Is this a bad idea?

[Railak]

So, I'm planning a campaign, my plan is that the party is going to be thinking that they're just doing good deeds, and being the heroes, when really they've been actually, more accidentally, helping the evil side. Not doing anything even remotely evil.
Also part of the idea is there's going to be all the "standard" quests, like killing rats in a tavern celler, saving a princess from a tower guarded by a dragon, etc. Except each is going to have a weird twist, like the rats are keeping a different infestation at bay.

[Batcathat]

This isn't the most helpful answer but I think it depends almost entirely on your players. Personally, I would probably enjoy it as a player, assuming it was skillfully executed by the GM (and not "something is clearly wrong here but we're being railroaded into doing it anyway) and it's something I might try as a GM.

But I can also see some players being upset about it. Are your players generally okay with playing amoral or outright villainous characters? If they're too attached to the idea of always being the knights in shining armor, they might not like your idea.

Though that's just a guess. Again, I think you're probably the only one who can really answer it.

[DarkOne-Rob]

Like this (https://www.lfg.co/page/1/)? I enjoy reading about it, not sure I would enjoy playing it, but your players might...

[Saint-Just]

It is a... risky idea.

If the group trusts you, and if the group values a good story over the sandbox freedom and if you manage to make it work with no "hard" railroading and hide your quantum ogres well enough it may be an interesting experience. Not pleasant, but interesting, even cathartic if you manage to go above and beyond.

If any of the above components is missing your group will likely consider it a bad campaign. Not necessary flip-over-the-table disastrous, but at least lackluster.

I want to talk a little about computer games which tried to pull it off (which can give a point of reference, because thousands to millions people have played the same story). They have it easier because everyone who plays a computer game accepts some amount of railroading, or at the very least trolley tracks. Some of them even have a branching plot - either you can go by entirely another route from the beginning, or at least you are allowed to leave the track of "helping antagonists" early on. What I noticed that I liked some of them and disliked others... and there is no generic principle which would allow me to say "I am ok with helping antagonists if there was an option to go another way", or "if it is revealed in the first half of the story", there is no rhyme or reason. And other peoples also like or dislike it for no rhyme or reason - ok, there are people who always dislike being duped, but there are people who disliked that plot in games I liked and liked that plot in games I disliked. And any other combination.

In the end it all boils down to the question - how well you know your group and their probable reaction?

There are also two points for you to further consider. First: is there any particular villain who wants to use the heroes in that way or do they accidentally stumble into it? If there is one, why would they use good-ish team in general and why that group in particular? Do they do it as for plausible deniability, because there is some situation which good-ish team can affect but an evil team masked as good-ish cannot (remember all those spells and special abilities to protect your thoughts and alignment), do they do it merely for the lulz?
Second: How well you'll be able to actually mislead them? Can you make them want to take those quests, or the only quests available would be those orchestrated by the enemy? If you familiar with the "fair play whodunnit" it can make a very big difference if players could, at least technically, deduce the interference earlier so they feel like they was too hasty or too trusting, instead of being railroaded into helping evil no matter what they did.

[Railak]

I'm doing my best to keep it a complete secret from the group. And as I said I'm not going to make them do anything actually evil, like I hope they'll think they're doing the "good" thing. The things they'll be doing though will not be benefiting the side of good.

Edit: As far as the bad guys using them it'll be more happenstance than actually seeking them out.

Edit: also I know that this campaign will have to be very well crafted for it to work out right, but my players, unless I put them into unwinnable situations, tend to enjoy themselves. I'm hoping that they get a big kick out of it all in the end, and they also aren't exactly against the idea of going full evil.. as they've done it on several occasions.

