From my perspective, "evil" characters are much more free than good characters in their actions and possible roles. Even just defining what their code of conduct is (since it's not a moral one) leads to many more interesting possibilities than with a "good" character. Arbitrarily limiting yourself to characters who you morally agree with just seems stupid.Yet, most campaigns and GMs don't even allow evil characters among the players. Hell, half the time people are afraid of having any truly evil characters at all, even among more villainous npcs that might even be the main antagonist(s) of the game. Why?
Seriously though, fuck off, frogspammer.
>>96841276A lot of players would feel bad doing evil acts to NPCs. Even in video games, the good route is usually preferred.GMs don't allow evil characters because they wouldn't want roleplay the NPCs after evil PCs have done some serious heinous acts (i.e. rape, torture, etc).Also, you don't want a party where the PCs will turn on each other which would be more likely if the entire party is evil.
>>96841276most people don't like being evil even with roleplay charactersI have this huge friend group where we have this huge RPG project campaign with nearly everyone involved as players or side characters and me and some other guys play as the campaign villains.We mostly just go with the GM's recommended motivations for what we do because otherwise we just made funny anime villains with silly characteristics that just also happen to want to really fucking kill you. We do want to kill the players because it would be really funny but beyond that our characters mostly murder NPCs or follow the GM's plansIt's just that.I mean it's not really fun doing *real* bad things for people who don't like said bad things.A friend of mine GM'ed a really interesting campaign where he offered us evil options that we really didn't want to do, but did anyways due to benefits it would give us, and it made our party very morally grey as we grew used to just fucking over people.
>>96841276Beyond this >>96841393An evil campaign also requires the party to be very self-motivated. You can't just have the innkeeper offer some money to kill rats in the basement, because the players just rob the innkeeper and skip town. And the same goes for most quests. That means you need players who are willing to come up with their own goals and schemes. They need to be the ones taking the initiative to try and rob a bank or assassinate a noble or do whatever else, because their characters motives are inherently more selfish. Another big reason that isn't more popular is because most players simply aren't that motivated.
"Evil campaigns" are just as often something that happens by accident.One incidental child-murder at a time.But then; if they shut down the rape factory, where will the demons work?
>>96841276>From my perspective, "evil" characters are much more free than good characters in their actions and possible roles. Even just defining what their code of conduct is (since it's not a moral one) leads to many more interesting possibilities than with a "good" character. Arbitrarily limiting yourself to characters who you morally agree with just seems stupid.And yet you are limiting yourself to characters who YOU morally agree with, seeing as you clearly don't agree with the fact that you should be constrained by what is right and what is wrong.I diagnose you with got kicked out of your last game for randomly doing evil shit and nogames ever since.
>>96841276It becomes very difficult to keep the characters interests aligned, and many of the players that would gravitate towards an evil campaign would be likely to cause problems. Thus, it's a very bad idea to make an evil character with an unfamiliar group. Combine that with differences in taste (as it only takes one person disliking the idea for it to fail), and there are going to be few of them.>>96845356There is a difference between preferences and morals. That anon prefers evil characters to good characters isn't a moral position, and it doesn't mean he's forcing all of his characters to share that preference.
>>96841276>Arbitrarily limiting yourself to characters who you morally agree with just seems stupid.Ironic you say that given the rest of your post.To answer your (admittedly retarded) question, I have played a Chaotic Evil PC. It was the most boring character I've ever played. That aside, here's a list of problems that will inevitably arise as a result of the party being Evil:>Constant backstabbing meaning nothing gets done and there's a high chance of OOC conflict>Constantly conflicting goals meaning nothing gets done>No access to common things like shops, taverns, and so on because no sane city or town would tolerate a bunch of evil douchebags, especially in a world where heroes exist>The party is almost always being hunted down for their evil deeds by the authorities and any good-aligned NPC adventurers that are hired on by the authorities, who will likely be stronger because they get more work>Hell, half the time people are afraid of having any truly evil characters at all, even among more villainous npcs that might even be the main antagonist(s) of the game.You don't need every villain to be a child-raping murderhobo for them to be truly evil. If you think that's the case, well... that speaks more about you than anyone else, pedo.
>>96841276Most people who are good irl are that way because they want to be good not because they intellectually understand it to be the best moral system to follow or whatever. This desire to be good and aversion to being evil isn't simply turned off or on so it's reflected in how the create and play as characters. The inherently want to be good so why would they choose be evil?
>>96841276>Why aren't evil campaigns more popular?Because murder hobo-ing and derailing the campaign gets boring after about five games. Then you're left friendless and nobody will play with you. It's not worth it unless you absolutely hate yourself and want everyone alienated so you have no regrets about suicide later.
>>96841393>Also, you don't want a party where the PCs will turn on each other which would be more likely if the entire party is evil.Most of the time it's 3rd party shenanigans that cause that. Don't give them an incentive to backstab each other and they won't. As long as there is a long-term plan that benefits everyone in the outcome, they'll stick together. In our first evil campaign the overall goal was to destroy a kingdom with a great plague. What was the benefit? The rogue and fighter invested heavily into fortifying a city. The city would survive and see them as great heroes and they would live like kings. The necromancer got a near limitless supply of bodies to raise. The priestess of Talona got to appease her god.
I've found out that I get uncomfortable if I play evil-er than just callous self-interest.
>>96841442>I have this huge friend group where we have this huge RPG project campaign with nearly everyone involved a-Was hoping for "are huge"
The tendency of evil campaigns to devolve into a game of Buckaroo where you're just waiting for some retard to try and fuck the entire party at the wrong moment killing everyone involved is too much of an issue for most groups to overcome.
