Topic: On evil PCs

[Lord Garth]

So there is another thread regarding evil spells, but last night I was writing some stuff for this weekend's gaming session in which my PCs are supposedly evil, I thought I'd ask around.

When I presented my players with the idea of running a campaign in which they could play evil characters I'm 100%sure they all envisioned themselves running around stealing, pillaging and generally being rich in no time. I told them quite early on that should they do that they would end up pretty high on the list of law-enforcement NPCs and hang. And anyhow stealing is not necessarily evil. A desperate farmer stealing is not really being a great person, but he is not to be confused for an evil character.

In the end, the PCs have evolved into not totally evil, but decidedly not good. I envisioned them doing really evil stuff for the hell of it but alas, I guess it's hard for normal people, even seasoned players such as the ones I play with, to completely change their mindset. Or is it? Anyone have a really good experience with running an evil campaign?

[Kristen Mork]

I have seen many campaigns collapse under the weight of "evil" characters bent on "doing really evil stuff for the hell of it."  I have also run a great game in which the PCs evolved into villains.  The PCs started out as agents in the Department of Internal Defense (created well before DHS, mind you).  As time progressed, the PCs had the option to do things the "right way" in which case their opponents would likely succeed, or they could cut some corners to be victorious.  Each time they chose the "evil" option (a little torture here, a little blackmail there), there was a clear and present danger that compelled them.  Thus, in the end, the PCs were willing to go to great lengths to achieve there goals.  But, not because they were designed to be evil.  IMHO, this approach made for a much more compelling story and game.

[markc]

 Maybe lack of morals is a better description than evil.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

I believe it would be possible to run a truly evil campaign... but I think it would have to be made abundantly clear that you could potentially die at the hands of another party member - most likely when at a severe disadvantage - and that if anyone is going to have hard feeling about that then they should not play.

Long ago, while playing D&D, someone created a Barbarian for the game.  He was playing along side a Ranger and Paladin (among others).  While questioning a halfling along a trail the Barbarian killed the halfling because he wouldn't give us the information we wanted... because he didn't have it (which was obvious to most of us and confirmed by the GM after the fact).  The Paladin and Ranger immediately killed the Barbarian.  That player didn't take it too well, but really should have known that would be the result.  Now, while that was a single evil character with several good ones, he was reacting to something he apparently didn't think the other players in the group would do and was somewhat offended... even in a group full of evil characters there would likely still be lines players don't expect each other to cross.

Our problem with evil characters is that, if played truly evil, there will eventually be party conflict.  None of my group would have a problem playing an evil character, but the player on the receiving end of a well timed (literal or figurative) back stab might not take it well... sometimes even knowing full well that it may be coming.  In such a game, let's say we rolled for treasure at some point and someone else got that 'awesome' sword I wanted really badly... then somewhere down the road there's a situation where it's just me and that character alone and he's incapacitated somehow... you can see where I'm headed with that.  Unless I felt that character was vital to our (or even just my) near-term survival I'd kill him off and take what I thought should be mine.  That's an evil character.

If everyone went into the game knowing this was going to happen it wouldn't be as big a deal (Paranoia anyone?), but then toss in the fact that our group spends hours creating a character since a short campaign for us would last 6-8 months.  In Paranoia you created multiple character because you KNEW some were going to die - it was the point of the game.  So the fact that it's simply Rolemaster has an impact too.

[rdanhenry]

Even psychopaths don't kill people just because they are psychopaths.

I think you need to be much more precise about what you mean by "evil PCs". A team of Gestapo investigators may or may not ever turn on each other -- there'd have to at least be some reason for suspicion to start.

Members of an evil cult, worshiping a demon lord or dark god, might be expected to perform terrible deeds, but be fanatically loyal to one another.

[VladD]

My player begged to play Evil and I dared them to try it. The set up was, I think, pretty sweet: they were the first Uruk-hai, to be tried out by the Witchking in Angmar. First mission: deliver a message to some outposts. The party disintegrated when they found an up turned stage coach, with a demon  standing near and started fighting amongst themselves about who would loot what... The demon ended up looking at the PCs killing each other, while he was doing the looting.
Now they are not begging anymore...

[Cory Magel]

It is a generality... but I think an accurate one.  There are two reasons Evil does not triumph.

First is because the masses will eventually rise up against it in some cases, but often more importantly it will almost always eventually turn on itself and typically before it accomplishes whatever it was it was trying to accomplish.

If you had the same resources and situation handed to one "Good" and one "Evil" individual the "Evil" one should prevail because they would go about what they want to accomplish without any scruples or moral compunctions.  However as a result of this kind of attitude they will either become paranoid and, effectively, sabotage themselves... or one of their underlings will become disgruntled or too ambitious and plot against them (which is likely what leads to some or many of the cases of paranoia!).

If you dig into the real details of history, and ignore what is likely 're-written' history (i.e. bunk) or books that just skim the surface, you will see this happen over and over.  Hitler is a good example: He lost, to a large extent, because he was paranoid... which either caused, or was the result of, his own men attempting to kill him (more than once I believe).

[rdanhenry]

My player begged to play Evil and I dared them to try it. The set up was, I think, pretty sweet: they were the first Uruk-hai, to be tried out by the Witchking in Angmar. First mission: deliver a message to some outposts. The party disintegrated when they found an up turned stage coach, with a demon  standing near and started fighting amongst themselves about who would loot what... The demon ended up looking at the PCs killing each other, while he was doing the looting.
Now they are not begging anymore...

Like that's never happened to a "good" party.

[yammahoper]

Evil can be brilliant too.

