Dealing with Evil PCs

[Tough_Tonka]

In my first Eberron campaign I've found that half my party, 2 people, are heading toward evil alignments one being more cruel than evil, but doing what he can to keep his alignment in CN. I had no intentions to run an evil campaign and I'm struggling to deal with a group where 3/4th of the group act as if they have no scrupples.

I'm not sure if I should really be awarding this kind of behavior, but I feel like I'm railroading the party when i consider the thought of justice reaching the PCs. I also feel bad about the single member of the group that wants to play a good aligned character among the crowd that wants to find ways to kill, steal and cheat their way to the top.

Really my question is this.

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

In my first Eberron campaign I've found that half my party, 2 people, are heading toward evil alignments one being more cruel than evil, but doing what he can to keep his alignment in CN. I had no intentions to run an evil campaign and I'm struggling to deal with a group where 3/4th of the group act as if they have no scrupples.

I'm not sure if I should really be awarding this kind of behavior, but I feel like I'm railroading the party when i consider the thought of justice reaching the PCs. I also feel bad about the single member of the group that wants to play a good aligned character among the crowd that wants to find ways to kill, steal and cheat their way to the top.

Really my question is this.

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

Hmm...how about showing them what comes to evil people. They may get what they want in the beginning but soon find themselves paying for it at the end of a paladin's sword. I've noticed that's what naturally ends up happening according to logic is they live the high life when they want it, but as mentioned before, pay for it.

[Deathcow]

Short-term gain, long term loss is definitely the accepted MO of evil-character morality tales, anyway.

[Raum]

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

I'm not sure I'd wait till the end of the campaign. The DM plays the environment / world just as players play their characters. The world should react appropriately to the PCs' actions.

I'd feel somewhat cheated if the world remained static no matter what I did as a PC. If I rob someone I expect to have to cover my tracks...and if someone recognizes me I expect to have to run from the city guard. If caught, it's a chance for an escape attempt. Hopefully I've remained close enough friends with party members to get their help...if not it's probably time for a new character anyway. Intraparty conflict gets old fast.

[Aximili]

I think that the right thing for a DM to do here is force their characters to follow the adventure by whatever means are reasonable. Don't be a tyrant, just make sure that their characters want to do this quest as much as the good one in the party. And make sure that the good one in the party is "of value" to them (so they won't kill him).
The first part can be acomplished easiest through threats. The second is just a matter of making their life depend on his somehow.

I say this because I'm 100% in favor of reasonable evil characters. If they are simply out of control, do unrealistic stuff and have absolutely no scrupples, than they entirely deserved being punished for it.

Do what Krimm said, and show them whats gonna happen if they don't get in line. If that doesn't work... well, I think you got it already.

[Jack_Simth]

Staple of the genre:
Something horrid happens, so adventurers investigate by some means or other.

If a party member is doing a lot of horrid things, other adventurers may just investigate.

Is the theif that stole the King's Crown immune to Locate Object? Commune? Discern Lies / Sense Motive / Intimidate on the fence he sold it to? Scrying repeated for when the investigators get a decent sketch of the theif? Detect Evil?

Did the evil character get injured on a murder? Blood is really handy for a Scrying spell (-10 to the subject's Will save to avoid it).

Unless the PC's are unique, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Sure, it may be a pretty low chance that any particular Evil action will be investigated, but if it's kept up, it will eventually catch up to the character.

Mechanical suggestion:
Pick a percentage (low, I suggest something under 10% to start), and roll a d100 every time the character does something that people would reasonable want investigated/stopped/fixed. Each time the character fights off adventurers that successfully show up (do remember to give them appropriet difficulties for any precautions the Evil character used), the character has picked up something of a reputation (caught at it, even if got away from justice; they let somebody know who they were after, or at least clues to it), and is more likely to be investigated in the future; increase the chance that any given action will be investigated.

[Bouldering Jove]

Honestly, this sounds like something you need to discuss with your players rather than attempting to deal with by "punishment." If they want to play as the "rowdy adventurers" who'll gladly pillage as well as fight monsters, you need to give them consequences for their actions, but you shouldn't let those consequences be punishment from above rather than further challenges to have fun overcoming. Otherwise, you'll basically be turning the game into one 3/4 of your players feel constricted in.

For the record, "heroes" being bandits half the time has solid precedent, if you look at figures like Heracles or the Argonauts.

