PDA

View Full Version : Playing an Evil Character



WarKitty
2010-06-04, 11:36 AM
Ok, so there've been a couple threads/threadjacks (mostly threadjacks) lately on playing an evil character. I've had personal good and bad experiences with this.

Bad: Your classic chaotic evil psychopath. Sorcerer decided to fireball half the party mid-game, resulting in 3 players (myself included) quitting. Fortunately fairly easily resolved, it was a short campaign so we let them finish it out and resolved to discuss rules in the future.

Good: I actually had my NE druid play with a good-to-neutral party for an entire campaign. Now, mind, he wasn't Evil in the same sense of blow-everything-up. He was evil in the sense that he firmly believed that civilization was a perversion of the natural order that ought to be destroyed in order to restore balance. He also had enough sense to realize that keeping the meatshields/healers/buffers around was good for his health.

Anyways, I'm bored. Let the debates begin! Just play nice everyone...

Comet
2010-06-04, 11:40 AM
In my opinion story comes first, characters second. That is, every PC should be there to advance the story, take it into cool new directions.
If the players agree that having one Evil guy in the party would make for some cool conflicts and they're all interested in exploring those themes, then roll on.

If, however, we've just agreed to play Knights & Priests Adventure to Save the World from Dragons, then having a random necromancer there just doesn't fit. It's a group effort, some communication is required.

Umael
2010-06-04, 12:10 PM
I mentioned it in the other thread, but I think it bears repeating for this thread.

The trouble is that what constitutes "Good" and "Evil" is subjective. Even if the concepts are concrete and objective within the game*, the game itself is played in the framework of our subjective reality - hence, the concepts themselves become subjective.

In other words, what defines "Evil" changes, and while there is some common ground, there is no way to be sure that everything one person believes to be "Evil" will be considered "Evil" by a second person - and when one of those people is the DM and the other is a player, the trouble starts right then.

* - Note that I said "the game", not just "D&D". Even if the game doesn't use an alignment system, the concept of "Good" and "Evil" will exist in most any RPG you can mention.

Particular to D&D, the alignment system has people thinking "I am X alignment, so I must do Y behavior," rather than "But I do Y behavior, I am X alignment." The alignment system is supposed to be a guide to allow the behavior of a character to have a mechanical effect in game. Murder a bunch of blind orphans and even picking up a Holy Avenger falls into the category of "Best Not".

gbprime
2010-06-04, 12:17 PM
Alignment is a clumsy framework for behavior. You want to be nasty, be nasty. You want to be principled and fair, do it. The letters under the alignment category are only a vague descriptor.

Being evil in a party is easy. You just need motive to help them out, have a common goal, etc. If you don't cause them constant headache or heartache, they'll have no real reason to kick you to the curb.

Let's take a sadistic pyromaniac, for example. Indulging in those things all the time is going to drive most parties to kick you out. But talking about them, expressing a love for them, and letting the players keep you from acting on them... that's good party dynamic and role playing. Then when that scene eventually comes up where the party decides that yes, they have to burn something down... another great character moment achieved.

Mongoose87
2010-06-04, 12:24 PM
One of the biggest things to consider/remember is that evil people have friends and aren't automatically hostile to everyone they encounter. Just because you low ball the peasant selling a family heirloom to feed his kids doesn't mean stab him, too. Stabbed people stop providing opportunities. Even a Chaotic Evil character doesn't have to go out of his way to be evil beyond social conventions.

Telonius
2010-06-04, 12:24 PM
There are varying degrees of evil. Not every evil person is a puppy-kicking psychopath. Unless you have a Paladin in the party, you'll probably be able to get along with others to some degree, even if you're Chaotic Evil. Alignment in general* is just about an outlook. If rules annoy you and you don't care if your actions result in people being hurt, you're probably chaotic evil. In fact, that sort of character would probably be drawn towards freelance mercenary work (aka "adventuring"). Outcome's the same as the good characters, but the motivation's different.

* - Determining whether a specific action is lawful/chaotic or good/evil is a separate question. A single action almost never determines a whole alignment, and is usually only an issue for classes with shutoff switches like Paladin, Cleric, and Druid.

Ruinix
2010-06-04, 12:27 PM
my opinion is players become before pcs, if the party is mature and agree with the idea of having an evil char then is ok.


i have like everyone a few bad experiences, the worst i can remember was an evil jerk who like to cast AOE spells all the time when the melees was on fight. cause "he like deliver pain to people" that wasn't end well, after a few stupid things he do and a heat argue we end for ever with that guy.


and i play an LE ranger who hunt people for money, :D the nice bounty hunter. anyway he loooove to toture people, and if they was of other race diferent to human he enjoy more even! haha but had a nice wis and int so he know where, when and with whom take his pleasures XDDD
a few times i manage my self for make some of my party incriminated for my doings XD hahaha was an hilarius time.

hamishspence
2010-06-04, 12:40 PM
There are varying degrees of evil. Not every evil person is a puppy-kicking psychopath. Unless you have a Paladin in the party, you'll probably be able to get along with others to some degree, even if you're Chaotic Evil. Alignment in general* is just about an outlook. If rules annoy you and you don't care if your actions result in people being hurt, you're probably chaotic evil. In fact, that sort of character would probably be drawn towards freelance mercenary work (aka "adventuring"). Outcome's the same as the good characters, but the motivation's different.

* - Determining whether a specific action is lawful/chaotic or good/evil is a separate question. A single action almost never determines a whole alignment, and is usually only an issue for classes with shutoff switches like Paladin, Cleric, and Druid.

There's also the kind of character who would be a hero (kind, compassionate, brave, etc) if it wasn't for the fact that they behave badly toward certain beings.

in Faerun, the Eldath Veluthraa (Victorious Blade of rhe People) are an elf supremacist organization that tend to reserve their evil acts for humans and half elves- and believe that they are the good guys.

Mauther
2010-06-04, 12:47 PM
As others have pointed out, its all about the story. You can have a character that's not working 100% with the party, as long as he's not dragging everything off plot. That's not a good/evil breakdown. The thief who insists upon cutting purses is no more distracting from the game than the paladin who insists that "the village is unclean, we won't save them till they repent" The character who steals from his team mates is not more disruptive than the cleric who refuses to heal a party member because their ethos is conflicting. Inter party conflict is fine as long as the conflict enhances the gameplay. Its usually good manners to at least make sure the conflict is acceptable to the party as a whole, out of character. Sometimes that means taking people aside and telling them what your planning, other times (if your really familiar with the group) that might mean just weighing the expectations of the group. As a general rule, I would never try a character like that with a group that I was not very familiar/comfortable with.