[King of Nowhere]

I've done something like that, and it worked beautifully. if you want to establish a villain as a mastermind, there's no better way than to have the villain manipulate the part towards doing his bidding.
as for the players taking offence, that would depend on a lot of factors, among them the players personalities, their trust in you, and how well you pull it off, and whether it makes them look like fools.
in my case i had a villain who could not confront the heroes physically, so he kept sending them against other enemies. and i had a second villain who was pulling strings in all factions to increase strife.
this kind of things, people having schemed and planned in the background, is very good for worlbuilding; it makes the world alive.

also, none of my villains ever tried to be smug about it. they showed a great deal of respect for them, claiming that they had to try manipulation because they would not come ahead in a physical confrontation. that should soothe bruised egos if needed

[Batcathat]

I think another thing that might make a difference is how the deception is eventually revealed. If it's by the villain more or less going "Mohaha, look what I did! I'm so clever!" they might be more displeased than if they figure it out themselves. Though creating a scenario where neither the intial deception nor the eventual understanding feels railroady might be tough.

[nedz]

I had a Lich play a good party for fools once. It's worked really well - they even tried to save him after he tried to kill them all. TBF he was in a war some some other Liches, still.

[ngilop]

I think this is something you need to discuss with the players before hand.

I know that almost everybody I have ever played with in person ( and its been more than 3 decades) would be very upset ot rather upset at the DM/GM going 'psych everything you did helped evil and you ended up screwing everything you helped built a relationship with in a positive manner over'

If they knew ahead of time that there is going to be a bait and switch on them, it would be a different matter. BUT I have to stress, that is just all the people i have played with face to face.

Especially if there is no way for them to correct the fact that they have been helping the wrong side the entire campaign.

A minor twist here and there is not too much, but everything being a twist and the whole point of the campaign being a 'gotcha' to me seem kind of rooster-ish.

[Batcathat]

Especially if there is no way for them to correct the fact that they have been helping the wrong side the entire campaign.

A minor twist here and there is not too much, but everything being a twist and the whole point of the campaign being a 'gotcha' to me seem kind of rooster-ish.

I assumed the party finding out the truth would be followed by them turning on the tricky villain and (hopefully) righting the wrongs they accidentally helped commit but I suppose none of that's actually stated in the OP. But yeah, if the campaign just sort of ends with them having been fooled and not getting a chance to fix it, I can see more players disliking it.

[icefractal]

It's tricky - it might go over fine, or your players might end up really pissed off.

I don't know the details of how you were going to execute this, but if it's any variant of "you should have checked the quests better before taking them" then you're headed straight for a large pitfall - in the majority of games, players intentionally bite on anything that looks like a hook in order to keep the campaign moving, rather than giving it the scrutiny that would be appropriate IC.


Like for instance, you're an adventurer in a D&D world, and the local duke arranges a private meeting, where he tells you that necromancers have reanimated all the corpses in the royal crypts, and he'd like you to "lay them to rest" secretly, so nobody else finds out about his ancestor's remains being shamefully disturbed.

Ok, that sounds like a pretty classic quest hook. But:
* Maybe this isn't really the duke, it could be someone in disguise or an illusion.
* Maybe it is the duke, but he's being mind-controlled or possessed.
* Maybe the duke is corrupt and wants to have you arrested for defiling the royal crypts so he can seize your magic weapons for himself.
* Maybe the duke is evil and plans to sacrifice you to a demon once his undead have subdued you.
* Maybe the duke thinks the undead are regular skeletons, but actually it's a bunch of Liches down there and you'll be dead within seconds of encountering them.
* Maybe the undead are actually non-evil ghosts of the former rulers, risen to warn people about the current duke's slide into evil and planned enslavement of his citizens.

So really you should do some research, some scouting, do something to confirm the duke's identity, get his permission to be there in writing, tell a third party where you're going, not promise to destroy the undead, etc. And if that's not acceptable, this job is too sketchy, better to wait for another one.

And I have been in a few games where that level of scrutiny was part of play, but most of the time it's not desirable for either the players or GM, so it gets skipped by mutual consent. If your group is in that latter category, be careful about breaking that (informal) agreement.