[Renegade Paladin]

As soon as they screw up, drop the hammer on 'em. Good-aligned NPC adventurers, the baron's troops (and champion, if they're high level), the local paladin order, or whatever the hammer of justice in your world is should react appropriately the minute they start doing evil stuff that attracts notice and don't adequately cover their tracks.

[psiryu]

In my opinion it really depends how "evil" the player is. Just because he is evil doesn’t mean that he is going to go around slaughtering innocents and commiting other atrocities.
I generally play the more selfish and self centred evil character which shouldn’t give you any problems if your PC plays that way.
Now if your PC does go in for the "KILL MAIM BURN" evil then well…. Send in the paladins, the militia, random low level adventures who have high hopes but short lives and a few batman style vigilantes.

[Aximili]

Now if your PC does go in for the "KILL MAIM BURN" evil then well…. Send in the paladins, the militia, random low level adventures who have high hopes but short lives and a few batman style vigilantes.

That is: make his life difficult.

[Tormsskull]

As soon as they screw up, drop the hammer on 'em. Good-aligned NPC adventurers, the baron's troops (and champion, if they're high level), the local paladin order, or whatever the hammer of justice in your world is should react appropriately the minute they start doing evil stuff that attracts notice and don't adequately cover their tracks.

No offense to anyone else, but focus on this response. It is the best advice.

[A Pointy Object]

How should you deal with evil PCs?

I suggest a vorpal greatsword.

Still, make sure you get through to the players that being evil isn't easy, and that if they are found out, they are in for a world of hurt. Mercy for them in tight spot gives them a feeling of invulneribility (God, I hope I spelled that right).

[Emperor Tippy]

Remember the cursed object the Helm of Opposite Alignment. Next time they do something evil some paladins come along and force it on each of their heads. You then make them role play their alignments as the description says that the hat makes you not even able to think about going back to your previous alignment.

[Mewtarthio]

Remember the cursed object the Helm of Opposite Alignment. Next time they do something evil some paladins come along and force it on each of their heads. You then make them role play their alignments as the description says that the hat makes you not even able to think about going back to your previous alignment.

That's just like saying "Hey, I don't like how you're playing, now play the game the way I want you to." Just have them suffer realistic consequences for their actions. If they're clever enough to cover all their tracks and don't do anything to attract the notice of high-level characters, they've earned a reprieve, but eventually they'll have to do something big (unless they want to play a game revolving around petty theivery, but most evil characters either want to do something huge like taking over the world or are simply very selfish and mercenary in their outlooks). When they do, they get caught, and bad things happen.

[Shazzbaa]

I've played in games where the DM made it clear that good acts were rewarded and evil came to justice. You could certainly mention to your players that this is likely to happen. I can totally understand being uncomfortable with running an evil campaign that you never wanted to run.

If characters continue being evil, the above advice is good. But I don't think it would be a bad idea to point out that a world where evil gets justice is, quite simply, the game you wanted to run.

[Aximili]

Remember that having a couple evil PC does not mean you are running an evil campaign.

An evil character can very well perform a non-selfish mission if he's given the right motivation. In most cases, this motivation is money, but it could be many more things.

[A Pointy Object]

Motivation-wise, survival is also a great reason.

Or greed. Followed by survival.

[Baron_Dex]

That's just like saying "Hey, I don't like how you're playing, now play the game the way I want you to." Just have them suffer realistic consequences for their actions.

I agree, and must condemn the heavy-handed approach. Anything like this is wholly unrealistic, it detracts from your game and reeks of railroading.

Think about it this way. If the PCs are good, there are no armies of helm-bearing paladins, nor angels of wrath swooping in to stop their antagonists. It's unrealistic, and would ruin all the fun of stopping those villains for the players.

If the players are taking a turn towards evil, well, you can talk to them about that, be sure to mention it, and say whether or not you want to deal with it. I've had players willing to lie, cheat, steal, and torture, but for noble ends. I've also had some who wanted to destroy entire cities. The former we dealt with in game, the latter agreed to create a new character; he just did not get along with the others.

But if evil characters remain as PCs, the consequences of their actions should be reasonable, like the d% roll suggested above, or some bounty hunters, paladins, and the like, but the old rule remains, "let the punishment fit the crime."

[Diggorian]

Good topic, Tonka.

I'm with Mewtarthio and Baron Dex. Their story, though differently flavored than you may desire, should still be told. If they're doing high profile evil stuff, they get noticed. If they are smart enough to hide things, they get by for a while.