My problem with these discussions is so often the evil character is just a bad character. Why would your serial killer go adventuring in the first place? Why would your pyromaniac go jumping from town to town wasting his time on dungeon crawls when he can just teleport and burn villages? There's a wide variety of reasons why evil characters would be drawn towards adventuring as a life style, in fact there's a pretty strong arguement to be made that their moral flexibility makes them better suited. But its just astounding to me how many players discard the personal well being portion of evil. My knight of slaughter may love killing people, but he's going to at least make an attempt to stay on the cleric's good side so I can get some handy healing. Tommy the Rogue may really enjoy stealing gems, but he's more likely to get his hands on treasure if he's got that Neutral ranger and CG druid backing him up.

Best evil character I had in a campaign I was running, guy went 14 levels (5th-19th) never really committing an evil act, certainly nothing visible to the party - maybe the random NPC pick pocket and I think their was a potential prisoner throat slitting to keep the party moving. So was he actually good or neutral? Heck no, it was a save the world campaign, he lived in the world, so he was looking out for #1. We reviewed his actions after the campaign (and after he abandoned the team to die in the final battle - world was already saved so he was done) and he pointed out he never really took an action that wasn't at least nominally in his self interest. Even the few acts that others thought were charitable were done with the intention of improving the party's survivability and therefor his own. His character was abolutely evil, just not stupid.

AmusingSN
2010-06-04, 12:52 PM
I play in a silly 4th Edition evil game.

We're all goblinoids and we're devoted to the traditional goblin culture (which in this setting includes such elements as living underground, trapping our homes, eating sentient beings, and lucha libre).

Our characters are alternatively devoted to wracking up the most murders, eating human infants, and killing adventurers.

There is conflict among the PCs, largely based around my chaotic evil goblin druid (his luchador name is El Chupacabra) who wants to eat all the PCs.

How we handle it is we assume they have fended me off enough that I can't be successful unless they let their guard down. And that I am somewhat lax in my pursuit of eating the other party members due to the fact that hanging around them gives me much opportunity to eat adventurers and children!

We don't actually play out any of the party-conflict stuff, we just narrate it to an amusing effect.

That being said. A serious evil game would probably be disturbing. I've had neutral/unaligned characters do some pretty morally questionable things in normal D&D games. I'd shudder to think what might happen if the party was EVIL.

Nero24200
2010-06-04, 01:01 PM
I don't have a problem with evil characters, it's just that evil PC's are more likely to break one of my "PC rules". I have two...

1: Make a character that will work with the party - This one is fairly simplistic. If someone makes a character who wouldn't reasonably work with others well, it's not allowed. So the over-the-top-paladin who smites someone for even thinking of doing something mildly chaotic or the assassin who backstabs and kills party members isn't allowed.

2: Make a character that fits - So if I say "Okay guys, pirate-esc campaign where your characters are likely to spend most of their time on a boat or desert islands" I'd rather not hear "Great, I have this Samurai-Robot idea I've been wanting to try for a while". Fortunately, I rather have issues with players breaking this particular rule.

However, I'm always reluctant with evil PC's, since they can very easily break rule 1. In some really bad cases, I've seen players only play evil characters purely so they can break rule 1 and use "It's IC" as an excuse.

Ruinix
2010-06-04, 01:05 PM
the best 2 images of pure evil party i had in my memory. both from LotR 2.

the discusion between the uruks and the goblins about eat the hobbits. how end? party fight!!! arrrrrr

discusion about who take the loot ? "that shiny shirt" again uruks of morgul and orcs of mordor. how it end? party vs party fight!!! arrrrrrr

TheEmerged
2010-06-04, 01:08 PM
Most of my 3.x playtime was as a Lawful Evil kobold psion/telepath. Of course, it was an evil\monsters campaign, so it probably wasn't the problem it would be if you were the lone black-hat...

Yukitsu
2010-06-04, 01:25 PM
Two cardinal rules, and one caveat.

1: Never against the party.
2: Not against people the party relies upon or trusts.

Caveat: Unless you cannot be caught.

So long as people play evil like that in the group I'm with, they do fine. People who avoid following those simple rules, often get killed by the rest of the party, because why would the party ever trust a stupid man who is out to get them?

gallagher
2010-06-04, 01:33 PM
when i play evil characters, i like to have one of the three following themes, normally, and sometimes more than one.

A) very sadistic, will capture people and interrogate them, then heal them, then interrogate, and all in the most tormenting fashion possible. i once made a halfling shopkeeper who owned the store whose cellar had the doorway to the enemy stronghold break his own hand in order to let his family survive

B) i like to have a theme where i want to eradicate the world of one race. while most see this as being goblins or some type of evil, i like to go for Aasimars, or some other sort of characteristicly goody-goody race, as long as a teammate isnt playing one of them.

C) i like to burn towns down. i once had a party of good teammates and i had a ring of true neutrality, and i went into the town where we were headed who was housing a powerful enemy while the party slept. i burned the whole town down (it was more of a village, but the guy felt well protected as it was small, obscure and out of the way).

totally levelled up for that town though

Machiavellian
2010-06-04, 01:34 PM
I like to play the guy who is a sadistic bastard, but is willing to make sacrifices to achieve a goal. I once played a LE Yuan-Ti Wizard who's sole plan was to take Vecna's empty seat (being as how Vecna is now a god, our Undying Council is missing a Lich) and is willing to work with the PCs because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Umael
2010-06-04, 05:51 PM
One of my personal favorite concepts that I haven't had the chance to explore is a good/evil "romance". There are several variations on this:

Both love each other but don't realize that the other is in love with them and so don't trust the other.
Both love each other but are constantly thwarted by the other's morals and ethics.
(The one I want to do most) The one who is evil loves the one who is good, but hides both the alignment and the fact that s/he is in love with the other.

I kinda imagine a scene where they have captured one of the enemy soldiers who is refusing to talk. In annoyance, the good PC steps outside for a moment to cool down. The evil PC waits for a moment, then turns to the enemy and says,
"You don't understand, do you? She? She's pure and good and sweet and wonderful. All the things I will never be. See, I know what I am. I'm a monster. But sometimes, you need a monster to get the job done. She? Will never do what has to be done sometimes. Me? I will. So now I'm going to torture you, and it's going to hurt, and then I will kill you. All to get the information she needs. Because if she doesn't get this information, bad things will happen. She doesn't want those bad things to happen, and that's good enough for me. But... enough pleasantries. Tell me, do you have any last words before I make you start screaming?"

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-04, 06:04 PM
I have a player enjoying Ce PCs.

Luckily, he played them accordingly to the campaign: in a silly, messed up (and really fun) game, he was a friendly-fire-friendly chaotic evil cleric of Khorne.

In a "devil are the enemies" epic planar campaign, was a CE demon-worshipping sorcerer, well played (even if subsequently has been redeemed).

