PDA

View Full Version : What is your opinion on evil adventuring parties?



TheMac04
2011-08-28, 08:06 PM
As a DM or as a player? My group consistently plays all Evil parties, just for the visceral appeal of it all, but I've heard other DMs are vehemently opposed to the idea, and won't allow it. What are your thoughts?

Delwugor
2011-08-28, 08:56 PM
I've played in 3 games with mostly evil characters and GM'd one. None of them turned into Stupid and Psycho Evil and though there where plots and scheming against other characters it never interfered with them accomplishing goals.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 08:59 PM
It depends. You can have interesting, rounded, believable characters and be evil. Evil people can still work with the rest of the group well and not be merchant-stab-happy. (Think Munny from Unforgiven, Marv from Sin City, Westley from Princess Bride, most people in most Quentin Tarantino movies, etc.)

Last time I ran an evil adventure it worked mainly because everyone had a goal.

Dralnu
2011-08-28, 09:03 PM
I have an evil campaign that is currently on an indefinite break. As a DM and player I have a preference for good parties but evil can be fun too.

nyarlathotep
2011-08-28, 09:13 PM
It depends. If you want to play an evil character to act out your rape/torture fantasies then do that on your own time. If you want to be say doctor evil and take over the world go ahead. Hell if you want to be evil to do that whole Hannibal Lecter style evil psychoanalysis, but if your descriptions of kills go on for more than a minute I'm leaving.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 09:19 PM
It depends. If you want to play an evil character to act out your rape/torture fantasies then do that on your own time. If you want to be say doctor evil and take over the world go ahead. Hell if you want to be evil to do that whole Hannibal Lecter style evil psychoanalysis, but if your descriptions of kills go on for more than a minute I'm leaving.

There are some things I won't allow as a GM. Some people are opposed to telling people what they can't do but there are some things I won't GM because it is no fun. I'll usually work with them, though. If you, as a party, want to go on a slaughter fest destroying villages that's a no go. But hey, maybe you want to do a zombie game? If you, as an individual want to rape someone this is one of the few instances where I will flat out refuse. These are things I will spell out beforehand to anyone whose character seems to crazy/evil.

The Glyphstone
2011-08-28, 09:22 PM
I've never had a party that wasn't Crazy Stupid Evil. I'm sure they exist out there somewhere, though.

TheMac04
2011-08-28, 09:43 PM
I think it's important to make sure there is a balance between Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic characters. Playing Chaotic is fun (I should know, Chaotic Evil spellcasters are kind of my thing), but without the appropriate Lawful and Neutral characters there to keep the Chaotic ones in check, it quickly devolves into "let's burn down this village and rape all the woman just because". Now, wanton destruction has a place, and it can even be the cornerstone of an Evil campaign. For example, my group and I once ran an Evil campaign where the ultimate goal was to completely wreck a Good regime. Which involved a lot of burning and pillaging, but it was all part of the plan. You just have to remember that Chaotic doesn't mean stupid. Don't squash the fun, but don't ruin the game either. Think about it like the three Freudian personalities. The Chaotic characters are Id, the Lawful characters are superego, and the Neutral characters are ego. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you can't be efficient.

Morghen
2011-08-28, 10:30 PM
I'm in an evil party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194737) right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.


If you, as a party, want to go on a slaughter fest destroying villages that's a no go.You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

TheMac04
2011-08-28, 10:31 PM
I'm in an evil party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194737) right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.

You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

You'd be surprised hombre.

SowZ
2011-08-28, 10:50 PM
I'm in an evil party (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194737) right now.

One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.

You know those villagers are fictional, right? It's not like evil RPG characters are causing the famine in Somalia.
And how does that play out?

Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

No, and in almost every scenario, choices are totally up to the players and if I set up a plot point or thing that encourages a certain option and they find another way to accomplish the task or ignore that goal entirely, I don't begrudge it at all.

It would go like this-

Player: Let's slaughter and rape this village.
Me: That's not the kind of game I am trying to run.

To me, it is no different than if the players insisted they had jet packs and lazer guns in a fantasy setting. It is not what I am going for. Generally, what the players are going for supercedes what I am going for, but if they aren't at least on the same page, or in the same book, at least, it won't work out for anyone.

Bringing concepts like rape into my partially escapist/mostly 'let's make a story together' gameworld as anything more than an abstract destroys my enjoyment. I wouldn't read a book glorifying rape and I also wouldn't let my players do it. Their characters can do what they want. I don't want to be part of it because I don't feel like I have an obligation to simulate a world I get no enjoyment out of just because I am a GM.

I am okay with a city being destroyed or razed if it is for a reason. If they are part of or commanders of an army taking over the world that is one thing. If the game is taking a turn towards directionless romp because we just want to kill everyone like the first time we played Morrowind I will lose all interest.

Rape can be a serious plot point and help advance a story. There are books and movies where it is done well. I could even make a film where it was a major issue. But in an RPG, I am going to keep that as non-roleplayed events. Things that have happened, maybe, and it can be in backstories or as something the players come across, (though this has only been the case on one occasion I can think of,) but not something we do at the table.

TheCountAlucard
2011-08-28, 11:09 PM
Well, since this isn't focusing on any specific RPG...

I've run a few games that could more or less be called evil campaigns. However, most of them take place in settings without black-and-white moralities, such as Vampire: the Requiem, and Exalted.