I've had to deal with these type of PC's, the players take steamventing a bit too far. I deal with it with divine judgement:

Subtle hints about the darkness of their path come up. A crazy old hermit pointing accusingly at them but saying nothing. Encounters with these hints should feel eery.

Whenever a PC does something that falls under any of the three evil alignments, list a check by their name in your notes. If they were good I'd intensify the hints per check for the powers trying to warn them harder. A paladin in my game got two checks towards LN; his armor wouldnt shine anymore, just a dull grey.

If they do two things that fall under any of the good alignments, erase one check. 2:1 ratio for the seductiveness of evil.

When a PC racks up three checks, the gods a have decided they're now evil. Dont tell them. Just no more odd hints and continue the story as regular.

It's more dramatically potent for them to discover it on their own. A GM anouncing checks and an alignment shift makes you seem restrictive and punishing. Best for it to feel like a natural process they created and that you're neutral about. This is the story they're creating.

[Sam K]

I'd suggest you start off by talking to your players and see why they're acting the way they do. Are they being evil because it's convenient, because of RP reasons, or because they're just being daft bastages?

If they're being evil for convenience, they may just feel that being good doesn't pay off enough. If the players work hard and take constant risks in the name of good and feel they get shafted for the reward, taking the easier way out is a natural reaction.
This could be remedied in several ways. You could give different awards for being good, such as giving people who do the right (but usually more complicated and less monetary rewarding) thing more experience; after all, taking the easy way doesn't usually teach you much, while facing hardship and moral dilemas will teach you more about yourself. This may encourage people to play more benevolent characters. Alternatively, you may just want to let good deeds have a better payoff. Killing the villagers may give you their measely posessions, but helping the village prosper may give you a strong base of operations and many potential allies.

If your players are being evil because they enjoy RPing that way, the first step would be to really look at their characters personality. So Bob the fighter is evil, but what KIND of evil is he? Most kinds of evil doesn't prevent a harmonious party, and even evil people can be loyal friends. Reward good RPing, and encourage the players of evil characters to make belivable evil characters that you can work into the campaign. Alternatively, you may wish to run a side campaign with evil characters, or get someone else to run one. People get tired of playing the same thing, and if your group has done alot of heroic RPing in the past, they may just be needing a break from it.

Finally, if they're just being evil cause they're daft, start smacking them with some reality. If they comit attrocities, they will be tracked down. There's always some adventurers that want to gain money and fame (and a higher level) by tracking down villans and bringing them to justice.

[Thomas]

Is it wrong for a GM to reward good actions and only provide evil and dishonest actions with shortrun benefits and eventually "punishment"?

And is it so wrong for evil PCs to meet justice at the end of the campaign if they show no intentions of turning from their ways?

Is it okay to make your RPG into a morality tale, you mean?

Yes, provided you made it clear at the outset that the campaign was meant for good characters. If you didn't ... well, maybe you will do it next time. Stiffing characters & players because they didn't know the campaign was for good characters is bad. Giving them "what's coming to them" when they knew the campaign's for good characters is fine.


Personally, I do try to model the values of the appropriate society in my games; but since the game where that usually applies is RuneQuest, that's easy as pie, since in Glorantha, morality exists for a reason. If you kill a kinsman, a Chaotic monster pops into existence and starts destroying your community. If someone is raped, a succubus demon takes form and starts destroying the community. If somebody commits suicide after being viciously shamed or dishonored, it's demon time again. And so on. People don't do some things because they're Bad in a very real, tangible way, and communities tend to be strict on enforcement because of this.

Of course, all of this is very clearly "foreshadowed" - characters are given a lot of clear-cut examples of both good and bad behavior, offered wisdom from the elders, maybe even stories or parables. The myths they re-enact are all about how to live a good life according to this god (and the culture ultimately created by that god in the God-Time). Of course there's going to be the occasional departure into "the grey zone," but those stand out as tricky situations precisely because they've learned what's good and what's bad.

So if my players decide to start murdering kinsfolk, breaking the rules of hospitality, dishonoring their gods, and so on, they won't be surprised when their actions ruin them, often indirectly and later on, and in a very "steamrolling" fashion - a horde of Chaos creatures or an alliance of enemies made descends upon their clan and wipes it out, or something of the sort.