Samurai Jill
2010-06-04, 06:06 PM
...he pointed out he never really took an action that wasn't at least nominally in his self interest. Even the few acts that others thought were charitable were done with the intention of improving the party's survivability and therefor his own. His character was abolutely evil, just not stupid.
Problem is, that largely describes the behaviour of at least 50% of regular human beings. The kind of evil that treats hostile external groups badly but cooperates well with those it knows (and to some degree trusts or can rely upon) is pretty damn similar to how 'neutral' characters would behave. Or, hell, depending on how widely you define the 'tribal group', a lot of 'good' characters.

A character who serves his/her interest more-or-less exclusively but somehow manages not to actively harm others who weren't threatening him/her (or the people s/he cares about) effectively isn't evil. S/he's neutral.

Being an evil character requires, at minimum-
(A) failing to help others in need when doing so would be trivial,
(B) actively harming others solely for the sake of personal enrichment or sport (as opposed to survival/self-defence.)

Even these can be a very grey area, depending on how broadly you allow scope for 'pre-emptive attack' in the name of security, or exactly what degree of inconvenience you'd consider 'trivial'.

One of the most terrifying aspects of the Exorcist (not mentioned explicitly, but touched on in some deleted scenes and in the DVD commentary,) is the idea that there is no real motivation behind the demon's possession. The idea that true Evil has to be in some sense gratuitous. That the demon has chosen to possess a hapless girl precisely because she has no significance- in the sense of political power or outstanding gifts. An ulterior motive might mitigate the malevolence- make it less pure.

oxybe
2010-06-04, 06:21 PM
a "good" Evil character is one who's goals are similar enough to the party's that they are willing to work together and help each other out.

i played a warlock who did the slow decline into evil thing and wound up saving the world from destruction. not because "it was the right thing to do" but because "all his favorite stuff was there and the other planes suck". he was a bit of a sociopath and highly violent towards his enemies, kinda like belkar in that respect, but unlike the sexy shoeless god of war, he made no effort in hiding his true self. he openly made deals with liches and devils/demons with the party present and reveled in the fact that the title "Adventurer" allowed him access to large groups of squishies to vent his frustration and test new incantations on, usually in a very violent manner. while cackling. maniacally.

only one PC had a "problem" with my character (or at least showed it), and the guy was my roommate and was due to events that happened in game... but neither character let their own feelings tear apart the group or stop our goals. the swash/rogue stayed to try and keep an eye on me (and kill me if needed) while my PC didn't really care much about the rogue's intent as he was sure of his power... his biggest "threat" was the group's wizard who he couldn't really figure out.

if it weren't for the rogue missing out on one session, i probably would have had to roll up a new PC since his was against mine being revived (and i had no issue with that personally since it was entirely in character and trying a new pc could be interesting).

in short, evil characters need only play nice with party, not with others. evil characters can have friends, care for others and whatnot, but aren't above being a jerk about it or using others to further their goals.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-04, 06:46 PM
I had a lawful evil cleric whose basic motto was "The ends justify the means"
He got along with the party first off by he wasn't in your face about being evil. If being a sadistic SOB didn't help accomplish his goals he was quite personable.
We had a severely brain damaged guide who my cleric

Umael, you bring up an interesting scenario however typically when the EVIL SOB falls in love with the pure of heart hero. It usually results in a heel face turn of the villain converting to good. He'll still maybe rather ruthless, compared to the other characters but becomes a better person.

The Buffy/Spike relationship is probably a good TV example. Spike can't be a monster anymore due to the chip in his head and he can't be a man because he's still a soulless vampire. So he goes on a quest to regain his soul.

Umael
2010-06-04, 07:01 PM
Umael, you bring up an interesting scenario however typically when the EVIL SOB falls in love with the pure of heart hero. It usually results in a heel face turn of the villain converting to good. He'll still maybe rather ruthless, compared to the other characters but becomes a better person.

The Buffy/Spike relationship is probably a good TV example. Spike can't be a monster anymore due to the chip in his head and he can't be a man because he's still a soulless vampire. So he goes on a quest to regain his soul.

It is interesting that you bring up Buffy/Spike, because Joss Whelon also came up with the Operative, who did not "convert" but acknowledged, even passionately, that he was a monster and when his work was finished, there would be no place left for people such as himself. For another interesting take, in Babylon 5 you have Lennier who was tormented by his unrequited love for Delenn. While Lennier was not Evil, his unrequited love caused him to ultimately betray his friends.

While yes, it is traditional for the evil person to do an about-face, it is not necessarily going to happen. Sometimes the story might cause for tragic instead (with or without a redemption).

0Megabyte
2010-06-04, 07:20 PM
Hmm. Assuming a "generic" campaign, full of hack and slash, how about this:

Kharos listened to the proposition the adventurers gave him. They needed another to join their party, and here he was, a PC and all in the same bar as them. He took a sip of his beer, thinking. Finally, he set the beer down, and grinned.

"Are you telling me that our mission is to go out into the wilderness, kill a whole bunch of people different than us, take all their stuff... and then we'll get rewarded like heroes when we come back into town?"

He leaned forward, looking the party leader, a goody-goody seeming paladin, in the eyes.

"Now that seems like fun. I am totally in."

Shademan
2010-06-04, 07:30 PM
I played a evil cleric of Hextor once, he acted alot like magneto. was quite fun. to bad that the campaign died.

WarKitty
2010-06-04, 07:54 PM
Problem is, that largely describes the behaviour of at least 50% of regular human beings. The kind of evil that treats hostile external groups badly but cooperates well with those it knows (and to some degree trusts or can rely upon) is pretty damn similar to how 'neutral' characters would behave. Or, hell, depending on how widely you define the 'tribal group', a lot of 'good' characters.

A character who serves his/her interest more-or-less exclusively but somehow manages not to actively harm others who weren't threatening him/her (or the people s/he cares about) effectively isn't evil. S/he's neutral.

Being an evil character requires, at minimum-
(A) failing to help others in need when doing so would be trivial,
(B) actively harming others solely for the sake of personal enrichment or sport (as opposed to survival/self-defence.)

Even these can be a very grey area, depending on how broadly you allow scope for 'pre-emptive attack' in the name of security, or exactly what degree of inconvenience you'd consider 'trivial'.

One of the most terrifying aspects of the Exorcist (not mentioned explicitly, but touched on in some deleted scenes and in the DVD commentary,) is the idea that there is no real motivation behind the demon's possession. The idea that true Evil has to be in some sense gratuitous. That the demon has chosen to possess a hapless girl precisely because she has no significance- in the sense of political power or outstanding gifts. An ulterior motive might mitigate the malevolence- make it less pure.

Personally, I'd argue that the scarier evil powers are often those that do have a motivation. Possibly even a "good" motivation that was taken too far. Perhaps not scary in the same way, but I personally find the religious fanatic far scarier...

Angrist
2010-06-04, 09:05 PM
my group is in Eberron, one player is an Elan psychic assassin who is obsessed with killing Quari. He's an asset as long as you don't make him choose between saving you or killing an inspired, because then your on your own.

