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.

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.

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.