Now, this is all subject to the campaign world, obviously. In Cyberpunk 2020, there's no mystical backlash. However, there are SWAT teams with 20mm cannons as standard side-arms, megacorporations that can destroy your life one piece at a time, at their leisure, and crime bosses who can make you wish you were dead. Of course, there the morality tale should be something different - it should be about making the right choices even when they make your life harder, so the Ref's problem is coming up with suitable, plausible ways to reward the players (if not the characters) for these actions.

In most game worlds, you can use a sort of combination of factors. There's the local community, society, or government, probably with its laws and rules and some way to enforce them in a world of wizards, clerics, and high-level fighters. (Usually that way includes wizards, clerics, and high-level fighters...) There's the gods (but you need to make clear early on, by examples not related to the PCs' actions, what kind of a role the gods play in punishing and rewarding the unjust and the just). There's reputation - if you're known as a bloodthirsty monster, paladins will come after you, common people will not do business with you, and groups of savage humanoids will be willing to serve you (which may seem great at first, but just wait until the best and brightest of them decide they're worthier of rulership).

As a rule, evil characters should be given a chance - but they shouldn't get off scot-free. But if the good characters are rewarded for their deeds, and make enemies of villains, then the converse could surely apply to evil characaters.

[Leminex]

Had to speak up here as nobody had really taken the setting into account. While it’s hard to say exactly what sort of level of evil you are talking about without examples, Eberron definitely lends itself to moral ambiguity. Indeed as a player I'd be disappointed to run in a typical black vs white crusading campaign. In my eyes Eberron is all about people doing the right things for the wrong reasons and the wrong things for the right reasons.

That being said I see two sides of the coin here. As a GM and Player my major concern is first off that everyone is having a good time (game and all remember) and to me that means a good suspension of disbelief. Thus as a GM I play consequences that would logically follow the players (and NPCs) actions. But I don't like leaving it there, because people do err and dice do botch, thus I'm quite willing to tilt things in my players favour IF and only if it doesn't break that suspension of disbelief.

Thus the easy way to deal with this is abstract it, say to yourself 'If I had a random NPC do the same thing in this situation, what would happen.' Is it likely he'd be discovered? Would the watch bother to hunt him down if he fled? Heck Eberron actually has well defined laws and its possible to be plenty evil without ever even breaking those. (And on the flip side, the last game I ran had the very good-aligned players breaking laws all over the place, took some creative explaining to keep them out of jail).

That aside I also believe the GM has the right to have fun, and I easily realize that most people don't do very well with evil players. In thus case its an out of game problem and should be dealt with by talking to the players.

Last suggestion would be to really edge away from some of the heavy handed methods suggested here. I find them to be trite in campaigns where such forces of good might make sense, but most of them fly directly in the face of Eberron.

I mean it'd be odd if the God's which nobody knows for absolute certain exist suddenly start giving little dream messages on if they think you're doing an all right job in life. Not even getting into the fact that some of the Dark Six are worshiped by good people (in so much as a 'please don't bring me ill fortune' way).

And honestly I find a horde of Paladins with an alignment changing helm to be outright vile in any setting, hallo lobotomy.

Unless your players are being villainous instead of just evil, any notable bastion of Good should probably have better things to be doing. That said evil isn't one big loving alliance. If I was an 'evil' PC running around killing random peasants in town, I'd be a lot less worried about the town guard and more concerned that I might have killed cousin in the Boromar Clan (ie the Mob), cause they'd be taking me for a long walk off a short pier rather then the court house.

[Sam K]

I find that when you have to resort to heavy handed methods to keep the players in line, the campaign should probably be put on hold so you can work out what exactly is going on. Some of the suggestions I've seen here are bordering on what I still call the "poopypants syndrome": way back when I started RPing (we were 9 or 10), one DM would regularly 'solve' the problem of players doing something 'wrong' by having his character poo his pants. If people still insisted on acting the 'wrong' way (wrong could be something like going left when the DM wanted you to go right) your colon would explode and you'd die. Really, I wish I was making this up...

Point... Im sure I had one...

Oh yeah, when you get to the point that you feel you have to 'slap your players down', be it by the forced application of helms of opposite alignment, rocks falling from the sky for no good reason, or spontanious bowel combustion, is the game really fun, or are you just being vindictive? If the game turns into a war between players and the DM, it usually stops being fun.

Last suggestion would be to really edge away from some of the heavy handed methods suggested here. I find them to be trite in campaigns where such forces of good might make sense, but most of them fly directly in the face of Eberron.