Assume with me that the late Roman Empire was ruled more by the emporer than by the senate and that the emporer was, at best, evil in style.  All was for and about his personal gain, yet they were smart enough to appease the masses with games and free bread.  The ability to control and pay his armies led to his downfall, but centuries of cruel, selish rule was maintained before their fall.

Evil must be very intelligent indeed to survive.  It must create a system were the choice is between two evils and the masses lack the wisdom to pick the lesser of the evils all the time.  This will allow evil to flourish, with occasional setbacks to be sure, but never vanquished and destroyed, it remains inheirent in the system.  Once enough are convinced the system is to big to fail, that it can never be abanoned at any cost, evil has found its refuge.

Secret police, exicutioners, torturers (information extractors if you prefer), petty tyrants, cruel nobles, black magic, dark arts, cults, religions, business organizations and guilds, mercenary armies: there are so very many places the practioners of evil can reside in plain sight and draw no deep concern.

Evil does not usually arrange to kill the fighter that took the magic sword it wanted.  rather, it deploys envy and seeks the circumstance that will DESTROY the man and sword, because if it cannot have it, no one will.  Evil will stand ready to fill power vacuums and place blame, create scape goats and wage war, always in the name of good, of course.  Evil will create the threat if needed, like Nazi's creating border scirmishes to convince the public of a threat that doesn't exist, even if they have to dress their own citizens in uniform and murder them for bodies to display to a shocked public.

Evil wins because in order to not under estimate it, constant vigilance is required.  That is hard to do, and if maintained long enough, evil will find a way to direct that vigilance towards its own gain.

Game of Thrones uses this ploy beautifully with the Watch at the Ice Wall.  Time has diminished the vigil, evil rises again.  Sabatours and enemy spies are on the prowl.  Few in the south believe the legends of the Ice.  The stage is set for the retun of Great Evil.

Evil will always work to undermine free mens liberty via limiting their percievable options.  Force good men to choose between evils, and evil always wins.

[VladD]

Like that's never happened to a "good" party.

I hope not! My current players would usually try to rescue who ever was in the coach from the demon. Fighting over loot would be done after the facts and then its not real fighting, but more a heated debate.
With the Uruk-hai party, they were so emerged in to playing their evil characters that they didn't back down. The leader character was whipping one of the more rebellious characters, when the other players ALSO saw cause to bicker and argue and not backdown. It devolved quickly...

[DavidKlecker]

I actually had an idea once to run a campaign where the PCs were under the authority of Carn Dum (for those who don't know, its a city that is primarily run by priests who have an evil alignment.) The main idea was that they were to run an errand to undermine the authority of a neighboring kingdom as a prelude to an invasion. I was expecting the PCs to simply just act as anyone normally would who has powerful friends, not for them to steal, pillage, and act unruly. Even evil characters will often times still have to answer to higher authority and if you are truly evil, it's difficult at best to convince others to submit to your authority. I would agree that characters that just steal and plunder will last as long as a PC that does the same. Even the evil characters I create for NPCs are not chaotic, they have a sense of morality, but it geared to power and greed, not honor and magnanimity.

[Nortti]

G vs E of course makes it easy to have adventures in the good ol style - smite the evil and get the treasure and xp! Or be the bad guy vanguishing the guys wearing white armor.

What makes characters evil? Is it the fact that they kidnap virgins, kill, steal and worship the evil god of undead? I think thats too soft stuff for my campaigns.

I want landlords and slave-masters that believe in their god-given right to use whip to the max as thats how god created their world to be.
- witch-hunters torturing and burning women that possess healing powers and have knowledge of healing herbs.
-seemingly honest traders that plot assassinations and skirmishes to get a war starting so that they can sell plenty of expensive goods to armies.
-good, religious men preaching about the savagery of the natives and demanding a punitive expedition and a crusade to tame those wild man-animals.
-young men enlisting in the general furor, ready to die for the country and religion. Demonization of foreign people and savagery of war with rape, murder and torture.

Your normal people living in middle of all this, some victims, some willing participants, some just trying to keep their humanity, some trying to protect the weak and the innocent. Some trying to make a buck.

Placing your PCs in the middle of those conditions gives them a chance to decide what they will do. Let them decide. I think that this is the natural process of human advancement in the world of good and evil.

PCs might have a chance to profit by being greedy and taking what they want by using violence. Kill the natives and take their resources, kill the "witches" and take their stuff, join the war and become a hero. Mining in the areas freed from the natives could be lucrative. If others get rich there, should we just be idle here and stay poor? Someone is going to mine that gold anyway. Should you tell anyone home about the look on the faces of prisoners waiting for execution or of the fate of raped women? Should you try to stop these actions during the war? "They are demon-spawn anyway so what do you care?"

Modern example: PCs might just have to sign some statement that says the waters from our factory are clean, even if they might be suspicious about it. They know that test results are probably falsified. You would get paid for signing and nobody will know. Maybe there will be 20% more of cancer in the nearby cities, maybe not. Signing might be evil or not, it depends.

Seeds of evil are in prejudice and greed. My current campaign has plenty of these but I try not to underline them too much or make a point (as I maybe did in this text). I will not tell players if that thing you did was evil or not. PC will have to make decisions that will determine if his character is G or E.
 

[Lord Garth]

In a new twist of events one of my players is finally making "evil" plans. He's actually decided he wants to pull a "Palpatine" and convert a few nice do-gooders to the dark side. Mostly so they can do errands for him, or rather so he can use them to take the blame for deeds if it comes down to it I suspect.

This, of course, means I have to further enrich my settings, but I'm all over it. Can't wait to see what he has in store.

Still, it's a definition of evil I feel comfortable with: Making good people do increasingly bad things until they really can't go back.