Evil parties are definitely doable - the key is to make sure the players are playing characters, and not caricatures. :smallsigh:

nyarlathotep
2011-08-28, 11:13 PM
Player: "Hey, that's the town where everything was really expensive. Let's go kill everybody and take their stuff."
GM: "Nope."
Player: "Um. What?"
GM: "I'm not going to let your fictional character do what you want it to do."

I think it's more the GM isn't comfortable running it. Like I'd prefer that my friend not read me sexual My Little Pony slashfic. It isn't because I have anything against fanfiction, porn, or My Little Pony, it's just that my friend telling me what he's made Rainbowdash and Fluttershy do together is awkward.

Dr Bwaa
2011-08-28, 11:30 PM
I've played in good parties, "mature evil" parties, mixed parties, and "chaotic stupid evil" parties. All of them have definite perks, and they're definitely different; I would say my five favorite campaigns ever cover all of these genres. I probably wouldn't run a campaign with CSE and Good characters in the same party, but anything else tends to go together fine if the players are good about it and have the same goal in mind. When I play or DM, the goal is to keep everyone having fun while telling a good story. Having some or all evil characters can be good for that, but everyone needs to be in the same boat.

Coidzor
2011-08-29, 12:18 AM
I feel it takes a special compact amongst the players to keep them on some kind of actual plot rather than devolving into a re-enactment in D&D of a game of the Munchkin card game. Specifically the "killing one another lots" part.

Mostly because Munchkin plays a lot faster and is a lot more fun than doing that kind of thing in D&D.

But, hey, if you got it, run with it. Just make sure everyone's on the same page so you don't have one person who rolled up a Paladin.

edit: I've never quite been able to say why, exactly, but I find that something about most evil characters makes it so that they feel like they need something like a mission to keep them hanging out with one another in order to be a party in the first place...

Drachasor
2011-08-29, 12:26 AM
I've no interest in running evil games or playing in them. I only really enjoy playing a heroic character or running a heroic campaign. That doesn't mean the story has to be an epic. It does mean I like to play people who are truly good and try to make things better.

And yes, this is because I find evil stuff ethically repugnant. It's pretty visceral to me, and I have no desire to desensitize myself to it (nor would I enjoy the process).

nihil8r
2011-08-29, 12:41 AM
i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great. :smallcool:

Dr.Epic
2011-08-29, 12:48 AM
I'm against them because they tends to be a lack of focus. Good characters care about political or social upheaval. Bad characters not so much so when you throw them a plot hook about stopping something or starting something they might not care. They're evil and could be selfish and just interested in killing others for their own profit and not following the storylines you created.

SowZ
2011-08-29, 12:49 AM
i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great. :smallcool:

Of course, you can still tell a good story without accomplishing goals other then purely selfish ones. Who doesn't love the Princess Bride? But I don't see a good story in a bunch of murdering lunatics out for gold, XP, and carnage. Maybe other people do. Not me.

TheMac04
2011-08-29, 12:49 AM
i think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. if you want to play an "evil" campaign so you can be a serial rapist killer arsonist cannibal, please stop playing rpgs and asphyxiate yourself instead. if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great. :smallcool:

Now, I disagree, sort of. Playing a villain can still be interesting and not stupid without being an anti-hero. If we're roleplaying as a group of characterized, but still clearly evil people, why is that so wrong? It's still telling a story, just from the perspective of the bad guys. The Joker is an interesting character, and he's evil as hell. I don't think it's right to defy anyone to want to just be the bad guy for once. It's fun. Think outside the box. Don't always be the white knight.

Totally Guy
2011-08-29, 01:01 AM
Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

TheMac04
2011-08-29, 01:03 AM
I'm against them because they tends to be a lack of focus. Good characters care about political or social upheaval. Bad characters not so much so when you throw them a plot hook about stopping something or starting something they might not care. They're evil and could be selfish and just interested in killing others for their own profit and not following the storylines you created.

You can use the "it wouldn't work if your players are stupid/don't care about the story" argument for pretty much anything.

SowZ
2011-08-29, 01:07 AM
Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

Oh, oh I get it. Just because their Orcs they have to be evil! Nevermind some of us here are orcs. *Points to my user title.* But that doesn't matter to mister holier than thou Orcs is bad Mister Snooty-Human pants over here. No, no, nevermind, I'll just sit here being racially slurred... Oh, wait, while I would love to stick and chat I'm totally late for a twelve o clock village burning. See you guys when I get back.

((P.S. L-l-l-l-l-level up! User title will now read Barbarian.))

nihil8r
2011-08-29, 01:08 AM
Our last game was an evil campaign. Everyone played orcs.

There was a point near the end where Makes Effin' Brilliant Weapons the Blacksmith and the Whisperer turned to each other and asked "Wait. Who's the big bad?"

And I, as GM said "Warlord Drodush is the big bad. I can't believe you guys can't see it."

Warlord Drodush's player smiled.

that sounds awesome. :smallsmile:

obviously, of course it's okay to tell a story from the villainous side. but a villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities, one who can't be identified with, can't really compare to a villain who has at least some interesting or human qualities. pure sadism isn't an "interesting" quality, which is why the most memorable super-evil characters have a lot going for them other than hurting people for fun.

TheMac04
2011-08-29, 01:10 AM
that sounds awesome. :smallsmile:

obviously, of course it's okay to tell a story from the villainous side. but a villain with absolutely no redeeming qualities, one who can't be identified with, can't really compare to a villain who has at least some interesting or human qualities. pure sadism isn't an "interesting" quality, which is why the most memorable super-evil characters have a lot going for them other than hurting people for fun.