SilverClawShift
2010-06-04, 09:46 PM
It's a group effort, some communication is required.

This from here to eternity.

In my group, our single strength, the thing that keeps us all working as a cohesive unit when getting the story onto the table (aside from a DM who's really, really good at thinking on his toes), is the fact that we stop to communicate with one another about what is happening, and what will happen from here.

We talk about what setting we're interested in playing for our next game, what the tone of the game should be, what the scope should be... sometimes you don't get exactly your way, but at least you know what you're getting into.

And playing an evil character is ultimately no different from playing a good one. What your individual actions are may differ, but the overhead goals of "Finish the Quest" and "Make sure your teammates do the same" remain regardless of whether you're slitting throats while the enemy sleeps or bribing the ogre king with a chocolate bar.

The game is what matters. Your character is a part OF that game.

Samb
2010-06-04, 09:56 PM
The trouble most players have with evil PCs is that they don't have a realistic picture of evil. They can only think of Nazis and serial killers, but they never think that Enron executives or the geniuses at Ford who made the Pinto as evil.

On the subject of serial killers, many of the famous ones came across as very well balanced, even charming. This is called the "mask of sanity". They have no shame, no remorse, no conscience and that is often taken as cool confidence. This state of mind is (thankfully) alien to most gamers and hence most can't fathom how to "act evil" and hence act "stupid evil".

Evil could also mean pure ruthlessness. Anything to get the job done ethics be damned. In many ways this is how most evil people get by in the world. This is how the slimy used car salesman can sell a lemon to a mother of 3 and still not disturb the peace.

My personal look at D&D ethics is more on a psychodynamic level. Id, ego and superego.
Id says: "I want to kill"
Ego asks: "Can I kill and get away with it?", "Cost-benefit of killing?"
Superego asks: "Should I kill?" "Is it right to kill?"

Id behavior is generally only acceptable in children. Adult behavior and ethics is based on the interaction between the ego and the superego. In general, I think of evil as "superego deficient". Everything is about meeting the needs of the Id with least harm to self. A good PC with a dominant superego will not allow his own needs compromise their values or the greater good.

742
2010-06-05, 12:00 AM
well here are some ways it can work really well

the ones who genuinely enjoy living and dont want the world to be destroyed; they dont care about the other people in it unless theyre useful for stopping that whole world ending thing. theyre not going to burn down an orphanage because its fun-its not, its work and mess, maybe a good distraction-but if someone might get in the way like that innocent villager who spotted you sneaking into the evil castle they will be dealt with before you can say "just a sec let me find my scroll of erase memor-:smalleek: oh."

maybe you reeeealy want the macguffin of evilness the other PCs are trying to snag from the antagonist and dispose of in the blah blah blah and thats the campaign's finale-well, they dont need to know that you intend to USE it when you find it, and they do seem to be the most capable opposition:smallamused:

the poisonous friend(or family member, or love interest) or just a flat out vengeful anti-hero, since the other people in the group want the antagonist dead too theyre all for cooperation. maybe theyre recruiting the criminal "oh, so your going to forge invitations figure out convincing costumes that will hide our identities and pick the lock on the villians safe for the magical evil temple entry macguffin, then disarm all the traps when we get there? i didnt think so. now help me hide the damn body before the gaurds get here and figure out what was going on. if any of the stuff is missing your costume is getting a red shirt and a full-head mask!"
WARNING: TVTROPES.ORG LINKS http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoisonousFriend
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecruitingTheCriminal
those were the only ones i thought obscure enough for links to explainations

Ravens_cry
2010-06-05, 12:12 AM
If your going to be evil, especially Chaotic Evil, make sure you have damn good reason not to simply go all stab happy on the party. And follow it. Maybe they are your friends, as the Giant suggested maybe you acknowledge, ala Belkar that together they could reduce you to a fine mist, so it is your interests to at least nominally work together. Maybe you are on the run from something and you know you need their protection.
Just make sure you have a good reason to stay with the party.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-05, 12:18 AM
It is interesting that you bring up Buffy/Spike, because Joss Whelon also came up with the Operative, who did not "convert" but acknowledged, even passionately, that he was a monster and when his work was finished, there would be no place left for people such as himself.
But look what happened to him when he saw "a world without sin"

Dust
2010-06-05, 12:31 AM
In a Scion game, I was a truly despicable bastard in a group full of not-so-heroic characters. I spent months of game time attempting convinec them we were on the wrong side of the Gods vs Titans war, and trying to persuade them to just 'hear the other side out.' I secretly started killing off all the useful NPCs that helped us advance the good-guy-plot forward - thus, from a metagame perspective, fewer directions to go meant my suggestions started to sound more and more appealing.
Sadly, the game ended early.

Harperfan7
2010-06-05, 12:48 AM
My cousin and I started a one DM one player evil campaign. It was set in Faerun in the underdark mostly.

We never finished because the fun to effort ratio tilted way too far to the effort side.

Anyways, I think D&D is a difficult game to make work. You have to really like your character and/or the people you play with, and DMs (mostly) have to put in a lot of effort for it to be worthwhile (not to mention fun).

I find it hard to really enjoy playing an evil character, mostly I just want to play "me" in various forms. For me, roleplaying isn't so much trying to do what your character would do so much as trying to do what I think I would do.

Peanut Gallery
2010-06-05, 01:32 AM
I once played a Lawful Evil Necromancer of Wee Jas who bonded with a paladin over their mutual loathing of Chaotic lawbreakers and unbound undead.
Doesn't matter whether our opponents are good or evil. We actually told a chaotic good rebel that if the children knew the law said stealing food was to be punishable by death, then its their own fault they were getting hanged. And oh by the way, since you said you were going to rescue them, we're arresting you too.
Heck, my necromancer does nice things sometimes for people he respects. Not because its the nice thing to do but so he can tally it up on a little notebook of "favors owed to me". He considers it buying their loyalty in case he needs someone to jump between him and an angry mob.

Ormur
2010-06-05, 01:43 AM
If I think of the mundane chaotic evil people in the world they aren't running around stabbing people in the eye every waking hour. They're the thugs that might interpret all kinds of things as insults or challenges, beat people up when they get drunk and commit crimes when they don't think they'll get caught if it's in their interest. Even hardened criminals aren't usually dangerous just to sit next to and they probably have friends that they don't try to kill or betray at the first opportunity. If you want to be CE play the D&D equivalent of a bully not an insane psychopath.

weenie
2010-06-05, 02:38 AM
I recently played a LE wizard. I gave the party a warning in advance, that he would be a colossal jerk, and they didn't have any problems with it. Our characters were in conflict all the time though, but in a very fun and entertaining way. Then we once came really close to a TPK and my character was the only one who survived, so tho others rolled up new ones. The almost TPK taught my wizard a big lesson on the importance of allies, so he quickly became friends with the new people he met, and treated them respectfully. It was a very lethal campaign, so he learned that even though mocking people and displaying your superiority before them can be fun, you still need people you can trust, and fear doesn't always work out in the long run. Since when we started our campaign, the characters were all very young(in their teens), this turned out as a story about growing up. Young arrogant boy sees the world and realizes, he's not able to handle it by himself, so he grows out of his childish bullyness, and becomes a reasonable adult, with friends and enemies. He was still evil by the end of a campaign, he enjoyed killing and torturing people just as much as he had before, but now he had some restraint.

