[3.5] Evil Campaign Players

[Livingdead]

Greetings, I have a lot of questions today it seems. What are some ways you have handled evil PCs in an evil campaign? What I mean is, how do you try and keep them together, or from utterly killing their boss or whoever is hiring them? In the past, I have always made it a requirement that the evil characters be part of the same family so they would be a bit less likely to murder one another.

[Yora]

They need a common goal and the understanding that the companions are a great help to achieve that goal are no threat to them.

[Snake-Aes]

Depends mostly on what type of characters they are. If they go "i r evil hear me hoar mwahahahhaha <stab>", then it's useless to try and keep them together.

Generally speaking evil does not mean stupid. If they understand they have a common goal, they'll work together.
Also evil doesn't mean all-encompassing hate. Evil people have friends too.

[KillianHawkeye]

You might try getting all of the players to agree (out-of-character) to not backstab each other. Just a thought....

[Analytica]

Evil is proactive, not reactive. Maybe. So instead of them being hired by someone, maybe the start of the plot involves them sandboxing up an evil scheme befitting to their characters? Then when they try it out, complications follow, leading up to sidequests and new quests, but still with the PC villains attempting to reach their evil goals.

Alternately, getting hired, then betraying their employer is a nice villain cliché.

I agree that it is best if the characters are closely connected to each other, though - trained by the same master, members of the same cult, family, childhood friends, or part of the same grand conspiracy. I would recommend having everyone create characters together, and come up with a set of shared experiences that have made them trust and care for each other, at the expense of everyone else. Let them create a quirky supervillain team, within the boundaries of your game world.

[JeenLeen]

I think the advice here is pretty solid. The characters should be created, or the game world have, some motivation for them to work together. You could ban 'chaotic stupid' if you need to, allowing CE but noting what type of evil characters are not tolerated.
To enforce certain role-playing perimeters, I find xp penalties for poor roleplaying or death (which Raise Dead already has built in) a fitting punishment.

... from utterly killing their boss or whoever is hiring them?

If the boss is a boss you don't want dead, or the real BBEG who is hiring them, they shouldn't be able to kill him at the beginning. If he's powerful enough, you could give him a personality such that he'd find it funny if the PCs attack, giving them one warning after beating them all unconscious, but threatening to kill them and all they value if they betray him again.

Alternatively, if he's not actually powerful but a mastermind or connected mobster or some such, he could talk to the PCs through a contact. They don't meet him, so they can't attack him. If they pursue finding him, he'd find out in the process and call on other employees to pester the PCs, as well as giving all the info about them to the local government/church/paladin order.

Make sure the PCs know the consequences of betraying their employer.

But, late game, that could be a valid goal or sidequest, so I wouldn't completely prohibit it unless this is a one-shot or short campaign or unless the BBEG is just incredibly powerful/protected/connected.

[FuryOfMetal]

I'm about to enter an evil campaign run by a friend of mine and i trust his DMing. But i don't trust what i hear of the players, for example just killing a merchant because they wouldn't haggle lower for the price of an item. Chaotic stupid indeed because this apparently happens alot....

Now i plan on helping the DM by trying to roleplay evil effectively, probably LE, with my characters goal to eventually wrestle power from my creator (i'm a warforged who was "created" by a fiend touching my head, glowing light, life, yaada yada yada)

So hopefully you have atleast 1 player who isn't chaotic stupid who can try and play evil nicely without treating it like grand theft auto. But ultimately you're the DM, have some "conveniant" high level adventurers in teh tavern next door who don't like their drinking being interrupted by the parties shenanigans.

[Livingdead]

my plan was to not allow chaotic evil. This campaign i want to focus more on the overall goal of an evil group more than just general evil. Evil with a goal, evil that has something to gain beyond fleeting whims. And I will definitely take a lot of these suggestions.

[Human Paragon 3]

In the evil campaign we ran, we had a solid leader who had connections in the thieves guild. He assembled us to overthrow the current leadership and put him at the top. Once he got there, he remembered who got him there, and treated us, the rest of the party, very well.

The fact that he was a charismatic beguiler/mindbender also helped. His authority was rarely challenged, and when it was, he was able to find a compromise or solution to keep the party together. He established a chain of command as well-- most of the party was very loyal to him, even though they were mostly chaotic evil.

