20
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
20 points (95.5% liked)
D&D Next - 5e Discussion
2 readers
2 users here now
A place to discuss the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons, the fifth edition, known during the playtest as D&D Next.
Join our discord! https://discord.gg/dndnext
-- Rules --
- Be Civil. Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
- Use Clear, Concise Titles.
- Limit Self-Promotional Links. External links to blogs, kickstarters, storefronts, YouTube channels, etc, must be related to DnD and posted no more than once every 14 days. Affiliate links are never allowed.
This is a new community and the rules are in flux. Please bear with us (and give your feedback!) as we navigate building this new community. Thank you!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One key problem is that a "villain" is generally more powerful than players are for most of the campaign - using that as a starting point can wind up introducing serious issues with normlessness. Becoming a villain should be the aspiration and the apex accomplishment of the campaign, rather than the starting point for it.
It's more necessary than in other campaigns to model a world where there's an in-world reason why other parties of higher level aren't straight-up murderhoboing their way to ruling the kingdom. Or even that they did - but how would those guys respond to your players doing that in "their" kingdom? Worlds need a reason for players to follow the rules - not that they are challenging you as DM and you need to punish them for playing 'wrong' - but that the world exists in a state where murderhobo isn't optimal play, even if you're evil - that no matter how strong a party of five get, there are still other forces that can put them in check somehow, and when they finally break that rule ... the campaign ends. They won.
As a DM, often you need to make sure the game contains bigger and stronger rails in the early stages of the campaign. Maybe that's some goal that the party agreed to above-table, maybe it's some context of the party like working for someone bigger, meaner, and eviller - but the call to adventure is much more tenuous with evil characters. For good parties, they stumble through fetchquests and ratting until they stumble across an evil scheme that needs foiling - but for evil characters, there's not really the same "diabolically good conspiracy" that they need to foil before the timer runs out. They need to initiate, rather than react. Or you need to provide that initiation for them, as DM.
It's very easy for a directionless evil party to just wander the countryside robbing shops and killing people, if you're not giving them something more concrete to do and they're not creating it themselves.
You can still save the kingdom as a party full of evil bastards. Baron van Dyne can't usurp the crown with the aid of an army of elven barbarians, because the crown is not his to steal. It's mine.
Just like any party, you need a motivation that's compatible with cooperation and the narrative in some capacity. The only difference is that in stereotypical 'good' parties, players can just default to 'save the kingdom because it is Right' rather than having to think about it.
For sure - bad people can do good things for bad reasons. Hell, bad people can do good things for bad reasons and still be popular and viewed as positive or even "good" by some or even most people affected.
A king being possessive of their crown is a great example - Machiavelli's prince placed a great deal of emphasis on arguing that a ruler who solely wants to retain power for the sake of holding power must still use their power in a way that is positive and is perceived as positive. The most effective way to keep power for selfish reasons are to keep the economy and the judiciary stable and to keep the common folk happy and pacified. The happier "everyone" is with the King's rule, the more power can be abused against individuals without leading to revolt.
This is kind of what I was getting at there - that good for goodness' sake is not an inherent motivation for evil parties, so a party lacking the motivation of a moral compass needs alternative motives to replace it, otherwise they wind up directionless. That can still be a self-imposed moral code, like "no women or children" or "slavery crosses a line even for me" - and that can have good or bad or neutral moral outcomes regardless of its motivations.
Just that, above-table, the players and the DM need to acknowledge that need and contribute to addressing it, or evil campaigns very easily degenerate into un-fun gameplay experiences due to aimless normlessness.