In my experience, the best is to have only one sadist in the party. Then you get drama, between the evil, but still pragmatic characters, and the psychopath. Get all the characters in the campaign for different reasons. Evil campaigns are FUN man.

Coidzor
2011-08-29, 01:32 AM
You can use the "it wouldn't work if your players are stupid/don't care about the story" argument for pretty much anything.

Yes, but pointing out that certain things are especially vulnerable to this and require demonstrably less X to have undesirable Y happen is still a valid point.


In my experience, the best is to have only one sadist in the party. Then you get drama, between the evil, but still pragmatic characters, and the psychopath. Get all the characters in the campaign for different reasons. Evil campaigns are FUN man.

For certain people in certain moods and for certain kinds of fun.

It's only FUN, though, if it's dwarven (http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/DF2010:Losing).

And if you have to kill a psychopath in order to get any useful information, the only person having fun is the player of the ganked psychopath.

ghost_warlock
2011-08-29, 01:34 AM
Motivation and lack of focus don't have to be a problem for an evil party. You just have to find something they'll collectively fight against. I find things like Galactus do nicely. Even evil characters like having a planet to live on.

nyarlathotep
2011-08-29, 01:36 AM
Motivation and lack of focus don't have to be a problem for an evil party. You just have to find something they'll collectively fight against. I find things like Galactus do nicely. Even evil characters like having a planet to live on.

Or even just a goodly kingdom to conquer, or a wayward insult from an elven princess inspiring genocide.

TheMac04
2011-08-29, 01:38 AM
I always prefer having them fight against an equally evil threat, with opposed ideologies. That's great fuel for drama there.

ghost_warlock
2011-08-29, 01:58 AM
Or even just a goodly kingdom to conquer, or a wayward insult from an elven princess inspiring genocide.

The advantage of Galactus1, though, is that it also encourages the party to work with goody-goodies rather than wholesale slaughter them. I mean, it's f'in Galactus, man!

1Or a similar over-powering threat, such as a planar rift allowing literal armies of balors to waltz right onto the Prime and slaughter anything in their path, Vlaakith the Lich-Queen invading the world with her army of githyanki and red dragons, or that epic-level awakened tree in Eberron, Oalian, driven completely mad and seeding its corrupted thoughts into the minds of its druid followers worldwide...

TheMac04
2011-08-29, 02:02 AM
The advantage of Galactus1, though, is that it also encourages the party to work with goody-goodies rather than wholesale slaughter them. I mean, it's f'in Galactus, man!

1Or a similar over-powering threat, such as a planar rift allowing literal armies of balors to waltz right onto the Prime and slaughter anything in their path, Vlaakith the Lich-Queen invading the world with her army of githyanki and red dragons, or that epic-level awakened tree in Eberron, Oalian, driven completely mad and seeding its corrupted thoughts into the minds of its druid followers worldwide...

...Or the Snarl.

ghost_warlock
2011-08-29, 02:10 AM
...Or the Snarl.


Galactus is the Snarl.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/76/20071009001044!Galactus_Cloud.jpg
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090221201236/oots/images/thumb/8/8f/Snarl.png/244px-Snarl.png

Katasi
2011-08-29, 02:18 AM
I enjoy evil parties from time to time, both played straight with characters that have realistic motivations, played over the top with characters with utterly over the top motivations, and played humorously [think 8-bit theater]

Mastikator
2011-08-29, 05:01 AM
Because I don't define good and evil as primary attributes of importance, nor do I play games with objective morality systems, I don't actively go out of my way to make my character either good or evil, I try to avoid non-specific adjectives for my character even.
My so called evil characters aren't "evil", one was so desensitized to cruelty that didn't even notice how brutal he was, and because he was desperate for money others viewed him as incredibly greedy and willing to kill anything just to take their stuff, when in his own mind he was just trying to make ends meet (and he did have a just reason for needing lots of money and fast).

As a DM I have no problem with parties being evil, or individual characters having polar opposite views. What I do want the PCs to have is goals and a reason why they're not at home being safe and happy. I need to know what drives them.

Yora
2011-08-29, 05:20 AM
I think evil parties are no different from other parties, as long as the PCs are all working together for the same cause. If they prepare for the moment the antagonist is slain and the cards are reshuffled and it ends in a free for all for the now vacant throne, that's okay and can even improve the entire campaign.
Just don't base the fun playing your character on ruining the fun of the other players.

Kiero
2011-08-29, 05:51 AM
Not interested as a player or GM.

flumphy
2011-08-29, 06:20 AM
I understand why some people enjoy it, but I just can't get into it. While I have no problem with one or two evil characters in an otherwise good party, or even playing one of those evil characters myself, I can only really have fun if the party as a whole is working for the greater good. I play D&D mainly to escape the real world, where I'm actually pretty powerless to enact any sort of beneficial change.

hamishspence
2011-08-29, 06:25 AM
"Evil, but for the greater good" is always an option- basically, playing heroes, but ones that sometimes go to extremes.

flumphy
2011-08-29, 06:31 AM
"Evil, but for the greater good" is always an option- basically, playing heroes, but ones that sometimes go to extremes.

True, but still darker than I care for, personally.

Mixt
2011-08-29, 06:47 AM
I tend to be that guy who will resort to extreme measures to achieve our goals.