I think the thing you need to keep in mind is that evil doesn't meant stupid. If staying together is a good way to get yours, the party should want to stay together. If infighting is a good way to get killed (and it is) the party should want to avoid it. As long as the players are mature and the characters are intelligent, cowardly, loyal or a combination of the three, there is absolutely no reason an evil campaign shouldn't be smooth sailing. Give the players leeway for their individual vices and that should keep the crazy ones happy while you actually get to advance the plot.

And yes, having a strong goal in mind is very helpful.

[cZak]

In a mature (I've had outstanding players less than 20 years old and horrible 30+) group that is friends outside of gaming this is usually a pretty easy goal. Otherwise? Very difficult.


One group I was in had the goal to establish ourselves as an organization. We were five players, so created the moniker of 'The Hand of Kirish-zon'; each was a finger... Our characters knew we had greater efficacy as a group than as individuals.

Our goals were not to create mass destruction and terror, but to elevate ourselves into the movers and shakers/ King-makers of the realm; it was a Greyhawk setting centered around the Pomarj, the Wild Coast and Onnwal. Near the higher levels we were at odds with the Council of Eight (Mordenkainen, Tenser, Bigby, et al). Not a direct confrontational battle (most of the time), and I think everyone enjoyed it immensely.

[hamishspence]

Reminds me of a scene in Timothy Zahn's Allegiance-

LaRone, the leader of the five stormtroopers, when asked for what his squad is called, goes blank and ends up blurting "Mostly, we're known as the Hand of Judgment." Away from everyone else, he gets ribbed relentlessly by the other stormtroopers.

Quiller: "You could have just picked a unit number at random. It's not like he could have checked before we got offplanet."
LaRone: "Fine. Next time you can be the officer and group spokesman."
Quiller: "Great. Does that mean you're promoting me from finger to thumb?"
Grave: "No fair. I want to be the thumb."

[Dr.Epic]

You know, I once did probably the noblest thing I ever did while RPing in an evil campaign. A horde of monster was charging us and we had just defeated another group and were not in any sort of combat condition. I played a wizard and suggested that everyone else run off while I use my remaining spells to hold them back.

[Kylarra]

Reminds me of a scene in Timothy Zahn's Allegiance-

LaRone, the leader of the five stormtroopers, when asked for what his squad is called, goes blank and ends up blurting "Mostly, we're known as the Hand of Judgment." Away from everyone else, he gets ribbed relentlessly by the other stormtroopers.

Quiller: "You could have just picked a unit number at random. It's not like he could have checked before we got offplanet."
LaRone: "Fine. Next time you can be the officer and group spokesman."
Quiller: "Great. Does that mean you're promoting me from finger to thumb?"
Grave: "No fair. I want to be the thumb."

This amuses me more than it probably should.

[hamishspence]

Timothy Zahn's style can often include a bit of deadpan snarking- which I like. He's generally considered one of the best of the EU authors.

[Closak]

Pragmatic evil is the way to go.

In this case, being evil is simply opening up more options to you, simply put, a evil character that does what works.

If he did something evil, it was because he would benefit from it in the long run.

So no kicking puppies for the lulz, there's nothing to be gained from that so why waste the energy?

Though he may occasionaly engage in some fun as long as the rest of the party is in on it.


That's the kind of evil characters i tend to go with.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The real problem is that - even in the most "mature" of groups - at some point there's going to be a prize which only one can have. When the Diety of Evil says "I will elevate one of you to be my Exarch" see how long it takes for the knives to be drawn.

I mean, if only one member of the party actually wants godlike powers, you're going to be fine but there is (or should be) a real push towards defection amongst Evil types. And it doesn't have to be Real Ultimate Power, either - it could be a Love Triangle, a Magic Sword, or even a Noble Title; when your credo is "Me First" why should you give away your dreams?

This is not to say you can't fix this. The "Everyone is LE and Bloodsworn" solution and similar extra-alignment IC bonds will do the work, but it can begin to strain belief when the take-no-prisoners Blood Knight is constantly deferring to his weakling Xanatos ally.