Of course I also had players who made evil characters, so they could justify burning brothels, and killing random people etc. so it probably boils down to how mature is the player of the evil character in the end..

WarKitty
2010-06-05, 11:09 AM
Next question: Do you like playing evil characters? Why?

AmberVael
2010-06-05, 11:13 AM
Next question: Do you like playing evil characters? Why?

Yes.
It's an interesting mindset to try and get into, especially when you want to look at it logically and realistically- someone who consistently thinks that way is a rather unusual person, I believe, and they must have a reason for being that way.

Further, I tend to get into grim, dark, and gritty type stuff, and evil characters tend to make that a more prevalent theme in a game.


Good can be complex and grim and gritty too, don't get me wrong, but playing Evil allows some variety and options in that direction that Good simply doesn't have, if only by virtue of being something else.

Kish
2010-06-05, 11:19 AM
That being said. A serious evil game would probably be disturbing. I've had neutral/unaligned characters do some pretty morally questionable things in normal D&D games. I'd shudder to think what might happen if the party was EVIL.
A mix of doing the same things but not trying to justify them, and displays of random irrational destructiveness, depending on the individual player, would be my guess.

Closak
2010-06-05, 11:25 AM
There's also the kind of character who would be a hero (kind, compassionate, brave, etc) if it wasn't for the fact that they behave badly toward certain beings.

in Faerun, the Eldath Veluthraa (Victorious Blade of rhe People) are an elf supremacist organization that tend to reserve their evil acts for humans and half elves- and believe that they are the good guys.

Vaarsuvius would fit right in.

Cealocanth
2010-06-05, 11:26 AM
Playing an evil character is hard. There are some people (usually comic book characters...) who just want nothing more than utter destruction, and then there are those who were cast away from the moment of their birth, forced to fend for themselves in poverty, and then found a way to a living by doing evil, Then there are some who are as mad as a hatter and psychopathicly kill everythiong they want to for fun.

If I ever RP an evil character, which I do quite often due to having to RP the big bad guy for players, I prefer to play the second. The one who has reason behind all it is the best type of villan. I guess that's why I like Redcloak so much.

PersonMan
2010-06-05, 11:27 AM
A mix of doing the same things but not trying to justify them, and displays of random irrational destructiveness, depending on the individual player, would be my guess.

+1.

Good: I'm ruthlessly murdering "clearing out" these people "monsters" because they did bad things, and so I'm justified to go into their homes, kill them and take their stuff!
Evil: These people are different from me and have stuff I want. I can murder them and no one will care! Heck, they'll even treat me like a hero! This is amazing! Adventuring is so great! I even get paid to murder people!
Neutral: Meh. I don't know them. I want their stuff, and they're attacking the village anyways. And I get paid.

Il_Vec
2010-06-05, 11:51 AM
I usually don't play Good characters, because I can't seem to justify them killing all sorts of things. Exceptions apart, as per righteously belicous evil-hunters, punisher-style... But even so, I usually write "Neutral" on my sheet.

That said, I have a very good time playing my Neutral Good frenzied berserker, who contantly has to deal with his conscience after going berserk, seeking to help other people.

PersonMan
2010-06-05, 11:57 AM
Usually my characters are Neutral(often leaning Evil; I've found that if I play an Evil character with "Neutral" on their sheet no one can tell...) and I have a fun character concept I'm thinking of trying soon. It's someone who will do anything to destroy evil. His goal is to utterly obliterate anything and everything evil, then kill himself(he's evil, if you're between him and killing evil, you die).

Umael
2010-06-05, 04:00 PM
But look what happened to him when he saw "a world without sin"

He recanted, but I would definitely not say he reformed.

Traditionally, when someone evil encounters something (that calls the worldview (that set that person (onto the path of evil)) into question), that person ends up questioning that worldview until they conclude that evil is not the path to take.

Realistically, when someone evil encounters something etc., etc., that person ends up questioning but there is no guaranteed conclusion.

When the Operative found out, he considered the damage done and called off the attack. To continue would have been evil without purpose save selfish desire (wounded pride possibly). Whether he decided to "join the good guys" or not is debatable because we don't know.



Next question: Do you like playing evil characters? Why?

I like playing interesting characters that fit in with the game.

Note I did not say that the character would fit in with the other PCs or even seems to be on the same side. Most RPGs are done in the framework of the players being part of a group (party, band, coterie, pack, cabal, etc.), but that doesn't mean your character HAS to be part of the rest of the group.

I am currently involved in an on-line game of L5R, having played three others (well, two others and one LBS - same world, same system, intertwined histories). In one of them, my character came in a loner, befriended a few of the PCs and NPCs, and left the game in the company of one of the PCs to ask her sensei for permission to marry. It would be very easy to play a character who was working for one of the bad guys - I just wouldn't want to get caught.

I honestly think that playing "evil" is something of a trap (much like the alignment system). Think about your character concept and go with it, and then concern yourself with your alignment. And for the record, that includes things like if you are Seelie or Unseelie, Principled versus Scrupulous, etc.). Play the concept, and if the concept does not involve "evil", don't think of your character as "evil".

(Besides, "evil" can be kinda broad. Selfish, sadistic, and shameless can describe "evil", but so can brutal, ballistic, and brash - and yet these are different kinds of "evil". Your PC might be "evil" (or "Evil"), but it doesn't mean you do "that kind of evil". I mean, little girls and puppy dogs, sure, but clowns? That's just wrong!)

Lord_Gareth
2010-06-05, 04:06 PM
Eh, playing an evil character is only as hard as the GM makes it. A lot of people have been conditioned to think that evil is dumb, and Cannot Comprehend Good. However, the qualities necessary to really qualify as "evil" in the D&D universe are as follows:

- Pragmatism. An evil character does whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.
- Ruthlessness. People or things that get in your way are highly unlucky. Murder and violence might not be the first option, but it's definitely an option.
- Efficiency. Duh.
- Amorality. An evil character doesn't need to go, "AHAHAHAHA, I'M SO FRAGGING EVIL!". All they need to do is lack empathy for their fellow sentients.

Anything outside of those four? Completely optional. For an example of an "enlightened" evil character, check out Tiphanie D'Ath, of S.M. Stirling's Change series (it starts with Dies the Fire). See also Cardinal Richileu, of the Ring of Fire series.