Other players: We know he has information we need, but he won't tell us!
Me: Mind Rape!
Prisoner: *Becomes totally loyal and tells us everything we need to know, including where he keeps his secret stash of money*
Me: Good boy.
Other players: HEY! Mind Rape is evil!
Me: It worked didn't it?

Or

Other PC's: We know the BBEG is hiding in this village, but we don't know where and the villagers refuse to help.
Me: *Starts a fire that torches the whole village* Now he's got nowhere to hide.

Or

Me: I know, let's make a deal with the dragon.
Other PC's: But it's a chromatic dragon! It's evil!
Me: Yeah so? We have something it wants, it has something we want, i fail to see the problem. Besides, it save us the trouble of having to fight it.

Or

Me: Hey guys, i recruited some extra help!
*A Pit Fiend shows up*
Other PC's: ...What? A Pit Fiend? Seriously?
Me: Enough talk, let's storm the BBEG's fortress.

Kinda like that.

Pragmatic Evil i think it's called.
Being evil because it opens up more options.

Conners
2011-08-29, 07:44 AM
It's also, "Awesome-within-fiction Evil".

This is another reason I hate alignments... it confuses the players so they miss out on these kinds of subtle evilness ("Evil means you wear black and/or red, are extremely arrogant, and will ALWAYS pick the most awful option").


If the Evil guys can have fun adventures, I'm all for it (fun from a literary standpoint, not their characters' views).

Mordokai
2011-08-29, 08:56 AM
Galactus is the Snarl.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/76/20071009001044!Galactus_Cloud.jpg
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090221201236/oots/images/thumb/8/8f/Snarl.png/244px-Snarl.png


Who is this Galactus you speak of? I require more information. I also require a picture of bigger format :smallbiggrin:

As for the question in OP... I enjoy playing evil characters and games, mostly because I'm the reasonably nice guy in real life and I seek outlet for some of my dark urges in the game where it hurts nobody. I enjoy playing variety of evil characters, from psychopaths to suave evil, to power behind the throne and your classical anti-hero. Sometimes, the lot of it can't be found in one character. No evil deed is off limits to me, so if you're playing with me, you will witness rape, burning, pillaging, torturing... you name it. I never go into graphic details, but I make it perfectly clear what is happening.

Elyssian
2011-08-29, 09:14 AM
I have to say I seem to always play in evil parties no matter what system we end up playing, I almost miss the days of being a hero... Not really but it works for our group, we are in the middle of a story where we are the evil group trying to stop a greater evil so that he doesn't kill all of our play things.:smalltongue: Cause evil or good party no one wants Chthulu to come out and play.:smallamused:

Sucrose
2011-08-29, 09:53 AM
Tried it a few times. Really couldn't get into it. I have no desire to play as an evil character in an RPG, nor associate with one, nor DM for one. Darkest I care to get is Dirty Harry. Have nothing against those that enjoy it, since, as said, it is fiction. It is just fiction that I have no desire whatsoever to read.

Emmerask
2011-08-29, 10:20 AM
I think it can work, but only if there is a strong enough incentive to actually work together.
If not the game soon becomes a "who can screw the other party member more", followed by killing each other, followed by drama, followed by either the campaign being scraped or at worst the group dissolving over it.

Morghen
2011-08-29, 02:13 PM
One of the keys to having a successful evil party is that it needs to be made up of grown-ups. It's not mandatory, but boy does it help.You'd be surprised hombre.I didn't say "They all have to be over 30." I said they all have to be grown-ups. You can have a successful evil group of 18-20 year-olds if none of them are ass-hats.

if, however, you want to play an antihero who still accomplishes worthwhile goals despite malignant personal flaws, great.What if I want to play a completely immoral person who is willing to murder innocents for his worthwhile goals? Do we all need to check our in-character goals with you?

I'm against them because they tends to be a lack of focus. Good characters care about political or social upheaval. Bad characters not so much so when you throw them a plot hook about stopping something or starting something they might not care.That's an inexperienced evil party. An Evil Warlord is threatening Peaceful Village? Rookies will go, "Meh. I'll go start a bar fight and then burn down the library." Experienced evil players will say, "An Evil Warlord? Hmmm, maybe he's hiring."

They're evil and could be selfish and just interested in killing others for their own profit and not following the storylines you created.I don't throw this around very often, if ever, but here it is: That underlined bit is one of the hallmarks of bad GMing. So your players don't go where you want them to go. And? "But, but.. they're supposed to Save The Princess!" No, they're not. They don't have to. What would you do if a "good" party ignored your hooks and headed for Evil Kingdom to pacify/carve out a niche for themselves?

Pragmatic Evil i think it's called.
Being evil because it opens up more options.This.

Kerrin
2011-08-29, 03:20 PM
I think it can work, but only if there is a strong enough incentive to actually work together.

If not the game soon becomes a "who can screw the other party member more", followed by killing each other, followed by drama, followed by either the campaign being scraped or at worst the group dissolving over it.
I agree with a lot of this.

I've seen evil characters cause the party to have no reason to stay together either because the party members have started hosing each other or doing things (outside the party) that other party members strongly object to. Therefore, after a while the party doesn't have any reason to stick together - one or all party members end up being ousted or split.

The only way I've seen evil player characters work out is if all the players agree to an evil based campaign and target their evilness on something outside the party (and therefore not each other).

Coidzor
2011-08-29, 05:30 PM
This.

This what? In response to what?