FULL DISCLOSURE

Spoiler

Show

I don't personally care much for Evil campaigns. The way Evil is defined in D&D makes long-term cohesion of equally powerful indivudals seem highly unlikely without enforcing some pretty strict restrictions on character building and actions. When your character is an adventurer who is constantly harming and killing Innocents to get their way, it seems odd that every intra-party conflict would be resolved without bloodshed. And, of course, once one person betrays a party the game goes south for everyone else - either someone just got screwed over (and likely killed) or the betrayer got somehow removed from the campaign.

It has always seemed more trouble than its worth, and I just find myself shaking my head at the large number of assassins, blackguards, and traitors who seem to stick together through thick and thin even when their personal interests don't align.

That said, dealing with conflicts of interest within a party of Evil is the most sensitive part of any Evil campaign. In a non-Evil campaign, you can always appeal to the PCs better natures - but Evil characters don't have any better natures!

[Nero24200]

Be very careful when handeling evil PCs. I speak from experience. Before starting the campaign ask each player this - What does being evil bring to their PC? For some it could mean an interesting backstory or a way of justifying evil-orientated abilities (such as animate dead).

If it's "because being evil is more fun" or along those lines, don't bother. I've seen far too many people use "I'm evil" as an excuse to be a...well...a word I don't think I'm allowed to use on forums with PG rating.

I suppose what I'm saying is...having evil PC's isn't bad as long as your players are playing evil PC's for the right reasons. If it's so they can justify random evil acts then I would strongly discrouage allowing it.

[WarKitty]

Be very careful when handeling evil PCs. I speak from experience. Before starting the campaign ask each player this - What does being evil bring to their PC? For some it could mean an interesting backstory or a way of justifying evil-orientated abilities (such as animate dead).

If it's "because being evil is more fun" or along those lines, don't bother. I've seen far too many people use "I'm evil" as an excuse to be a...well...a word I don't think I'm allowed to use on forums with PG rating.

I suppose what I'm saying is...having evil PC's isn't bad as long as your players are playing evil PC's for the right reasons. If it's so they can justify random evil acts then I would strongly discrouage allowing it.

Personally I enjoy evil characters. Even characters that do random evil acts. I had one of my characters randomly stab a little girl because he got frustrated. That said, I try to make sure my characters have a reason to stay with the group, even if that reason is "so I can try to con them into doing my dirty work and then steal all the treasure."

Treasure is always a good motivator for evil groups. Just try to make sure there's enough treasure to go around, and that there's a big enough ongoing challenge to need all players.

[FelixG]

The real problem is that - even in the most "mature" of groups - at some point there's going to be a prize which only one can have. When the Diety of Evil says "I will elevate one of you to be my Exarch" see how long it takes for the knives to be drawn.

You know, i played in a game JUST like this, but when it came time for us to receive our reward, it was only one of us who could become a demi god, at that point it came down to who actually worshiped him (not all characters worshiped the god) and of those which promoted his tendencies more proactively

In this case my chara (warlock) and a friend (fighter) both worshiped Erethnuel (SP) With me being LE and him being NE i proposed that we compare deeds, the fighter had indeed murdered many fallen enemies and those he could get away with, where as when we were faced with destroying a human armys encampment i had created some undead, used alchemy to create blasting powder, and caused an avalanche over their camp to bury them all.

We agreed as a group that this was the best instance of slaughter in our long campaign so we agreed my warlock would rise to power, then, i made them arch demons as i could appoint lieutenants and proposed we go to THEIR gods and offer our services to get them to be their deities chosen as well, they loved it so we agreed to do that. Sadly it never had a follow through, GM didn't feel comfortable running an epic level game so he just said we all got demi god status and our characters were from then on valid gods to worship for new characters :P

Point being, that a good LE character(s) should be able to find ways to keep their party together... After all dont you think bandits and thieves squabble over who gets what share of the loot? of course they do, but they dont murder one another to get it, they figure it out as killing one another would weaken the enterprise over all. The term "cutting off ones nose to spite their face" comes to mind

[Aotrs Commander]

I have played in and ran several evil parties.

The only one that didn't work was one in which the DM didn't get the party working together, and indeed actively encouraged in-fighting.

The others, two of which were Imperial elite forces (one being a sort of evil Rogue Squadron). I ran one and played in the other. Really, you can't go far wrong dusting off you most crisp English accent and shooting rebel scum and those dirty aliens. (Except for Thrawn, obviously, he's frackin' awesome.) And Dark Jedi are sooo much more fun to play. It's like playing TIE Fighter to the hilt, and whole-heartedly jumping into the Evil side (not like the tragic let-down of the "official character" of Marik Steele¹.) To sum up, my favourite quite from TIE Fighter: "For the Glory of the Emporer, destroy everything!"

