few sessions.

I find it easier to run an evil game than a chaotic game when players want to lean on alignment to explain away everything they do. Being evil implies being ruthless, but not necessarily in a disruptive manner. Being chaotic implies being disruptive from the start.

[jk7275]

I had limited experience with evil party members but basically one of three things happened

1)Betrayal of some sort. I had a character stabbed in the back by a party member just so he can watch someone die and the DM replied you knew he was evil why would you trust him?

2) Evil player is openly evil and demands rest of party support them. What happens when one is trying to be good and someone else is openly evil?

3) The evil player is evil only when rest of party is not around. I seen this work when the player is very discreet

I always think of the godfather. Tessio loyally served the family yet betrayed them and tried to get Michael Corleone killed. Michael Corleone defended him doing that and later Michael killed his brother. In a movie people defend Tessio betraying the Corleones but if they exact same thing happened in a D&D party Tessio would be condemned

[Kobold_paladin?]

The most important thing about an evil game is that the group has a reason to stick together, and not betray each other.

It’s too easy for an evil campaign to degenerate into backstabbing and messing with each other versus a goal.

Not to say you shouldn’t have ANY of that, but keeping it to a minimum helps this to become an actual campaign and not just a few sessions.
Dude.
Their freaking kobolds. Everything they do is for the good of the tribe.

[Temperjoke]

Honestly, evil is a matter of perspective. The kobolds want to free their god, to their eyes that's a good thing! As the DM, that's great! They've given you what is a "happy ending" for them! What do you want them to go through to get that ending?

Where do they need to go? Where is the maze that Garl Glittergold trapped Kurtalmak in?

What do they need to do? Sure, they have their own ideas on how to free him, but what do you want to be the real way? How will they find out this information?

Who will try to stop them? Their actions will generate enemies, sure, but there's got to be a main opposition figure to stopping what their trying to accomplish.

[jk7275]

Honestly, evil is a matter of perspective.


Perhaps in our world this is true however in fantasy literature the author is free to create a world where this is not entirely true

[DaFlipp]

If they need guidance, they could always seek out a powerful kobold seer who can give them some perspective on their grim quest.

An... oracle of sorts.

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/comictime.gif

[Kobold_paladin?]

If they need guidance, they could always seek out a powerful kobold seer who can give them some perspective on their grim quest.

An... oracle of sorts.

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/comictime.gif
yes! YES! this is perfect! hahaha! i love it!:smallbiggrin:

[MThurston]

Try White Wolf Sabat. You only play evil characters. I can't play it. Some strange people play this game.

[Red Fel]

Red fel, red fel, red fel. ( was that the summoning phrase? :) )

It was. Unfortunately, I've been a bit busy this past week - a lot of souls in the queue, as it were - so I'm only just getting around to checking my messages.

Leave one at the sound of the scream.


My party recently wrapped-up a campaign and one of them came to me saying that they wanted the next one to be evil vs good, with them as the evildoers. The truth is, I've never had to deal with an evil player. What should the campaign be like?
Thanks for the help -k_pal?

Okay. Here's the first thing. A campaign involving any number of Evil PCs - whether one or all - requires understanding from Session Zero. Specifically, you'll want to lay down three rules.
Rule the First: Do not screw the party.
Rule the Second: Do not forget Rule the First.
Rule the Third: Everyone has to be onboard. If any one player has an issue with Evil in the party, they will - consciously or unconsciously - violate Rule the First. At some point, they will make things difficult, because they can't accept that. If every player is not onboard with the idea of having an Evil PC or PCs in the party, this is a non-starter.
Rule the Fourth: There will be Lines We Do Not Cross. Players - whether playing Good or Evil PCs - will have areas with which they are uncomfortable. Out of respect for them, limit certain acts of Evil, or draw the curtain closed and fade to black when they are committed. Generally speaking, if your Evil PC wants to commit rape, don't. If he or she wants to commit torture, maybe don't describe it - just fade to black. That sort of thing. It's far better to have this understanding laid out in advance, than for it to come up later during gameplay and result in hurt feelings.
Rule the Fifth: Do not forget Rule the First.
Those are your basic expectations. Now, let's consider what your campaign will look like.