Ilmryn
2011-08-29, 09:10 PM
Motivation and lack of focus don't have to be a problem for an evil party. You just have to find something they'll collectively fight against. I find things like Galactus do nicely. Even evil characters like having a planet to live on.

This tends to work well, the one evil campaign I'm in has a ommnicidal dragon god as the main adversary. It makes it more of an antihero campaign.

I've only been in one evil campaign, but what makes it work is that it's special. Evil campaigns are the exception, so extra effort goes into the evil characters. The characters in that campaign are more fleshed out than the characters in any good-aligned dnd campaign I've ever been in.

BarbarianNina
2011-09-05, 05:50 PM
Evil adventuring parties make really good villains. Especially if you make them as crazy and random as actual PCs.*

As for playing, or DMing for, an evil adventuring party... eh. Not my thing. I can see how it could be someone else's, but I'd feel pretty uncomfortable at that table.

*Yes, I acknowledge that this is impossible. A DM can dream.

Babale
2011-09-05, 06:03 PM
I like Evil parties if they have a real goal. For example, I ran a campaign (and am trying to reboot it, in fact) where monstrous humanoids fought against human paladins who were trying to cleanse them from the land. Are the monsters still evil? Yes, because in D&D, Evil is not debatable. But can you identify with them? Sure you can.

Basically, Redcloak Evil is fine, Belkar Evil is not, at least if the entire party is Belkar.

I also played one game as an evil epic wizard, out to conquer the world. We destroyed villages for undead materials... But it was more Xykon Evil than Belkar Evil.

Yourshallowpal
2011-09-06, 11:40 PM
My big problem with evil characters is this:

"Romantic Evil" is so pervasive that the idea of an awkward or (occasionally) incompotent villain never occurs to some players, even experienced ones. Totally level-headed players suddenly act like newbies because they really thought evil was inherently less failure-prone.

And, of course, the ever present "Chaotic Stupid" villain.

SowZ
2011-09-07, 12:18 AM
I like Evil parties if they have a real goal. For example, I ran a campaign (and am trying to reboot it, in fact) where monstrous humanoids fought against human paladins who were trying to cleanse them from the land. Are the monsters still evil? Yes, because in D&D, Evil is not debatable. But can you identify with them? Sure you can.

Basically, Redcloak Evil is fine, Belkar Evil is not, at least if the entire party is Belkar.

I also played one game as an evil epic wizard, out to conquer the world. We destroyed villages for undead materials... But it was more Xykon Evil than Belkar Evil.

Hmm? Even by D&D standards, monstrous humanoids are not always evil. Most aren't even almost always evil. And a Paladin cleansing the monster races from the world is evil or at the very least committing an evil act within D&D. Good and Evil as objective things don't mean right and wrong in D&D, either, even if they try to.

JonRG
2011-09-07, 12:25 AM
I wanted to play a sneaky changeling assassin as the face. The two fighter types wanted to turn all the NPCs into hamburger. :smallmad: Probably for the best that we only did two sessions...

Now if everyone agreed on a more muted brand of evil, then I'd be interested. :smallsmile:

Keinnicht
2011-09-07, 01:10 AM
I think some DMs shy away from them just because evil adventuring parties tend to involve more player planning than DM planning. It's much harder to plan a campaign for evil characters - I mean, while many evil characters would object to the world being destroyed/everyone being zombified/everyone being enslaved/other common plot, just as many probably have similar goals.

Basically, a good evil campaign needs to have players who can make characters with actual goals that the DM needs to help them work for - it's more of a reactive game, which most DMs are not used to running.

Also the problem is less characters being evil as fudge, and more players being dumb about it. It's the line between knifing random NPCs in alleyways for fun, and decapitating random NPCs in broad daylight. Unless a character's intelligence and wisdom are both like 6, blatant evil acts in public view are just not in character, at least at low levels. Obviously, if you're higher level, doing more obvious evil acts will probably become necessary for some characters' goals (You can't really conquer a kingdom without launching an unprovoked attack on a town, possibly killing some of the hapless town guards, for example.)

ShneekeyTheLost
2011-09-07, 01:32 AM
Oh, there's all different types of characters at the deeper end of the alignment pool, none of them need resort to crude crassness to further their ends.

Now, guys like the Belkster? Kind of on the amaturish side, although he's good for shiving things. But remember the whole delusional pep-talk from Wacky Old Dude (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0605.html)? And about his outlook on life (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)? Yea, that's starting to get there.

It's really quite simple, being evil doesn't mean being stupid any more than being Lawful Good means having a stick up your pigu. It just means you need a bit of... class. Style. Panache. And, for pity's sake, color coordination.

Now then, the first thing about Evil is ultimately... self interest. What's in it for ME. Well, if you've got a group together, then having someone else take the hits for you, or having someone behind you keeping you up so THEY don't end up next on the menu, is never a bad thing.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean everything is sugary and light. But if you take the long picture, getting along with even goody-two-shoes is a better deal than trying to strike it solo. And hey, if you need to go rescue an orphanage or two so your cover story is solid? Fine. You go ahead and do that. Just remember, when the Mayor comes to you offering you gold, you can accept it, you can extort more if you're particularly near sighted...

Or you can shrug it off with a simple "Money does not interest me. You'll just owe me one later on. You'll know when."

Now, most mayors are elected as such because a) they are good at fast-talking, b) they are greedier than the average shmuck, and c) they don't want to do anything that'll piss everyone off. So, given the opportunity to look like you're rewarding the 'hero' without actually having to shell out any cash up front? Double bonus.