Twilight_Crow
2010-06-05, 04:07 PM
Well, the way I see it is it ultimately comes down to the players. If a player just wants to go wild and kill a bunch of stuff, then I'd say banning CE and getting therapy is a good call.

On the flip side, exploring the darker natures of humanity (and elfity, and dwarfity) can make for a fascinating game.

So:

+: Interesting and unique roleplaying experience. One of my favorite characters was LE. More of a sophisticated sociopath than anything.

-: Potential immaturity and stupidity. Calling to mind a player in the group who plays seemingly for no reason aside from killing people, I feel that immature evil is just an exercise in immaturity.

----------------
Now playing: Hoobastank - Crawling in the Dark (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hoobastank/track/crawling+in+the+dark)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

hamishspence
2010-06-05, 04:15 PM
Eh, playing an evil character is only as hard as the GM makes it. A lot of people have been conditioned to think that evil is dumb, and Cannot Comprehend Good. However, the qualities necessary to really qualify as "evil" in the D&D universe are as follows:

- Pragmatism. An evil character does whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.
- Ruthlessness. People or things that get in your way are highly unlucky. Murder and violence might not be the first option, but it's definitely an option.
- Efficiency. Duh.
- Amorality. An evil character doesn't need to go, "AHAHAHAHA, I'M SO FRAGGING EVIL!". All they need to do is lack empathy for their fellow sentients.

Anything outside of those four? Completely optional.

And there are a few evil characters who have plenty of empathy for sentients- but only certain sentients.

That said, characters with a strong "I'm trying to help people" goal (but with the means being beyond the pale) aren't too common.

Michael Ambrose in Tome of Magic is one of the more dramatic examples- he believes binders are evil and must be destroyed in order to protect the people of the world- but he's so extreme that he got kicked out of his own organization. And inevitably interprets it as the organization being corrupt, rather than him.

Doresain
2010-06-05, 04:24 PM
i played a CE necropolitan paladin of slaughter a while back...the backstory was that the northern continent was leading a crusade to bring good to the savages of the southern continent (which is where the party was located)

i murdered an evangel of the northern coninent, framed him for the murders of two children that released me from my tomb, murdered the chieftain of the village we were in (telling the local populace that he was working with the northern continent), convinced a tribe of goblins lead by an ogre to massacre a village of elves we were trying to rally to our cause (didnt work because they saw me as an abomination), made the goblin survivors haul numerous carts of elf and goblin bodies back to our home town to be raised, and convinced a paladin of the northern continent that forcing people of another faith into joining his faith could be considered evil (who i believe should have fallen for letting me, as a terrible abomination against his faith and acknowledged manifestation of the evil god's will, live and burning a town full of innocents to the ground as we left)

the moral of this story? evil party members can be fun if played properly...evil doesnt mean mindless, treacherous and destructive (especially CE)...if it was, there wouldnt be evil in this game because it would have destroyed itself by now

hamishspence
2010-06-05, 04:42 PM
...evil doesnt mean mindless, treacherous and destructive (especially CE)...if it was, there wouldnt be evil in this game because it would have destroyed itself by now

Most of the alignment-centric splatbooks say something similar:

Savage Species:

Evil is not stupid. Evil creatures and characters can work together just as well as good characters can. It should be no more difficult to maintain party cohesion with a group that includes LE, NE and CE characters, than a typical adventurer mix of LG, NG and CG. Certainly evil characters attempt to manipulate events to their personal advantage- a phenomenon not limited to evil parties- but not to the extent of sabotaging their own chances of survival.

BoVD:

Two evil PCs do not have to come to blows just because they are both evil. Evil characters with similar goals or common foes can certainly work together. And there's no reason to believe that evil characters can't respect something like friendship. Intelligent evil characters realize, just as nonevil characters do, that they can accomplish more by working together rather than working at cross-purposes.

Champions of Ruin:

No-one is going to question whether the priest of Cyric is really a good guy at heart; he isn't- if he were, Cyric wouldn't grant him any spells. But just because he is evil doesn't mean he is going to slaughter his companions and steal their treasure at the first opportunity. If evil were really that self-destructive, good wouldn't have nearly as hard a time combating it.

Doresain
2010-06-05, 04:45 PM
Most of the alignment-centric splatbooks say something similar:

unfortunately, most of the other people i play with that try out evil, revert to SE(stupid evil)...im sure that im not the only one with this problem (probelm in the sense that i like to play intelligent evil characters, but no one else in my group does)

hamishspence
2010-06-05, 04:48 PM
I suspect the PHB might have something to do with that- its descriptions of evil alignment do seem to come across as a bit too like Stupid Evil.

PersonMan
2010-06-05, 04:53 PM
At times I want to play an Evil character, and the reasoning is often based off of the assumption that I'd be playing Stupid Evil. One of them expected me to kill someone because they bumped into me the one time they let me play evil(a level 20 solo adventure)...

I think that the problem is that a lot of people think that you'd just want to play Stupid Evil.

Umael
2010-06-05, 06:04 PM
I think another thing about the alignment system that annoys me is that there is this Good vs. Evil mindset which is totally unnecessary. NG, CG, LG, all work together just fine, but if you introduce LE, NE, or, gods forbid, CE into the group, they "must" fight it out (yes, I know, plenty of examples are out there where this is not the case, but plenty more of this being the case exist).

When I ran d20 Rokugan, alignment was a lot less of an issue, and it was much more Law vs. Chaos. Who cares if you were LE? You were still an honorable samurai (of the Scorpion Clan) who served (and would die for) the Empire.

Back when D&D first came out, it was an "us versus them" game. The heroes went into the dungeons, slew some monsters, and came out with treasure. Add some experience points so they would become more powerful, let them go deeper into the dungeon, and the cycle repeated. Nowadays, D&D is much more complex. Plotlines and story hooks are introduced, and some people actually... resort to... *gasp* role-playing! The game evolved. Certain things became more important. Other things became less. You can play a game of D&D now, never go into a dungeon, never see a single dragon, and still call it D&D.

Lots of other games have abandoned (or never used in the first place) the "Good" versus "Evil" concept and do just fine.

Eloi
2010-06-05, 06:08 PM
I think another thing about the alignment system that annoys me is that there is this Good vs. Evil mindset which is totally unnecessary. NG, CG, LG, all work together just fine, but if you introduce LE, NE, or, gods forbid, CE into the group, they "must" fight it out (yes, I know, plenty of examples are out there where this is not the case, but plenty more of this being the case exist).

When I ran d20 Rokugan, alignment was a lot less of an issue, and it was much more Law vs. Chaos. Who cares if you were LE? You were still an honorable samurai (of the Scorpion Clan) who served (and would die for) the Empire.