In the third party, we were the Evil Five. This was a very interesting set up. It came about because our Monday group was down to three players for about a year or so (our other player had to go on a course). One of the guys had been running a D&D campaign for our then-Thursday group (he and I are the common element between the two), which was a sort of Pcs-are-heroes-destined-to-save-the-world sort of thing. The Good Five to defeat the Evil Five. He hit upon the brilliant idea of basically doing the "backstory" of the Evil Five (who I'd encountered in the Thursday group). As two of the Evil five were really not PC-suitable, that left enough for us to play the rest, and when everyone else came back, they could just fit in with us. Again, we were working for the bad guys, in this case the evil nation.

That was enormous fun all the way. From the immediate, accidental dislike we took to one of the other Evil Five (a Drow Sorceress ironically my good guy is trying to convert, the randy bugger); to having to capture the half-silver dragon paladin so he could fall to evil (him being the last of the Evil Five!)² Oh, the "fun" of one of the party getting dominated, and the cleric - who, naturally had the scroll of Stone to Flesh, getting petrified. By our dominated companion's own petrfication dagger, as I recall... Meaning I had to cart my dominated companion all the way back to civilisation (keeping him compliant by the old fashion method of "tie to horse, hammer to the skull every fifteen minutes") to browbeat a wizard to come back and set the cleric free... Oh yes, marvellous!

Heh. No really, it was awesome fun. We even mentally scarred Drow Priestess at one point...

I'm actually setting up a new Evil party now, actually. The party will be working for the Dark Lord as a super-secret covert operations unit. They will be carrying out his bidding in the North Nations. They will steal, bribe, corrupt, assassinate, spy, sabotage - and anything else dirty and underhanded, in any way the like. But the proviso is they must never be caught, for that is Certain Death. It's gonna be a blast. (This first adventure is basically the prolouge.)



Ultimately, I think the key to a sucessful evil is to give the party some reason to work together, (especially working for some monolithic evil group). And most importantly, make sure the players know that Evil =/= Chaotic Stupid, and that they can be as evil as they like to anyone outside the party (notwithstanding realistic reactions of the population at large). Great fun.



¹I of course, know the truth. Marik Steele did not actually do anything he was supposed to have done. No, he was actually the incompetant comedy sidekick wingman of the true hero of the Empire, whose name and deeds was covered up by the Rebels in a shocking propagander move to promote rebel sympathy. Remember, that's the truth. Even if George Lucas himself tells you otherwise, because that just means the Rebels got to him first!

²Seriously, have you ever TRIED to subdue a frag damned half-dragon paladin? Especially in a party that consists of a rogue, a psychic warrior and a cleric/fighter? Can't use poison, can't use SoDs; Cha boost plus Cha to saves equals virtually no chance, even if we had any decent ones. Damn, that was hard!

[Oracle_Hunter]

Point being, that a good LE character(s) should be able to find ways to keep their party together... After all dont you think bandits and thieves squabble over who gets what share of the loot? of course they do, but they dont murder one another to get it, they figure it out as killing one another would weaken the enterprise over all. The term "cutting off ones nose to spite their face" comes to mind

I mean, this is it exactly.

Evil PCs need to essentially select a party leader and then do what he says all the time. Any challenge to power can easily result in violence - particularly if one individual feels they haven't been getting their due. Of course, these LE Bosses must go through sensitivity training in order to make sure nobody feels slighted

Seriously though, what kind of Epic Evil guy is happier to serve than rule? Particularly when the Evil guy had the will-to-power to conquer all manner of obstacles to get as far as he did? As I said, it's a pet peeve of mine and the RP constraints just seem to bind harder when it's "Evil-Except-Inside-the-Party" instead of "Good" or "Neutral."

[WarKitty]

I mean, this is it exactly.