The other thing about politicians? Invariably short-sighted. They never expect to have to pay up for long-term debts, they figure the bill will come around on someone else's term, and they get to laugh as the next poor shmuck has to deal with it. So when you DO show up and politely request your favor... don't expect him to be all happiness and light. After all, a good half of 'em become politicians because it's the best way to dodge responsibility. That's when a polite request... backed up by, oh say, his favorite horse's head in his bed in the morning... is generally necessary. But hey, after that, they're generally a LOT more willing to acquiesces to your request.

Shiving your party members? Again, short-term thinking. Sure, you might pull it off, and get their loot... now what? Who is going to watch your back when you sleep now? More importantly, what if he's got an arrangement to get a rez if someone, like yourself, manages to shiv him? Now he's gonna be wanting revenge... and on his terms. Not worth the hassle, trust me.

The only exception would be if he's clearly a danger, not just to yourself, but to the whole group. You know who I'm talkin' about... not just Belkar-level shiv-happy, but takin' it one step down on the intellect scale to where he'd probably shiv ya just for the lulz. Or maybe if he went Frenzied Berzerker and is a walking TPK bomb. In such cases, it may become necessary to... remove the problem child. But before you do, make sure the rest of the group knows who is the real danger here. Heck, have them do your dirty work for you, if possible. But at a minimum, get a green-light from the rest before preemptively saving everyone's behind by removing the problem.

After all, you've got goals, and you can get there a hell of a lot faster by exploi... ahem, I mean leveraging other people's skillsets.

Knaight
2011-09-07, 01:36 AM
I usually don't enjoy evil adventuring parties - if a character can be boiled down to "evil" they are probably lacking nuance - but there are exceptions. However, said exceptions tend to be exploring a particular brand of evil, with heavy detachment from characters. Say, a band of religious fanatics in a monastic order. Religion, fanaticism, military orders, these are fun to explore. Add in what any given character will have, as well as the basic template - looking at those three, throwing in dependency and an eagerness to please people, along with an incredible patience would be fun - and you have some truly interesting characters for a character driven story.

That said, I really can't tolerate this for extensive amounts of time. A group of scum - complex scum, but scum nonetheless - pretty much need to be followed by decent people for me. Maybe not D&D Good people, but people who aren't willing to commit atrocities for whatever has horribly screwed them up.

Sir Conkey
2011-09-07, 01:47 AM
Speaking as a player the closest I've got was when the DM specifically asked me to play an undercover villain. I was an Aberrant Doppelganger in a planar campaign so I agreed and got to play an underhanded ally. It was fun simply because my evil was not over the top.

Speaking as a DM I'm not against the principle of running an evil campaign. Long as it's not "Let's find some more hapless villagers to murderify" in which case I'd just hit them with a high level paladin. But I could totally go for a high level Conquest Campaign or some kind of Usurper Storyline

Jerthanis
2011-09-07, 02:13 AM
I agree with what Knaight has to say.

People don't generally brand themselves evil, and often there are justifications they are making to themselves, or are subconsciously shifting responsibility for their actions onto a larger authority. While these justifications might be interesting to explore for a while, eventually I will get sick of looking at the same hypocritical worldview that I created for this person and they'll have to develop somewhere... growth towards enlightened self interest and "do unto others as I would have them do unto me" worldview at the very least.

As a GM, I hate evil characters a lot and I hate the people who will happily profess "I always play evil characters" as well. The problem with GMing for really EVIL people is that you can never know when a plot will completely fall on its face due to PCs absolutely not giving a damn. Even if you offer benefits and rewards for the individual, if the situation is dire or dangerous enough, they've always got the option to let everything burn behind them as they leave it behind. Good characters are easier to connect to the interests of the setting, are easier to roleplay NPCs who are interested in interacting with them and you can put responsibility in their hands and it can be a conflict beyond "How can I best make this work to my advantage"

In one game I ran, a normal person with flaws and philosophy and responsibilities ruled a nation where a natural disaster struck and quite a few of the nation's citizens died. This formed the dramatic high point of an entire game, and sparked a great character development story as it was partially that character's fault. In another game, a character I'd describe as pure and unadulterated evil ruled a nation and almost every single person in the nation died in a way that was almost entirely the character's own fault and when the character found out, the reaction was basically, *shrug* "Whatever, sucks to be them I guess".

Knaight
2011-09-07, 02:39 AM
I agree with what Knaight has to say.

People don't generally brand themselves evil, and often there are justifications they are making to themselves, or are subconsciously shifting responsibility for their actions onto a larger authority. While these justifications might be interesting to explore for a while, eventually I will get sick of looking at the same hypocritical worldview that I created for this person and they'll have to develop somewhere... growth towards enlightened self interest and "do unto others as I would have them do unto me" worldview at the very least.

I prefer them dying horribly as the result of stubbornly sticking to their own flaws. It works for the tragic hero, and it works for the not-hero protagonist. And after these characters are all dead, and the damage they've done in the name of what they see as good, or their right, or whatever else can be seen in its entirety, new characters come out who you can actually hope get good endings.

dsmiles
2011-09-07, 05:25 AM
Evil throws the best parties! :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, I dig the party dynamics in an evil party more than a good party's dynamics. But then again, the evil parties I play in tend to be a bunch of neutral-with-evil-tendencies characters led by an evil mastermind (read: me).

As a DM, I don't particularly care if a party is evil or good, as long as "stupid" isn't one of their alignment axes (Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axis), for those in doubt).

KineticDiplomat
2011-09-07, 04:07 PM
Evil parties can be quite challenging and interesting. Indeed, there are levels of subtly, plotting, manipulation, and creativity that can't be broached without going into the gray, and sometimes all the way over. There's no reason to deny them on the precept that they are amoral - face it, your adventurers seek out violence, butcher things, steal, lie, and more or less do amoral things for a living. Actually, they are encouraged to conduct mass murder for riches and personal power. If they actually have to work for the right to do this, instead of being handed "Rescue the princess! Save the McGuffin! The orcs are evil!" on a plate, they need to intelligently self motivate to accomplish goals within the framework you create. This can be just as epic if not more so than "Kill the Shadow King."

They are also, by nature, vastly independent. They run around fulfilling their own desires, acting with a certain level of freedom not typically expected of "Good" parties. Oh well. Its the price you pay to open up options.

The trick you see, is that with the freedom to do all that comes the freedom to fail. Good parties work on the somewhat meta-gamed promise "if you, more or less, try to follow the plot in an even half sane manner, the world will not obliterate you. Well, probably not the entire party at any rate. I mean, unless you really screw the pooch."

Evil parties, in my mind, basically waive their right to this agreement and take full consequences for their actions. You want to slaughter the villagers, pillage the item shop, and rape/enslave the survivors? Ok. The squick parts are going to be fade to black, but you can do it. Historically, that would qualify as "pretty common."

The counter is that that village was paying taxes to someone. Its serfs were someone's subjects, and its resources on someone's trade route. And if you just did enough economic damage, or got the population to stirred up, or even just created an unacceptable political risk, pain is coming. Not "nicely matched, CR rating appropriate" pain. The type of pain you would unleash if you were king and a merry band of four people just killed a batch of your subjects. The type of pain merchants hire when trade routes get cut off. In short: you can do it, and, if you work hard, you might even get away with it..but be damned sure the world is going to kick back.

drakir_nosslin
2011-09-07, 04:32 PM
If anything I have a trouble playing a good character in D&D. I mean the basic idea is that you run around, break into other dudes' homes, kill their family, steal their stuff and run off to another part of the country.

That doesn't sound very 'good' to me. Sure, you can say that it's for a 'good cause', but I don't buy it. If you were truly good, you'd go there and reason with the kobolds, and work for harmony and peace in the whole world.

Not stab things and call it a day.

dsmiles
2011-09-07, 05:07 PM
That doesn't sound very 'good' to me. Sure, you can say that it's for a 'good cause', but I don't buy it. If you were truly good, you'd go there and reason with the kobolds, and work for harmony and peace in the whole world. Heh. My evil characters do that. (Though it is in the name of world domination. :smalltongue:)

Knaight
2011-09-07, 05:13 PM
If anything I have a trouble playing a good character in D&D. I mean the basic idea is that you run around, break into other dudes' homes, kill their family, steal their stuff and run off to another part of the country.

That doesn't sound very 'good' to me. Sure, you can say that it's for a 'good cause', but I don't buy it. If you were truly good, you'd go there and reason with the kobolds, and work for harmony and peace in the whole world.

Not stab things and call it a day.

Yeah, dungeon crawls with intelligent occupants make good difficult. That said, even D&D can do more than dungeon crawls, and the vast majority of non D&D games focus significantly less on violence anyways.

Kerrin
2011-09-07, 07:50 PM
If anything I have a trouble playing a good character in D&D. I mean the basic idea is that you run around, break into other dudes' homes, kill their family, steal their stuff and run off to another part of the country.
I think it depends on what the party of player characters decides to spend their time doing and how they go about it. Not all adventuring parties are homicidal hobos. D&D *can* do things in addition to kick-in-the-door, stab-them-in-the-face, and take-their-stuff.

SowZ
2011-09-07, 09:25 PM
Yeah, dungeon crawls with intelligent occupants make good difficult. That said, even D&D can do more than dungeon crawls, and the vast majority of non D&D games focus significantly less on violence anyways.

There are coutless ways to make a dungeon crawl, even a traditional one, a 'good' act and not out of pure bloodthirst and murderous greed. Even if the party isn't that interested in deep roleplaying/making choices beyond how to solve a dungeon, (not interesting for me but some people love it,) the DM can spend five minutes explaining a real reason why a dungeon needs to be cleared out because the monsters are working for the clearly evil villian who needs to be stopped or really bad stuff will happen. Then the characters can wipe out a dungeon, remain good/neutral, and have a plot justification for doing it more than gold!

drakir_nosslin
2011-09-08, 04:08 AM
Yeah, dungeon crawls with intelligent occupants make good difficult. That said, even D&D can do more than dungeon crawls, and the vast majority of non D&D games focus significantly less on violence anyways.

True, for more morally concerned games I prefer WoD actually. It tends to actually punish murderous characters (at least in my experience).


I think it depends on what the party of player characters decides to spend their time doing and how they go about it. Not all adventuring parties are homicidal hobos. D&D *can* do things in addition to kick-in-the-door, stab-them-in-the-face, and take-their-stuff.