Back when D&D first came out, it was an "us versus them" game. The heroes went into the dungeons, slew some monsters, and came out with treasure. Add some experience points so they would become more powerful, let them go deeper into the dungeon, and the cycle repeated. Nowadays, D&D is much more complex. Plotlines and story hooks are introduced, and some people actually... resort to... *gasp* role-playing! The game evolved. Certain things became more important. Other things became less. You can play a game of D&D now, never go into a dungeon, never see a single dragon, and still call it D&D.

Lots of other games have abandoned (or never used in the first place) the "Good" versus "Evil" concept and do just fine.

Maybe we need more abstract way to make an us versus them game. Maybe PCs are a part of the "Reds" and the enemies are a part of the "Blues"?

Shademan
2010-06-05, 06:18 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/judgerdead/speech.jpg

PersonMan
2010-06-05, 06:45 PM
Where did you find that, Shademan? That was awesome.

+1 character concept. That's three I need to play now.

Kish
2010-06-05, 06:54 PM
Eh, playing an evil character is only as hard as the GM makes it. A lot of people have been conditioned to think that evil is dumb, and Cannot Comprehend Good. However, the qualities necessary to really qualify as "evil" in the D&D universe are as follows:

- Pragmatism. An evil character does whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals.
- Ruthlessness. People or things that get in your way are highly unlucky. Murder and violence might not be the first option, but it's definitely an option.
- Efficiency. Duh.
- Amorality. An evil character doesn't need to go, "AHAHAHAHA, I'M SO FRAGGING EVIL!". All they need to do is lack empathy for their fellow sentients.
I would actually say only the last of the four is required. There's no Intelligence requirement to be evil; you can be totally inefficient, and totally emotion-driven, unwilling to consider any plan that involves your favorite pencil getting scratched--or, for a more serious example of non-pragmatism, any plan that involves it looking like you don't have the upper hand at any point--and still be thoroughly evil. Ruthlessness is not so much a separate requirement as something that comes along automatically with amorality.

snikrept
2010-06-05, 10:00 PM
I've always seen a lawful evil character as a person who's quite competent at what they do, sees life as a game to be won, and plays aggressively to win. They're lawful because when everyone plays by the rules, they win. And they're evil because who cares if losing means someone got killed or something? Those who lost should have played harder.

You could play this guy as a perfectly respectable adventurer (he's driven, he's got goals that aren't just 'slaughter everyone') in just about any campaign even though he's evil to the core. He just has to align his winning axis with the party or campaign goals.

monkey3
2010-06-05, 11:00 PM
I'd like to contribute to this thread by introducing Richard.

http://lfgcomic.com/issue/1

Enjoy.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-05, 11:33 PM
I'd like to contribute to this thread by introducing Richard.

http://lfgcomic.com/issue/1

Enjoy.
Richard, is quite literally, a ****. It's even his name.

Doresain
2010-06-06, 01:32 AM
but you see, when richard was first introduced he was the same kind of evil that most people play...mindless and destructive for no other reason than he can be, and i hate that kind of evil...heck its not even evil, its just being a jerk

hes developed since then, but i honestly hate original richard because he seemed like such a flat character (pardon the pun)

Ravens_cry
2010-06-06, 01:43 AM
but you see, when richard was first introduced he was the same kind of evil that most people play...mindless and destructive for no other reason than he can be, and i hate that kind of evil...heck its not even evil, its just being a jerk

You can be evil AND a jerk. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.


hes developed since then, but i honestly hate original richard because he seemed like such a flat character (pardon the pun)
He's had his moments, but I have had far more sympathy for the invading empire then for Richard.
But then, I am a bit of an anthropophile.

Salbazier
2010-06-06, 02:10 AM
Does a character that basically is simply amoral, knowing no remorse for killing or torture people but take no pleasure of doing so, just doing it because it yield result, can be categorized as evil?

Besides bully, what are other examples of CE that isn't psycopath or stupid?

742
2010-06-06, 02:19 AM
why do i like playing evil characters? because most settings tend towards sunshine-and-butterflies and i think conflict is what makes a good story; at least one of the main characters* should conflict with at least one of the others. there should also be scheming; i approve of scheming. if the setting is a complete crapsack world then i will find myself unable to play anything but a completely and totally good character, im just like that.

*and in most D&D games the antagonist is more a plot device than a main character, they generally arent present all that often.

Milskidasith
2010-06-06, 02:31 AM
why do i like playing evil characters? because most settings tend towards sunshine-and-butterflies and i think conflict is what makes a good story; at least one of the main characters* should conflict with at least one of the others. there should also be scheming; i approve of scheming. if the setting is a complete crapsack world then i will find myself unable to play anything but a completely and totally good character, im just like that.

*and in most D&D games the antagonist is more a plot device than a main character, they generally arent present all that often.

In most stories the antagonist isn't center stage... if the antagonist was present a majority of the time, he/she would be the protaganist, by definition. Antagonist/protagonist isn't strictly villain/hero, you know, and just because characters add conflict doesn't mean they are the antagonist.

As an example, take Voldemort from HP. He's there for, what, two or three chapters a book (or at least, explicitly there), save the last book, but he's still the antagonist (I haven't read in a while, so the number of chapters he appears in may be off). From the same series, Ron and Hermoine present Harry with conflicts some of the time, and I'd hardly consider them antagonists.

Bharg
2010-06-06, 02:41 AM
but you see, when richard was first introduced he was the same kind of evil that most people play...mindless and destructive for no other reason than he can be, and i hate that kind of evil...heck its not even evil, its just being a jerk

hes developed since then, but i honestly hate original richard because he seemed like such a flat character (pardon the pun)

When Richard was introduced?! Did they change that later? Vague quote about gomes:
Elf: "They look like children!"
Richard: "Yes, it's hard to kill just one."

In my opinion the alignment of a character is rather an evaluation of what he has done in his past. Has he committed evil and I mean real evil, not pickpocketing, or has he caused chaos or abided the law, was he a rebel, bandit or a judge, a guard?
Of course, the alighment will change in the course of adventure, but it doesn't necessarily have to express your character's personality. He can still be reasonable and try to be a good guy as long as he doesn't have an entry in the BoD. As long as you are not a paladin or a cleric that is depending on his deity you can do and be whatever you want to.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-06, 02:49 AM
Does a character that basically is simply amoral, knowing no remorse for killing or torture people but take no pleasure of doing so, just doing it because it yield result, can be categorized as evil?

Yes. The excuse of 'simply following orders' or' doing what must be done' has been common rationalizations for some of the most heinous acts in history.

Besides bully, what are other examples of CE that isn't psycopath or stupid?
A more realistic pirate, mayhap? Not the romanticised characters of recent fiction, but brutal, base, plunderers.

Shademan
2010-06-06, 03:48 AM
Where did you find that, Shademan? That was awesome.

+1 character concept. That's three I need to play now.

Think it's from the 3rd party book EVIL, for D&D

TroubleBrewing
2010-06-06, 03:57 AM
The trouble is that what constitutes "Good" and "Evil" is subjective.

