Justifying Your Wickedness: Evil Campaigns

Let's delve into a topic of tabletop RPGs that is a bit more controversial than most: what about running evil campaigns? That is, campaigns in which the party members are predominantly bad guys motivated by far less than noble goals. There are a lot of different positions that are held about this idea, ranging from nixing the concept entirely to endorsing it solely to enforce creative freedom at the game table.

But when it comes to evil campaigns, my main question is the same as it would be for any campaign: what is your purpose? What do you hope to achieve by setting your game to these parameters? In any normal campaign, the moral alignment of the characters is irrelevant to the main premise of the game. But I notice that a lot of people simply say 'Evil Campaign' as if that is an appropriate descriptor in and of itself. But, if you think about it, we don't describe any other game as 'good campaign' or 'neutral campaign.' They are simply a regular gaming session with characters of certain moral proclivities.

So what this basically comes down to is that you should never play an evil campaign for its own sake. That would demonstrate ignorance of both the nature of an RPG and the nature of morality. First off, evil can describe a wide range of things. But there are also a lot of things it does NOT describe. Some players I run into seem unclear as to what 'evil' actually means in the context of tabletop RPGs.

By the rules of Dungeons and Dragons, and by extension other game systems, evil is consciously taking action to hurt someone who has not caused you harm. This means that there are a number of actions that, while inappropriate in the real world, are not actually evil in the sense of game logistics:

Seducing a person away from their lover? Not evil, the target of affection is fully capable of making their own choices regarding their romantic liazons.

Seduction under false pretenses? Most likely evil, you can't consider it fully consensual if someone has based their romantic decisions on falsehoods.  

Torturing a prisoner for information? Not evil, an action that can be justified by a morally neutral character.

Torturing a prisoner for revenge? Evil, it's harm being inflicted for personal satisfaction.

Executing an enemy combatant? Not evil, a lot of characters and cultures have a fight-to-the-death mentality or lethal code of personal justice. 

Executing a civilian? Definitely evil, they have no stake in the fight.

Stealing? Certainly not an evil action. Neutral thieves do it all the time, and Robin Hood is an example of a classic good thief.

Stealing knowingly from those who can't afford it? Like orphans and beggars? Now that would be an evil action, certainly.

Now I'm not condemning or endorsing any of these actions for players at the game table, that's up to your own group and their personal preferences. Nor do any of these definitions reflect my views on real world morality. I am trying to clarify and define the issue so that we can get beyond calling any game that is not entirely "Lawful Good" an "Evil Campaign."

If you are running an evil campaign solely for the sake of acting out violent or anti-social power fantasies in which there are no limitations or consequences for the PC's actions... I really don't know what to say except to recommend seeking out healthier and more therapeutic outlets for those impulses. Role playing is a wonderful tool for creative expression, but like any form of expression, there are ways to use it that can be unhealthy and harmful. Being aware of this, and considerate of the feelings and sensibilities of the group, it is up to you as a player or DM to decide where to draw these lines to maintain a wholesome and friendly atmosphere at your game table.

If you truly want to play an evil aligned game to explore a different style or narrative perspective, you should be able to justify its purpose in your pitch. What is it that makes the game 'evil?' What are the characters' goals and could they change over the course of the game? A good story with a band of evil-doers typically requires some sort of unified goal or shared motivation that drives it forward, so they aren't just causing wanton destruction without purpose. You might even consider the fact that not every character would need to be technically "evil" in a campaign focused on bad guys. There are all sorts of morally grey archetypes that could fit well into scenarios like these.

This kind of thoughtful planning could lead to some very intriguing concepts for game sessions, such as: 

A band of Imperial Stormtroopers assigned to enforce the will of The Empire, right or wrong. 

A group of supervillains trying to save the world from destruction after aliens have abducted its heroes. 

A gang of cut-throat thieves pulling off a series of elaborate heists in a dystopian future.

Think about what would make an interesting story in written or cinematic form before you lay it down as the basis of your game. Why should we care about the bad guys? What makes them so bad anyway? Now you're not running an evil game for its own sake, now you are telling a real story. And that's a big part of what role playing games are all about!

One last thing to note: There is one restriction that I always enforce in my gaming groups when it comes to moral alignment... Chaotic Evil should never be used for player characters. Chaotic Evil characters represent pure malevolent id. They make terrible teammates, and their purely selfish and sadistic motivations don't provide any room for development or growth. A character  who follows this alignment not only acts on a whim, but also acts with intent to cause harm to others for their own pleasure. Look at how The Joker treats his allies in The Dark Knight. He quite literally throws them under the bus when given the opportunity. That's the epitome of chaotic evil. Don't inflict this on your gaming group. It's rude and obnoxious. Be considerate of your gaming group and they will surely return the favor.

Happy ventures!