>>96841276Because Evil is boring. It's solved. It's more dynamic to play a good guy who does evil actions by accident and has to deal with the consequences. A true Evil Campaign only exists when the evil players get to suffer no actual consequence, otherwise those same players will subconsciously start to stop being evil so as to not suffer annoying setbacks. The novelty wears off fast when everyone is competing for the Alpha Evil in the party.
whenever you tell people its going to play a evil campaign, they suddenly stop acting like resonable people with a brain and randomly go around needlessy rob every shop, kill random people for the lulz , be a total dick to everyone and essentially do every possible thing to throw wrenches into their plans, because apparently being evil means you got to act like a lol random psychopath with no impulse control
>>96841276Most people are followers. They play whatever is trendy, and are unable to innovate. Especially if you play in Spanish, there is more creativity and variety if you play in English.That being said playing an evil campaign can end up with creepy "those guys", murderhoboes and "it's what my character would do" kind of people.
>>96841276Most people like to fantasize about being a better and more popular and more powerful person, and being wicked makes them instinctively uncomfortable.
>>96841276It depends on the context of what is "evil". Your PCs could still be enforcers for a mafia boss but as long as they arn't the ones dunking some dudes family into vats of acid alive in front of them then everything is good.If you are skinning someone's face off and shocking them with electrodes as long as the victim had it coming then everything is handy dandy even though they are contributing to an illegal enterprise that pushes drugs, human trafficking, and stealing among other things.
>>96841276>characters are much more freefrom GMs perspective that's not a good thing
>>96841276I find the premise you’re advancing to be fundamentally flawed. One can play an evil character outside of an “evil campaign” and come up with any number of possible reasons that a character who’s less morally aligned with the rest of the party might still be working towards their goals—even the basic bitch “I’m begrudgingly helping to save the world because the world is where I keep all my stuff” allows it. By contrast, you can’t easily justify a non-evil character participating in most “evil campaign” premises. So, if anything, I’d say that evil campaigns are MORE restrictive, not less, when it comes to character concepts and party dynamics.
>>96846683>because apparently being evil means you got to act like a lol random psychopath with no impulse controlThis. People have such a fucked up conception of evil. Like, apparently you can't be evil without being a murderhobo. Is this what retards think evil is like in real life?
>>96849803>By contrast, you can’t easily justify a non-evil character participating in most “evil campaign” premises.Yes you can, easily. It's literally the same thing as the other way around. Just change the ratio of alignments.Examples:>Two countries are going to war, players participate>Players need to steal some artifact, some are in it for the money, others want to return it to a museum or whatever>Enemy of my enemy >Terrorism>Literally any "ends justify the means" or "necessary evil" scenario
>>96850031To be fair, that is how a lot of evil people act in real life. Check out how many bullies, sadists, and low-functioning sociopaths act. If this were medieval times, they'd be the bandits murderhobos hunt down all the time. You definitely have your long-term planners and amoral social climbers, but they're far outnumbered by the masses of impulsive retarded thugs in existence.
Dunno what the fuck everyone is on about in this thread.You can absolutely have a evil party without it being some lolsorandom drivel. Dark elves in many settings are a good example. They arent beyond working with other races to pursue their goals. Working as a team is expected. Random bloodletting at every instance is a shit way to progress the more meaningful matters.You have all the options from diplomacy to horrific rituals to get to your goals. Its not even objectively evil. If the perspective is to advance the goals of dark elves at the cost of others, from player perspective its doing the right thing.
Because 99% of tables won't allow rape, and rape is the only purpose of evil
>>96850208Why would my evil PC care about raping? I get no benefits from rape.
>>96841286Do you plan to do this every time you see a Pepe until you die, or do you think there's some threshold where your bitching will change peoples' behavior?
>>96841491This is the correct answer. Good campaigns are roleplaying on easy mode. "I do hero stuff because I am a good hero!" For GMs hooks can be half baked and heroes will bit, players can write one dimensional characters with little thought to motivation. You can do better than this, but you always have braindead good guys vs evil to fall back on, so you can only fail so hard.Evil throws that all out the window. Just burning, looting, and pillaging isn't much of a campaign. You burned the town down, what next? For an evil campaign to work well players need to understand their character's motivations and have more depth than just "I'm evil so I do bad stuff." The campaign is far more player driven. GM's need to think more carefully about the players goals.Most players don't bring that kind of energy to the table. All the safety nets and easy modes are gone when go you evil.
>>96841276being an evilchad is the privledge of the GM and the GM alonewhy should I share?
Personally I think the most fun way to play evil campaign is to allow players to believe they are doing good and right thong but their actions would be outright evil and/or cause more horrendous things to happen.
>>96854334this is gay 90s shit
>>96841276As others have said, most people don't have a conception of evil other than bastardmaxxing and low level thuggery. Like, they can see the mountaintop of corpses the great evils lounge on, but think the only way to get there is to personally rape, kill, rob everyone in their way. And then when this excessive murderhoboing finally catches up to them, they piss and moan instead of trying to cover up their misdeeds or skipping town.On the other end, GMs often succumb to a need to play God, with divine lightning taking the form of smiting individual unsavory PCs instead of following off of logical consequences for their actions. Combined with the above, it means the evil campaigns are structured like the story of your average gangbangers; riding high then dying in a ditch. Poetically accurate I suppose.
Somebody post the skaven backstab circle
>>96841276Fiction usually allows for an escape from evil assholes, rather than constantly remind you of them.