This. It's true and concise. Evil is subjective, and the alignment system for D&D is so borked anyway that playing an "evil" character is essentially the same as playing a character whose views tend to run opposite to the party's.

Playing a character who does not value order or life in a party of LG characters is no more evil than playing an atheistic character in a party of all paladins. Evil is dependent on the observer's interpretation of the traditional "Good Vs. Evil" spectrum.

hawkingbird
2010-06-06, 05:01 AM
but you see, when richard was first introduced he was the same kind of evil that most people play...mindless and destructive for no other reason than he can be, and i hate that kind of evil...heck its not even evil, its just being a jerk

hes developed since then, but i honestly hate original richard because he seemed like such a flat character (pardon the pun)

I've always loved Richard (probably more for his chaos than evilness, although I love that first comic), and to be honest, his kind of evil is playable in D&D. He starts out as a jerk to everyone, but he quickly becomes friends with Cale and lightens up on the 'killing because I can'. This is the kind of character growth that I try to encourage in games. Maybe a bit less extreme evil to begin with, otherwise the party will never accept them.

In our current game (my friend is DMing), we are playing an all evil party. The funniest story came from when a hag attacked us but we didn't kill it. Instead we tied her up and interrogated her. At one point we threatened to cut off her arm if she didn't speak, and the DM called out "bluff"... so we cut off her arm. Our DM was not expecting that. And then our cleric healed her. Good times.

Umael
2010-06-06, 06:28 AM
Maybe we need more abstract way to make an us versus them game. Maybe PCs are a part of the "Reds" and the enemies are a part of the "Blues"?

*twitch*



Does a character that basically is simply amoral, knowing no remorse for killing or torture people but take no pleasure of doing so, just doing it because it yield result, can be categorized as evil?

Besides bully, what are other examples of CE that isn't psycopath or stupid?

Don't know about template examples, but the four CE characters I actually like are Sauron, Smaug, Belkar, and the Joker.

Drekk
2010-06-06, 08:46 PM
I'm skipping all the moralistic debates on how well the current alignment system describes shades of grey and sharing my own thoughts on the matter.

I find that Evil tends to get stale real quick for some reason; I haven't played too many Evil PC's...A few here and there for 1-shots and a NE Human Warblade for an actual campaign. Hadrian, my Zhentarim Enforcer, was fairly enjoyable...He was more or less a hedonist and did whatever he wanted...If killing someone got him what he wanted, fine. If saving someone got them what he wanted, that was fine too (though he did had a sadistic streak and really enjoyed the former option). Not to the point of being chaotic evil; he had plenty of wits, could work strategy, and was not at all devoted to evil in of itself. He simply did not care about thinking about those things, and saw the world with a the-strong-will-devour-the-weak mentality. The only problems I had were that the Cleric of Bane did his best to force lip-service out of the party, and I was determined to spite him just because I could. The only thing that kept that bomb from going off was that we pretty much needed each other; I was tank-extraordinaire and he was buff-master 9K. And we both had common enemies to avoid. This is why Evil should work well together.

Mindless, chaotic behavior is common in Evil games and I think the #1 reason they end is because the party devours itself. Which shouldn't really happen, rationally. Evil chars are far more likely to be intelligent and resourceful and band together precisely BECAUSE they're probably going to be persecuted more vigorously, depending on the campaign world...An Evil Party should be incredibly cohesive, so long as you keep the priests in check. Lawful/Chaotic Evil Priests and Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter are just timebombs waiting to happen...

742
2010-06-07, 02:28 AM
In most stories the antagonist isn't center stage... if the antagonist was present a majority of the time, he/she would be the protaganist, by definition. Antagonist/protagonist isn't strictly villain/hero, you know, and just because characters add conflict doesn't mean they are the antagonist.

As an example, take Voldemort from HP. He's there for, what, two or three chapters a book (or at least, explicitly there), save the last book, but he's still the antagonist (I haven't read in a while, so the number of chapters he appears in may be off). From the same series, Ron and Hermoine present Harry with conflicts some of the time, and I'd hardly consider them antagonists.

and thats kinda what im saying; if the villian isnt there to present direct character driven whatsitcalled then the other group members should; otherwise it gets boring. homogenous heroes are boring and shouldnt exist unless the villians or setting are the primary focus of the story*, and if you try that i suspect you would end up with four people sitting in front of character sheets feeling very bored. anti-heroes and flat out villian protagonists are my favorite way to do this and as previously stated: i approve of scheming.

*and even then its lazy writing

Ferrin
2010-06-07, 09:20 AM
My newest character is an evil cleric worshipping an ideal; he wants everyone to be happy. This extends to killing good aligned people who would go to heaven, because they would be happier there, as well as letting the murderers and thieves live because otherwise they'd get tortured in the abyss/nine hells.

That's not all, ofcourse, as he summons demons and devils to show them the mortal plane, knowing it is far more pleasing then either of the fiendish realms. Relieving demons from the bayss isn't enough, obviously, so he sends the angels back to the heavens where there is a lot more joy.

Ofcourse his logic would be called flawed because he'd let people suffer in the mortal realm by calling demons and devils, and letting evil humans and the like live. But this is the easy part; the more death there is the more people go to heaven.

And yes, I know evil kills evil as much, if not more-so, then evil kills good. But that's something he's against, as he only kills to bring greater joy, the suffering is a moment easily forgotten after an eternity in heaven.

I'll be playing that character in an evil campaign together with an evil psion telepath and assasin, and other other guy who hasn't decided yet. Yes, he's mad, and yes, I'm going to give speeches as I kill people.

"I believe the gods reward or punish us after death. Though why must people suffer at all? Why can't everyone just.. be happy? I will let evil live in this mortal hell, and I will guide the good to heaven. I do not wish for evil to be sent to the abyss, there is to much suffering allready, nor can I allow the good to suffer more in this world. I will give the greatest reward to all in my reach, now sleep... Your reward is close."

"I call help not from the heavens, for who am I to deny them there bliss? No, I summon demons and devils, to take them out of there planes of misery and despair."

Kurrel
2010-06-07, 09:52 AM
As a rule, I run Good campaigns. On two occasions, though, I have conceded to the demand for evil campaigns and I think they were both quite good fun.

One was a Star Was campaign, where the three players were force-sensitives competing for the position of apprentice to the Sith Lord of the time. The master had made it so that they must prove themselves to him and he would pick, rather than simply killing each other... but the Jedi interfered in the process and killed the master while he was travelling. It was left to the players to avenge the death of their master, sort out who was to replace him and who had to die.

The second was probably less 'Evil' evil, and more Ambitious Evil. The players started off by taking control of a small village through slaughter and power, and then proceeded to expand into empire. They were utterly devoted to those loyal to them, and just as utterly barbarous to their enemies. Evil? Their enemies sure thought as much. Their minions adored them.