Evil PCs need to essentially select a party leader and then do what he says all the time. Any challenge to power can easily result in violence - particularly if one individual feels they haven't been getting their due. Of course, these LE Bosses must go through sensitivity training in order to make sure nobody feels slighted

Seriously though, what kind of Epic Evil guy is happier to serve than rule? Particularly when the Evil guy had the will-to-power to conquer all manner of obstacles to get as far as he did? As I said, it's a pet peeve of mine and the RP constraints just seem to bind harder when it's "Evil-Except-Inside-the-Party" instead of "Good" or "Neutral."

You could also go with some sort of party contract, voting system, etc. I've certainly been in parties where the characters would lie to each other, cheat, steal from each other, etc., anything short of actually stabbing each other. Sort of an uneasy truce, steal if you think you can't get caught, majority rules, etc.

[Ormagoden]

I've seen far too many people use "I'm evil" as an excuse to be a...well...a word I don't think I'm allowed to use on forums with PG rating.

The word your looking for is HUGEFRIGGINJERK

[Oracle_Hunter]

You could also go with some sort of party contract, voting system, etc. I've certainly been in parties where the characters would lie to each other, cheat, steal from each other, etc., anything short of actually stabbing each other. Sort of an uneasy truce, steal if you think you can't get caught, majority rules, etc.

Sure, except that Evil characters kind of exist to say "Screw the Rules." Even LE characters "cheat" when they want (see Tarquin). And when Evil characters cheat, people die.

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying it's more trouble than its worth - both IC and OOC - to keep a D&D Evil party together. Far better to just be a bunch of Neutral "not nice guys" if you really need to get your Evulz on

[Calmar]

Why would evil characters necessarily kill other people? Is it impossible to be evil as long as you don't kill another person? Are killers the only evil people in the world? Do the members of criminal organizations kill each other all the time?

Only idiots would 'utterly kill their boss or whoever is hiring them' without any reason.

[hamishspence]

This- especially if you take the approach that (since humans don't tend toward Neutral or Good) up to a third of the humans in D&Dland are evil. They won't all be killers- some will just be severe jerks.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm just saying it's more trouble than its worth - both IC and OOC - to keep a D&D Evil party together. Far better to just be a bunch of Neutral "not nice guys" if you really need to get your Evulz on

I have to disagree. Aside from the one party the DM wanted to be fighting each other, the rest of the Evil parties in my experience have worked together without the slightest hitch. Rich himself said it, evil people can have friends. Evil friends, yes, but still friends.

A lot, of course, is how you want to interpret the morass of confusion self-contradiction of D&D's alignment system.

Heck almost ALL of my bad guys in any campaign - the serious ones, anyway - are a cohesive and organsied LE-style force. I don't believe evil = ambition (or vice versa), so I don't see all evil people being unhappy in being a cog in the machine any more (or less) than any other organisation would be. Just because they eat babies doesn't mean they can't share, and have a civilised baby-eating picnic with their mates. (Actually, I think that's the most fun form of Evil, because you can't beat it by waiting for it to self-destruct and it's much more dangerous!)

[hamishspence]

Savage Species (and, to an extent, other splatbooks like BoVD, Champions of Ruin, FC2, etc) do tend to support the notion that Evil doesn't have to be self-destructive.

[Ravens_cry]

I recently watched Outlaw Star, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the MacDougal Brothersl are a nasty piece of business. Yet, they truly love each other as brothers and would never betray each other.
Harder to do in large groups, but a good example of Evil working together toward common goals and having more then just professional respect for one another.

[WarKitty]

Sure, except that Evil characters kind of exist to say "Screw the Rules." Even LE characters "cheat" when they want (see Tarquin). And when Evil characters cheat, people die.

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying it's more trouble than its worth - both IC and OOC - to keep a D&D Evil party together. Far better to just be a bunch of Neutral "not nice guys" if you really need to get your Evulz on

See I am far more used to evil parties than good parties personally. The last good character we had fell to neutral pretty quickly (NG bard). And we *do* cheat, just have enough party cohesion that everyone realizes the basic survival of the entire party is in their own best interest (or possibly just amusement value). I.e. my druid likes having his rogue/cleric/bard buddies around for the trapfinding/healing/buffing.

Again think of the bandit mob mentality. There's a lot of minor cheating and stealing within the mob, but everyone understands that they can't go after any good targets without the whole mob present.

From what I've seen it's more the maturity level of your players than anything else. You can have as much trouble with a bunch of LG paladin types as you can with an evil party.