If it's just one Evil PC, then the burden is on him to justify his continued presence in the party. The best way to accomplish that is to align his goals with those of the party - for example, they all want to stop the same monster, or recover the same legendary treasure. One of the best ways to do that is to have a preexisting relationship - another Session Zero thing. For example, in one Dragonlance campaign, I played a Lawful Evil Minotaur swordsman who owed his life to the deceased older sister of a Chaotic Good Human swordsman. So to satisfy that debt, my LE Minotaur protected the CG Human and taught him the proper way to use a blade. ("Stick them with the pointy end.") That was a pre-existing relationship that explained why my Evil PC traveled with a (mostly) Good party.

If it's an entire team of Evil PCs, then some of the core gameplay assumptions shift. Typically, a campaign of heroes is reactive - slay the beast, rescue the victims, recover the lost/stolen treasure, prevent the war. There is a problem in the world and your heroes must solve it. Evil PCs, by contrast, are proactive - they are the problem in the world. Or they will be. That means there's more burden on you to create opportunities for them to cause problems. I'll explain.

Evil is not quite as unified a front as Good. So you'll likely have a team of PCs with different goals and desires. (If they're all on the same page, that's easier.) This one may want to accumulate arcane power; this one may seek revenge for a past wrong; this one may be obsessed with something-or-other. The burden is on you to weave these together into a single quest - or a journey with some small detours - that will satisfy their respective desires. Unlike your typical campaign, where you place an objective in front of the heroes and then let them pursue it, you may need to take a more active role in creating opportunities for these Evil PCs to get to what they want to do.

Again, a lot of this is Session Zero stuff. You need to be aware of who they are and what they want. You need to be prepared to veto things that will definitely disrupt the table. You need to encourage the players to reach an understanding as to what will and will not be appropriate.

Some posters have suggested that your Evil PCs should have a more utilitarian view of Evil. While I personally agree with that, it's not a requirement. If the party is comprised of Evil murderhobos, let them play that way. If your party is comprised of one Evil murderhobo and a bunch of Good characters dealing with the fallout, and the players like it, let them play that way. The important thing is that the players understand, in advance, what the campaign will look like.

Otherwise, you're setting everything up for upset players and hurt feelings.

[StrayScientist]

In the campaign I'm DMing for some years now, we have 2 evil PCs. Despite the synopsis being based on a classic "group of heroes rescuing the world" plot with some twists, they work quite well together. Mostly for the reason we are all settled guys which have outgrown the chaotic-stupid experimental phase of rolepalying for a long time. While only 2 of the 5 PCs are evil, the story could also work with an all-evil group. In the end it's about the premises and goals. Evilness is rather defined by how they achieve their goals than what the goals are.

Evil PC Nr 1 is an Elven Rogue who started actually with a good alignment. It's just that a lot of bad things happended to him. While his personal goal is still altruistic, finding and saving the lost soul of his murdered sister, his experiences made him grow cold and bitter, taking no prisoners in his utilitaristic approach. He often had to take hard decisions for his group by taking action when his companions were still discussing, saving his companions for the sake of his own soul. Getting rid of potentially problematic but good-hearted NPCs without the rest of the group noticing, for example. This got quite literal, when he eventually made a pact with an elder evil being, selling his actual soul in exchange to rescue the group. He has a debatable concept of evil, being fully aware of the evil thing he does, but finding resolve in the knowledge that, while his groups thinks of him as an egoistic and cold-hearted bastard, he willingly accepts this role to let his companions keep their innocence.

Evil PC Nr 2 is a replacement for the Paladin which died in the Underdark. Conveniently the group picked up a Drow Hexblade on the run from his Matriarch. This is a more classical evil character and while the alliance was meant to be temporarily in the beginning, the common goals are still keeping him in the group. First and foremost, he doesn't identify himself as evil. He is a product of the despotic Drow society, regarding his social-darwinistic conviction as just being the norm and the good-aligned PCs as naive. On the other hand his Patron keeps him helping the group, as she plans to take a large piece of the pie, when the group "rescues the world". So he is, while having the same alignment, the opposite of Evil PC Nr 1, doing good things for a selfish reason.

To cut a long story short, Evil PCs can have similar goals to Good PCs, it might be more the way of approaching those goals where the true difference lies. In the end, noboday, if evil or good, wants the foundation of their life destroyed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay. Here's the first thing. A campaign involving any number of Evil PCs - whether one or all - requires understanding from Session Zero. Specifically, you'll want to lay down three rules.[list] Great post, I am bookmarking this. :smallsmile: