What is your opinion on evil adventuring parties?

[TheMac04]

As a DM or as a player? My group consistently plays all Evil parties, just for the visceral appeal of it all, but I've heard other DMs are vehemently opposed to the idea, and won't allow it. What are your thoughts?

[Delwugor]

I've played in 3 games with mostly evil characters and GM'd one. None of them turned into Stupid and Psycho Evil and though there where plots and scheming against other characters it never interfered with them accomplishing goals.

[SowZ]

It depends. You can have interesting, rounded, believable characters and be evil. Evil people can still work with the rest of the group well and not be merchant-stab-happy. (Think Munny from Unforgiven, Marv from Sin City, Westley from Princess Bride, most people in most Quentin Tarantino movies, etc.)

Last time I ran an evil adventure it worked mainly because everyone had a goal.

[Dralnu]

I have an evil campaign that is currently on an indefinite break. As a DM and player I have a preference for good parties but evil can be fun too.

[nyarlathotep]

It depends. If you want to play an evil character to act out your rape/torture fantasies then do that on your own time. If you want to be say doctor evil and take over the world go ahead. Hell if you want to be evil to do that whole Hannibal Lecter style evil psychoanalysis, but if your descriptions of kills go on for more than a minute I'm leaving.

[SowZ]

It depends. If you want to play an evil character to act out your rape/torture fantasies then do that on your own time. If you want to be say doctor evil and take over the world go ahead. Hell if you want to be evil to do that whole Hannibal Lecter style evil psychoanalysis, but if your descriptions of kills go on for more than a minute I'm leaving.

There are some things I won't allow as a GM. Some people are opposed to telling people what they can't do but there are some things I won't GM because it is no fun. I'll usually work with them, though. If you, as a party, want to go on a slaughter fest destroying villages that's a no go. But hey, maybe you want to do a zombie game? If you, as an individual want to rape someone this is one of the few instances where I will flat out refuse. These are things I will spell out beforehand to anyone whose character seems to crazy/evil.

[The Glyphstone]

I've never had a party that wasn't Crazy Stupid Evil. I'm sure they exist out there somewhere, though.

[TheMac04]

I think it's important to make sure there is a balance between Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic characters. Playing Chaotic is fun (I should know, Chaotic Evil spellcasters are kind of my thing), but without the appropriate Lawful and Neutral characters there to keep the Chaotic ones in check, it quickly devolves into "let's burn down this village and rape all the woman just because". Now, wanton destruction has a place, and it can even be the cornerstone of an Evil campaign. For example, my group and I once ran an Evil campaign where the ultimate goal was to completely wreck a Good regime. Which involved a lot of burning and pillaging, but it was all part of the plan. You just have to remember that Chaotic doesn't mean stupid. Don't squash the fun, but don't ruin the game either. Think about it like the three Freudian personalities. The Chaotic characters are Id, the Lawful characters are superego, and the Neutral characters are ego. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't be efficient.

[Morghen]

I'm in an evil party right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.

If you, as a party, want to go on a slaughter fest destroying villages that's a no go.

You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

[TheMac04]

I'm in an evil party right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.

You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

You'd be surprised hombre.

[SowZ]

I'm in an evil party right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.

You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

No, and in almost every scenario, choices are totally up to the players and if I set up a plot point or thing that encourages a certain option and they find another way to accomplish the task or ignore that goal entirely, I don't begrudge it at all.

It would go like this-

Player: Let's slaughter and rape this village.
Me: That's not the kind of game I am trying to run.

To me, it is no different than if the players insisted they had jet packs and lazer guns in a fantasy setting. It is not what I am going for. Generally, what the players are going for supercedes what I am going for, but if they aren't at least on the same page, or in the same book, at least, it won't work out for anyone.

Bringing concepts like rape into my partially escapist/mostly 'let's make a story together' gameworld as anything more than an abstract destroys my enjoyment. I wouldn't read a book glorifying rape and I also wouldn't let my players do it. Their characters can do what they want. I don't want to be part of it because I don't feel like I have an obligation to simulate a world I get no enjoyment out of just because I am a GM.

I am okay with a city being destroyed or razed if it is for a reason. If they are part of or commanders of an army taking over the world that is one thing. If the game is taking a turn towards directionless romp because we just want to kill everyone like the first time we played Morrowind I will lose all interest.

Rape can be a serious plot point and help advance a story. There are books and movies where it is done well. I could even make a film where it was a major issue. But in an RPG, I am going to keep that as non-roleplayed events. Things that have happened, maybe, and it can be in backstories or as something the players come across, (though this has only been the case on one occasion I can think of,) but not something we do at the table.

[TheCountAlucard]

Well, since this isn't focusing on any specific RPG...

I've run a few games that could more or less be called evil campaigns. However, most of them take place in settings without black-and-white moralities, such as Vampire: the Requiem, and Exalted.

Evil parties are definitely doable - the key is to make sure the players are playing characters, and not caricatures.

[nyarlathotep]

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

I think it's more the GM isn't comfortable running it. Like I'd prefer that my friend not read me sexual My Little Pony slashfic. It isn't because I have anything against fanfiction, porn, or My Little Pony, it's just that my friend telling me what he's made Rainbowdash and Fluttershy do together is awkward.

[Dr Bwaa]

I've played in good parties, "mature evil" parties, mixed parties, and "chaotic stupid evil" parties. All of them have definite perks, and they're definitely different; I would say my five favorite campaigns ever cover all of these genres. I probably wouldn't run a campaign with CSE and Good characters in the same party, but anything else tends to go together fine if the players are good about it and have the same goal in mind. When I play or DM, the goal is to keep everyone having fun while telling a good story. Having some or all evil characters can be good for that, but everyone needs to be in the same boat.

[Coidzor]

I feel it takes a special compact amongst the players to keep them on some kind of actual plot rather than devolving into a re-enactment in D&D of a game of the Munchkin card game. Specifically the "killing one another lots" part.

Mostly because Munchkin plays a lot faster and is a lot more fun than doing that kind of thing in D&D.

But, hey, if you got it, run with it. Just make sure everyone's on the same page so you don't have one person who rolled up a Paladin.

edit: I've never quite been able to say why, exactly, but I find that something about most evil characters makes it so that they feel like they need something like a mission to keep them hanging out with one another in order to be a party in the first place...

[Drachasor]

I've no interest in running evil games or playing in them. I only really enjoy playing a heroic character or running a heroic campaign. That doesn't mean the story has to be an epic. It does mean I like to play people who are truly good and try to make things better.

And yes, this is because I find evil stuff ethically repugnant. It's pretty visceral to me, and I have no desire to desensitize myself to it (nor would I enjoy the process).

[nihil8r]

i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm against them because they tends to be a lack of focus. Good characters care about political or social upheaval. Bad characters not so much so when you throw them a plot hook about stopping something or starting something they might not care. They're evil and could be selfish and just interested in killing others for their own profit and not following the storylines you created.

[SowZ]

i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great.

Of course, you can still tell a good story without accomplishing goals other then purely selfish ones. Who doesn't love the Princess Bride? But I don't see a good story in a bunch of murdering lunatics out for gold, XP, and carnage. Maybe other people do. Not me.

[TheMac04]

i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great.

Now, I disagree, sort of. Playing a villain can still be interesting and not stupid without being an anti-hero. If we're roleplaying as a group of characterized, but still clearly evil people, why is that so wrong? It's still telling a story, just from the perspective of the bad guys. The Joker is an interesting character, and he's evil as hell. I don't think it's right to defy anyone to want to just be the bad guy for once. It's fun. Think outside the box. Don't always be the white knight.

[Totally Guy]

Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

[TheMac04]

I'm against them because they tends to be a lack of focus. Good characters care about political or social upheaval. Bad characters not so much so when you throw them a plot hook about stopping something or starting something they might not care. They're evil and could be selfish and just interested in killing others for their own profit and not following the storylines you created.

You can use the "it wouldn't work if your players are stupid/don't care about the story" argument for pretty much anything.

[SowZ]

Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

Oh, oh I get it. Just because their Orcs they have to be evil! Nevermind some of us here are orcs. *Points to my user title.* But that doesn't matter to mister holier than thou Orcs is bad Mister Snooty-Human pants over here. No, no, nevermind, I'll just sit here being racially slurred... Oh, wait, while I would love to stick and chat I'm totally late for a twelve o clock village burning. See you guys when I get back.

((P.S. L-l-l-l-l-level up! User title will now read Barbarian.))

[nihil8r]

Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

that sounds awesome.

obviously, of course it's okay to tell a story from the villainous side. but a villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities, one who can't be identified with, can't really compare to a villain who has at least some interesting or human qualities. pure sadism isn't an "interesting" quality, which is why the most memorable super-evil characters have a lot going for them other than hurting people for fun.

[TheMac04]

that sounds awesome.

obviously, of course it's okay to tell a story from the villainous side. but a villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities, one who can't be identified with, can't really compare to a villain who has at least some interesting or human qualities. pure sadism isn't an "interesting" quality, which is why the most memorable super-evil characters have a lot going for them other than hurting people for fun.

In my experience, the best is to have only one sadist in the party. Then you get drama, between the evil, but still pragmatic characters, and the psychopath. Get all the characters in the campaign for different reasons. Evil campaigns are FUN man.

[Coidzor]

You can use the "it wouldn't work if your players are stupid/don't care about the story" argument for pretty much anything.

Yes, but pointing out that certain things are especially vulnerable to this and require demonstrably less X to have undesirable Y happen is still a valid point.

In my experience, the best is to have only one sadist in the party. Then you get drama, between the evil, but still pragmatic characters, and the psychopath. Get all the characters in the campaign for different reasons. Evil campaigns are FUN man.

For certain people in certain moods and for certain kinds of fun.

It's only FUN, though, if it's dwarven.

And if you have to kill a psychopath in order to get any useful information, the only person having fun is the player of the ganked psychopath.

[ghost_warlock]

Motivation and lack of focus don't have to be a problem for an evil party. You just have to find something they'll collectively fight against. I find things like Galactus do nicely. Even evil characters like having a planet to live on.

[nyarlathotep]

Motivation and lack of focus don't have to be a problem for an evil party. You just have to find something they'll collectively fight against. I find things like Galactus do nicely. Even evil characters like having a planet to live on.

Or even just a goodly kingdom to conquer, or a wayward insult from an elven princess inspiring genocide.

[TheMac04]

I always prefer having them fight against an equally evil threat, with opposed ideologies. That's great fuel for drama there.

[ghost_warlock]

Or even just a goodly kingdom to conquer, or a wayward insult from an elven princess inspiring genocide.

The advantage of Galactus¹, though, is that it also encourages the party to work with goody-goodies rather than wholesale slaughter them. I mean, it's f'in Galactus, man!

¹Or a similar over-powering threat, such as a planar rift allowing literal armies of balors to waltz right onto the Prime and slaughter anything in their path, Vlaakith the Lich-Queen invading the world with her army of githyanki and red dragons, or that epic-level awakened tree in Eberron, Oalian, driven completely mad and seeding its corrupted thoughts into the minds of its druid followers worldwide...