Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I made a homebrew campaign with some friends and gave them a more or less summary of what was to be expected of it. When they turned in their characters, all of them were either neutral or evil.
If the campaign is about saving the world, how can I convince them to do so?
They may not need any convincing. Evil is predominantly about egotistical self-interest, and little could be more in their self-interest than the world not ending.
Pg 122 PHB defines evil:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.
Unwilling heroes that do the job, because nobody else is doing it and it needs to be done are a classic archetype of fantasy, and can be quite rewarding to role-play, too.
See this Q&A on how to motivate a group of evil characters to work together, too.
The alignment definitions for D&D 5e are somewhat vague, which was the case in previous editions as well. I think your first step is to find out just what they think it means to be evil. As evil characters, what are their goals? If they want to be able to rape, pillage, and murder their way across your game world, and you're wanting to tell stories about heroes who save the world, then that's going to be a problem.
I think a lot of times, though, players have a less grandiose idea of what it means to be evil. Maybe they want to be a jaunty group of smugglers and thieves, living on the outskirts of society, pitting their wits against law enforcement and the powers-that-be, but never failing to help out the little guy. In that case, they would be easy to motivate to saving the world. It could even be more interesting if they have to fight law-enforcement in order to save the world.
They might also just want to focus on amassing a great deal of power for themselves in whatever way is most expedient. In that case, you could show them that the easy path to doing that would be to save the world. There are side benefits to being a hero in the eyes of society, and looting isn't frowned on when you're doing it to the BBEG and his goons.
Or maybe they've been irritated in the past by DMs who wouldn't let them waterboard the goblin prisoner who knew where and when the captured prince was going to be sacrificed, and they're trying to free themselves from those kinds of moral dilemmas, so they can just "win" the game. In that case, you just need to reassure them that you're not going to throw trolley problems at them, and then punish them for making the "wrong" choice.
Once you understand why they want to run evil characters, and what to expect from them, then you can decide how, or whether, those characters will fit into the game you want to run.
I once ran a game for one of my nephews when he was around 13. He had read the Dragonlance books and wanted to run a Raistlin-type character--a wizard, who has a lust for power and seeks to attain it in any way he can. He actually named the character Rassalan.
This was back in second edition, when kits were the rage. He chose the Witch kit, because it would provide his character with a magic item at first level. In the kit, it said that the character acquires the item by making a deal with a fiend. I chose to have him roleplay the deal.
The item he wanted was a Dagger of Venom, and he got it from an imp who wanted him to use it to kill his mentor. He readily agreed. Then he returned to his home, and I roleplayed an interaction between him and his mentor. His mentor told him that Rassalan had learned all he could teach him, so he gave him 200gp and told him he should move to Waterdeep where he could learn more about the Art.
I made the guy so nice and personable, that my nephew decided he liked him too much to kill him. Basically, when it came to performing an act that really would have felt evil to him, he balked. That wasn't what he had in mind when he chose to play an evil character. He wanted the game to be about his character becoming insanely powerful, rather than running around helping little old ladies across the street (figuratively). He didn't think that he could get that kind of game playing a good character, so he chose the evil alignment. A better discussion beforehand might have revealed that.
To finish the story of his character, the imp showed up that night, and said, "What are you doing? We have a deal. Go kill him." Rassalan refused, so the imp demanded his dagger back. Makes sense, right? My nephew wanted that dagger too bad, though, so Rassalan refused to return it. A fight ensued, and a first level wizard was just no match for an imp, not even when armed with a Dagger of Venom. He was killed. The mentor woke up, though, and destroyed the imp. He had Rassalan raised from the dead, and paid for it by selling the dagger. :)
Frame challenge: don't.
It's important that players create characters that work with the campaign. If you're running a campaign that is intended to have the PCs be world saving heroes then you should communicate that to your players at session zero (or character creation) time and insist that they make characters that fit into the campaign.
This applies as much to rocking up with evil characters as it does to creating characters called Bobby McBobFace and The Great Spoonhumper in a campaign that is intended to be serious, or turning up with a party of pacifists for the combat heavy campaign you intend to run.
Instead of trying to fit unsuitable characters in, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss with your players and get everyone on the same page about the kind of campaign that you intend to run.
Revenge: The Big Bad has hurt them personally, and they want retribution. Crossing their plans to destroy the world is just a side-effect.
Lust for power: Destroying the world requires immense power. They want that power for themselves. Either to rule the world or so they can be the ones to destroy it.
I know this definition of "Evil" and "Good" will not agree with a great many people but I personally like it to be very simple, so it works for me during the campaign-design phase.
Another thing I like about these very simple definitions, is that it becomes easy to set up situations where "Good" characters are too weak to do what must be done. (at least through the eyes of Evil)
Look at Batman. How much better off would Gotham be if he just killed a lot of his enemies? The thing with Batman is that the story sets up a narrative where it ultimately pays off to keep the enemy you know rather than open a power vacuum where someone else will come along, but what if the theme of the setting was that Good is weak and allows things to go on spreading more suffering rather than actually solving anything?
What happens if people don't have the guts to take a stand and say some things, some boundaries, are worth more than life? Imagine the sort of groups that rise to power, and the restrictions they might place to make absolutely sure that Death does not occur to the best of their (corrupted or incompetent) abilities. Imagine the resources and wealth they may amass to back up those goals. Imagine the consequences, especially in regards to the Religions and Gods of the setting - where there may be an entire "soul economy" collapse.
Imagine the power and wealth that can be obtained by overthrowing these groups, only doable by the players because they are the only ones willing to kill, no matter whether the players establish a structure of obedience or overthrow everything into anarchy. No matter whether the players seek personal wealth, the joy of killing, the power of knowledge at any cost, or the power of leadership.
I propose setting up the campaign according to this definition of Good and Evil, even if the book-definition is much more blurry, but as always you will need to communicate with players to determine what sort of thing causes their character to lean towards "Evil" to understand what you're working with.
Just remember that ultimate Good is just as stifling for the self as ultimate Evil is for others; it's a matter of boundaries between self and other and when people are too good they give away too much of themselves and don't live for themselves enough to actually be accomplished and happy. They become animals in a zoo. Alive, but not living life.
( if that makes you want to make an argument, then it is gray enough area to provide sufficient play-space beyond just being murder-hobos - that is what a simplistic definition of good and evil gives you, a space to create nuance )