I agree 100%. Really, unless the characters are very closely tied to a specific diety, or if they're major players in the fate of the world, gods should stay out of their actions. I'd apply this even in a setting with active gods, such as forgotten realms. Gods are not a messaging service that'll drop little hints on what you should be doing. If they did, it'd quickly get silly.

Goodius, the good god of goodness and sunshine may be omnipotent and aware of all a characters sins. He may decide it would be a good idea to drop a subtle hint about sinning being bad for you. However, Evilus, the evil god of evilness and puppies (eeeeevil puppies, mind you) is ALSO omnipotent and aware of all a characters sins. He's gonna be just as eager to drop subtle hints about sinning being totally awsome. What would likely happend is that they'd spend all their time blocking eachothers subtle hints- otherwise people wouldn't get anything done for all the divine portents that kept popping up. It'd be like all those popup windows that refuse to close.

Paladins and clerics would have it worst of all. I would never give a paladin or cleric a warning about what they're about to do compromising their alignment. They're suppose to KNOW, it's what being a holy man/woman/inanimate object is all about. Clerics shouldn't get told the proper way to act, they should be able to tell OTHERS about these things. If a player asks the DM about the moral implications of his actions, it's different. The player likely hasn't devoted the same time to his gods teachings as the character has, so they may be given a hint. I'd base it on the result of a knowledge: religion check, though. You DID take knowledge: religion, riiiight...?

[Ardantis]

This is my first post on the forums, but I'm coming off of a one-shot game this weekend where my PC, a former gladiator, realistically and through backstory made a CN to CG shift.

Meanwhile, my money-grubbing manager (and friend and fellow PC,) realistically and through backstory made a CN to CE shift.

Obviously this caused some problems.

After we had overthrown the leaders of the local thieves' guild, the gladiator (a fighter/barbarian) became angry at the manager (a rogue) for having murdered an innocent as the quick and dirty solution to a gauntlet puzzle. In response, and in keeping with the manager's alignment shift, he brutally murdered the gladiator (who had just come out of barbarian rage with 2 hp left.)

We both, as roleplayers, appreciated the consequences of going evil AS WELL AS the consequences of going good.

I always see roleplaying from a player's perspective, presumably because I think it's all about the experience involving them in the end. DMs create living worlds that respond to character actions, but logically and not retributively. If players get off track from the quest, or from each other, it's up to the DM to, heaven forfend, make his world respond.

In a medium that is so dependent upon interaction, I resent the DM that should be a novelist, refusing to let players act out of the "intended" setting.

Now, this isn't a lot of other people's point of view on gaming, and I tend to play a LOT more one-shot and more relaxed, free-form games, so take this with a grain of salt. But even in a more rigid campaign setting, the players must be accomodated to a certain degree. By all means, send the guards after him if that's what he's earned, but don't force his hand or kill him off unless he acts truly foolishly.

And in the future, learn which players want to play your game. I agree wholeheartedly with Raum, don't force characters to do your bidding, incentivize them. Even evil characters will save the world for the gold or if threatened realistically, and then the good characters can see the cost of going good.

As a parting note, I often find myself, as DM, throwing the odd NPC or situation at a party that incentivizes the opposite aims of my meta-plot. It helps everyone fit in by making those that go against the grain feel appreciated, and those that go with it realize that it's not all about them all the time.

As always, my advice is worth what you pay for it.

[paigeoliver]

From my experience I have found that eventually a party containing at least one appropriately played good character and one properly played evil character will eventually disintegrate. Sometimes it takes one session, sometimes it takes many, but it always happens eventually, with chaotic evil or lawful good characters accelerating the issue.

I have seen this party breakdown happen as early as the very first encounter that included both alignments.

A mixed group of characters that included a Lawful good and a neutral evil are traveling down a road that goes along a river. They spot a group of lizard men sitting at the side of the road fishing, with a few giant lizard mounts tied to a tree. The lizard men glance at the characters and then go back to their fishing.

Of course half the party immediately attacks the lizard men. In the ensuing melee the Lawful good character ends up fighting against the party trying to subdue them and protect the lizard men (who are interested in nothing more than running away). The only casualty in the battle is one of the giant lizard mounts, although the lawful good character is eventually subdued, the other party members dump the unconsious body off at the nearest town and go on there way.

