So I didn't know where else to put this. I pretty sure non of my players check out these forums so it should be pretty much safe.

Here's the deal. This group which I am about to DM want to play an evil campaign and I'm not going to argue. They are all going to play CE characters because they think there isn't enough freedom in playing Lawful. Again, I'm not arguing.
The problem is, what kind of hoops can I make them jump through? It isn't easy planning a campaign for a group of evil scumbags. So what I'm asking is basically a small feedback on the ideas I've had so far.

It starts with a contact with an old goblin (perhaps a blue goblin as in the EPH) who claims that he has foreseen the four of them conquering the world. However, only one of them will rule it in the end, but it will take the power of all four to actually take it over. He tells them that in order for this prophesy to come true he will become their loyal servant and advicor.
In truth, there is no prophesy. The goblin is after an artifact which will give him divinity which he will then use to kill the last living PC once they have killed each other over who will rule the world. If and when they find out about the upcoming backstabbing, they will hopefully have reached far enough for the goblin to become unnecessary for their world conquest.

The world this takes part in is divided almost equally into two large continents with seriously vast ocean between them. That ocean also holds many islands, which will spice up the travel from one continent to the other. The continent where the PCs start is heavily influenced by the negative plane while the other is equally influenced by the positive plane. This means that the PCs first opponents will be other evil people. On that continent they will get the chance to build their starting empire and army. They would then lead the army over the vast ocean (meeting dangers and weird homebrewed creatures on the way) and to the other continent which they will then conquer. On that continent is the previously mentioned artifact, well hidden from the common eye.

The first part of the campaign is their own continent. There they must first gain control over an army. The easiest way to do this is by defeating the leader of a chaotic tribe. Once that has been done, they must defeat (preferably kill) the five overlords (of Eeevil!) and the minor lords will then follow the PCs' lead.

The second part will be the ocean with many islands and sea-battle (possibly the longest part), and the third part will be the opposite continent where they must battle heroes, archons and the other forces of good. It is possible that there will be a fourth part where the goblin has ascended to divinity and the PCs must defeat him and his forces. By the end of the third part, I expect the players to travel from lvl 7 up to epic level.

Any feedback? Ideas? Pointless rambling, much like what I have been doing up 'til now? Comments?
The four players are playing a Paladin of Slaughter (UA variant), Favored Soul of Nerull, Lolth worshiping human sorceress, and possibly a rogue or something like that. The fourth player hasn't decided as far as I know.

One thing that you need to be extremely careful of is players pissing off other players too much. If one player kills off another on high(er) level he is not going to appreciate it. UNLESS you have a backup plan: like: now you're dead, but you can come back as...

you understand what I mean.

I have DMed an evil campaign once. It was a simple story: the good forces of the world had driven all evil back into a valley, and the evil guys wanted out. The players were supposed to take over the world again, and were going to find out that evil never really died (you can't just whipe out evil, because it's in everybody). Unfortunately the campaign never lasted beyond the first session and that was nowhere near enough for them to come past the first real obstacles.
The reason it died was that some players didn't like playing evil as much as they had thought.

It takes a strong and witty DM to host a game for just evil chars, since the first thing players will do is mess with each others characters. Think ahead, and take steps before they do.

It's a good advice. One of the evil players is also going to DM a good campaign for the same group (with me as a player this time) so we can switch between sessions if we get bored or anything.

Two of these evil players have already tried once (or twice) playing evil characters and they found it really fun and interesting, which is probably why they wanted an evil campaign to start with. It ended in the death of everyone except these two players as one of them killed the rest in their sleep but spared the last one. Something about her overhearing the others planning on killing her but the one who was then spared didn't like the idea. I think it was their favorite time roleplaying

Anyway, yes there might be some grudge if they start killing each other, although I think they aren't the sort of group that will become seriously angry and leave the group entirely. That is why I decided to throw in the bit where the goblin tells them that taking over the world isn't something they can do on their own.

When DMing an evil party always make sure that there's enough of a reward for the characters.
If there isn't enough of a reward they'll just ransack a nearby merchant. (I speak from experance.)

So we had our first session last night. It turned out that they were interested enough by the idea that they would like to continue. Unfortunately, one of the players won't be able to game until 9-10 pm, which means we will be half-asleep before we finish. That is what happened last night.

Also, I have never seen as many fumbles in one encounter as last night. Warriors were dropping weapons, weapons were getting sliced in half, and mages were falling to the ground. It was getting difficult to find an original bad luck, and being very tired didn't help. Every player fumbled at least once and I as a DM fumbled at least twice.

So they met with the Goblin called Gafts who offered them his service in taking over the world so that he could "see a life-long dream come true". He sent them after a tribal leader who had already conquered all the tribal-lands and was about to launch an attack at the world with the massive army he had taken over. By killing him, the group of villains would effectively take over the whole tribal army. We didn't manage to get that far, but we did finish a battle with seven goblinoids. Apparently, they are playing sadistic characters since they tortured those who they captured alive and then killed them. It was really messy and meant as a message to the tribal-leader.
Best of all, it was fun, even though we were about to fall asleep most of the time.