Three days later they are met by their ex-companion and "Otis" a high level lawful good fighter from a nearby town. Otis gives the party a choice, either they can do exactly what he says to make the situation right, or he can dispense justice to them right then and there for engaging in banditry on "his" road.

Otis ends up marching the party into the lizard man village, making them apologize to all of them, and pay the cost for them to replace that giant lizard.

That same party is still playing in the same area, although the Neutral-Evil character has moved to true neutral, the Lawful Good character never rejoined them, and they are all really careful not to do anything to piss off Otis.

We had two evil characters when we played "Keep on the Borderlands", and the party managed to essentially complete the module before all hell broke loose. In this case the evil characters had planned all along to be nice and cooperative until the party had all the loot, and then try to get it all.

I have only seen one properly played evil character last a long time in a mixed party. That one is a neutral evil warlock who has made it to 9th level in a mixed party. Although a large part of the cooperation was based on the fact that the party was trapped away from civilization with the character for a long time and they were all sort of scared of him, and he always funneled his evil towards his opponents.

[mikeejimbo]

You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

[paigeoliver]

My campaign world has a large area where the struggle isn't really good versus evil but law versus chaos with the "bad guys" of the story being lawful (and often good).

The elves in my world do the "Elven retreat" thing about once every thousand years or so where they (as a group) leave the forests of the continents of the world and retreat to a chain of islands. Well the last time they came back to their islands they discovered that "their" islands had been "discovered" and settled for almost 500 years by humans and dwarves. The elves managed to push the humans off one island, and have been trying to get them off the other 10 for about 100 years now. The humans claim the elves abandoned the islands and now they have been on them for many generations, while the dwarves claim (truthfully) that the elves had never even established a presence on the island they claimed.

The game has been working quite well with bad guys that are essentially Lawful good, while the good guys are are a mix of chaotic humans, and Lawful/neutral dwarves. Oddly enough my players who usually have no problems injecting evil characters into entirely inappropriate storylines have come up with NO evil characters at all for this setting.

You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

[Tormsskull]

You know, I was just thinking about something similar. The party I play in tends toward Neutral and Evil, and I was wondering: What's so bad about evil characters? Must every campaign be about heroes stopping the BBEG? Why not a collection of anti-heroes who are mostly interesting in their own safety, who end up accidentally saving the world?

I suppose it's not in your campaign, but what if instead of a BBEG, they had a BBGG? Or better yet, what if the PCs were the ones TRYING to take over the world?

It can work, but I'd say it is more difficult than a standard campaign. If everyone is neutral or evil there is less teamwork, less incentive to help each other out, etc. Often times the only reason an evil group stays together is because they are forced to by the DM.

I think most of the time players don't actually want evil characters, they want no-restriction characters. They want to be able to act how they want to at any given time without having to worry about the morality/consequences behind it or hearing "Your character wouldn't do that." They feel that being evil is the easiest way to get around these restraints, and so they select evil.

IME I have also noticed that being evil in an all evil party is actually not what most players who want an evil character are looking for. They want to play an evil character in a good party so they can sneak around, hide stuff from their party members, have secret information that no one else has, etc.

[Wolf53226]

First question, is what they are doing hurting anyone's enjoyment of the game? And I mean you should examine how you feel and how the good character(s) player(s) feel.

If so, and I am guessing since you are writing hear that it is:

Have a talk with the "evil" players, let them know that while they don't have to be good, being blatantly evil is messing with the enjoyment of the game for either you, your other player(s) or both. Stress to them that while you will allow them to play evil characters, there are groups inside the world that would actively search out those evil characters.

If they still want to be evil, change their alignment and have some paladins go after them.

I cannot stress this enough, these are supposed to be friends of yours, TALK TO THEM FIRST.

[MrNexx]

From my experience I have found that eventually a party containing at least one appropriately played good character and one properly played evil character will eventually disintegrate. Sometimes it takes one session, sometimes it takes many, but it always happens eventually, with chaotic evil or lawful good characters accelerating the issue.

I think it highly depends on the nature of the evil. Sure, the berserker, kill everything type evil is going to cause problems... but a more subtle evil is going to cause a lot less. We've had evil characters who've gone and hired assassins when the party split up in town (to go after minor bad guys the rest of the party let go). It doesn't work if you have a paladin (because paladins aren't allowed to try to convert people, apparently), but someone who is more subtle about their evil, in a largely good party, can function successfully.