Remember the power of "alignement change". A group of CE would have a hard time working together as easch is out only for themselves. As they work together they run the chance of changing into lawful evil. Or perhaps a chaotic neutral. Party squabbles are to be expected in a CE group.

Yes, CE characters run a great risk of leaning towards Lawful as long as they stay together as a group. But thinking that they are doomed to become Lawful should be avoided. Just because they are CE doesn't mean they can't work together. I personally think Alignment is overrated in a sense that DMs tend to look at individual incidents rather than the whole. If a CE character saves his buddy while slaughtering a village of halflings I would still say that he is CE. And yes, CE guys and gals can have friends just like anybody else and they can value that friendship. It is how they behave overall that should matter.

Alignment is overrated IMO.

I kind of agree, but then why just do away with the alignment issue?

I have played in two evil campaigns before, and one worked whereas the other didn't. The first involved me playing a NE assassin type, and she made friends/enemies just like any other player. The only problem with her was that it just got a bit dull playing a stereotype. There's only so much slaughter and carnage you can wreak before becoming a bit apathetic.

The second was on rdinn a number of years ago. Yanamari ran a game called Wardrums in Sendria. It worked, I think, because no one really saw themselves as 'evil' for the sake of being 'evil'.

..would have been the "Detect [Alignment]" and "Protection againt [Alignment]" spells and all that. Even though they are evil and don't really need these spells, the heroic adversaries are mostly good and probably would use them. That is the number one reason why we still use the alignment system.

CE can indeed have friends. But if you are playing a selfish so and so, then you will act in a selfish manner. CE people tend to have veryfew real friends, because they manipulate and use them.

The Wardrums in Sendria game only had one CE character, and that by special request - everyone else was NE or LE. Evil is fine, but CE is very, very difficult.

Alignment is not overrated if you play it as if the character simply 'knows' his or her way of thinking and acting is the "right" way. Evil characters can see themselves as the "good" guys because they induce a little "real world" suffering into the lives of others. The good alignments can be seen as "evil" or "bad" guys, because they are against thie sort of behavior. It's a simple turn of the tables.

In a "good" campaign, the "evil" guys are the baddies, to be eliminated or made to pay for their transgressions. In an "evil" campaign, what's to keep the evil party from having the same attitude? The labels "good" and "evil" are from an "outside" or "objective" viewpoint. From a subjective viewpoint, they mean the same thing to either side. Evil looks at good as being evil, and good looks at evil as being evil ...

One of my DMs does something similar. He is constantly reiterating that using "detect alignment" in a city full of ban worshipers etc. will ping a lot of Lawful Good because in THEIR eyes they're good. I don't know if I agree with all of his argument there, but you must remember that alignment is very subjective.

Not sure I agree with the whole "Lawful Deluded" idea for an alignment, but that is an interesting way to look at it, anyway.

I handle detect alignment like this (and I believe the rulebooks back me up): most of the time, if you detect for alignment, you get nothing. Sure, if someone is actively participating in/planning an evil act ("I'm gonna go stick a knife in that guy's ribs"), you sense it. A corrupt city guard sitting there eating an apple does not, however, come across as particularly evil.

The only exception to this are those who have lived exceptional lives - and even then, this is usually the case is situations where there is a divine or arcane element to their lives. A necromancer who regularly tortures people to death and then animates their corpses is probably gonna show up as evil. A self-sacrifing priest who has spent their life giving to the poor and healing the injured is probably gonna show up as good.

I do this for realism's sake, as well as to take away the annoying crutch of "Hey, Bob! Detect evil so we can ignore the plot and just go kill the bad guy!"

I suppose there's nothing quite as annoying as the paladin who consciously detects evil. It certainly can break an interestingly designed encounter if you play it that the paladin can detect more than just intent.

... to open a can of worms like this.

Ginafae brings up a good point. Detecting alignment is not necessarily detecting intent. A person (regardless of profession) that "intends" to open a hole between someone's ribs may be doing it because he believes it is necessary, or that it is simply not wrong because it's justifiable in his own mind, for his own reasons. So his intent is not "evil" in his mind. It may even be thought of as good, even though it causes a death or maiming. Detecting alignment on this person would not detect his "intent" as evil, but whether or not his action was "evil" according to the morals and ethics of the person divining it (subjective).

And I had not looked at it before as you mentioned. Olan. If this same would-be perpetrator was thinking about stabbing the aforementioned person while sitting outside smoking a pipe and waiting for his intended prey to arrive, detecting evil would not detect any, for it had not happened -- yet. And the detection does not allow for precognition or "possible outcome" or "selective telepathy".