True, but D&D is mostly a combat simulator, at least that's how it's presented in the books, so you're supposed to go out there and start killing. Problem is that I don't believe that a paladin is good as soon as he starts killing things to left and right.
Often people tries to justify this with the argument that some races are 'always evil' and therefore deserves killing. However, the sanctified (I think) template from BoED shows that even the darkest soul can be redeemed, meaning that killing should always be a last resort for a good character. I still have to find a game where that is the case, so I like my characters to be neutral, evil or good ones that are corrupted by their own actions and eventually becomes evil.
My 2 cp.

Knaight
2011-09-08, 05:00 AM
True, for more morally concerned games I prefer WoD actually. It tends to actually punish murderous characters (at least in my experience).

WoD...actually no, I'm not going into it. Suffice to say I think it is poorly designed. Burning Wheel, Fudge, Fate, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, those do a much better job.

Hanuman
2011-09-08, 05:33 AM
Most evil adventure characters are created in the mentality that evil == sociopathic punks with no fear of anything.

I've never seen 4 people in the same party make tasteful evil characters who were personable.

dsmiles
2011-09-08, 07:10 AM
I've never seen 4 people in the same party make tasteful evil characters who were personable.Neither have I. Hence, the aforementioned "neutral party with evil leader" shtick.

Hanuman
2011-09-08, 09:18 AM
Neither have I. Hence, the aforementioned "neutral party with evil leader" shtick.
It's not that, it's just that the quality of alignment is a mechanical factor, not a theme that can be directly followed.

What makes a character interesting and loved as a story device is not the ease in which you can describe them, but the difficulty.

Because of that, people who have lived in luxury of not being around violence or actual strife (99%+ of the people reading this) as part of their daily life, have trouble creating characters who have come from a background where it's reasonable that their environment has created a sense of disrespect for life that's bred out of anything but stupidity, juvenile behavior or unrealistic dickery.

SowZ
2011-09-08, 11:54 AM
Most evil adventure characters are created in the mentality that evil == sociopathic punks with no fear of anything.

I've never seen 4 people in the same party make tasteful evil characters who were personable.

I had such an experience happen on one occasion. The characters were interesting, everyone had real goals, no-one was shank-happy-McGee, people were clever and funny, and they had legitimate relationships.

EvilDM
2011-09-08, 01:23 PM
I do not try to limit the players, but I do enforce consequences. The severity of the action and what steps they took to cover their tracks would determine who takes notice and what actions are taken against them. Recklessly evil players will get treated no differently then other dangerous outlaws and monsters.

In my current world a blatantly 'evil' party who slaughtered a village would gain the attention of the Empire and likely have the Imperial Gendarmery hunting them down (which would be a very, very bad thing.) Villages would close their gates to them, and the local militia would be on alert if they were known to be in the area. If the party took action against the Faith in their little village destruction then they'd have the church after them as well.

On the flip side, a party who was trying to destroy a city by channeling a river thru it that took great care to cover their tracks could also be the most popular people in town, invited to parties, hailed on the streets, have flowers thrown where ever they walk, etc. An enterprising party could even raise their reputation by 'uncovering' and foiling the attack or by going thru with it and claiming to have killed the folks responsible for it (a few dead bodies of known enemies would help here.)

For me every case is treated differently and is based on the party's actions. I allow the party to sink or swim based on how they decide to handle it, and I communicate that up front to help try to ensure that they aren't surprised by outcomes.

Jerthanis
2011-09-08, 06:57 PM
True, but D&D is mostly a combat simulator, at least that's how it's presented in the books, so you're supposed to go out there and start killing. .

While it is true that an overwhelming portion of the rules of D&D involve combat, and therefore is an assumed part of the majority of games, I believe this doesn't mean that these situations have any more imperitive to take place outside the "appropriate response" reaction to a situation.

Just because combat rules make up the majority of the ruleset doesn't mean that within that ruleset it becomes a more moral option to kill shoplifters. If there is a circumstance under which killing is justified (such as the immediate risk of the lives of many others), then D&D might have those circumstances happen more often, but the focus of the rules doesn't mean that it changes how good people act within that rule set.

One of the only dungeons I remember clearly playing was actually framed as the PCs being Sharn investigators, interviewing a suspicious cleric and then hearing screams for help from within the church, where then we had cause to search, and the inhabitants began to resist with deadly force.

Kerrin
2011-09-08, 10:28 PM
True, but D&D is mostly a combat simulator, at least that's how it's presented in the books, so you're supposed to go out there and start killing.
I think a lot of it has to do with -why- the player characters do what they do and -how- they do it. Being "good" doesn't necessarily mean being a pushover or a cream puff.

drakir_nosslin
2011-09-09, 06:00 AM
I think a lot of it has to do with -why- the player characters do what they do and -how- they do it. Being "good" doesn't necessarily mean being a pushover or a cream puff.

And I never said that, but there are more ways of dealing with violence than killing. I guess the easiest way of playing a really good character would be to pick a tier 1 class because then you got more options than simply 'I smash'.

I believe that when you start seeking out things and killing them for the cause of 'good' you've long since ceased being good.

ufis
2011-09-09, 06:52 AM
When you play a good campaign, the DM has to play the evil guy(s).
Playing evil is just switching roles with the DM a little.

Not all evil guys are rapists or necrophiliacs or cannibals.

Find the level of violence that you as a player is comfortable with and use that in the game - whether that is done by your character or the NPC controlled by the DM.

Earthwalker
2011-09-09, 07:04 AM
As a player I always want to play on the lighter side of the aliengment pool, usualy always good. Also if I am playing good I want my actions to help people and improve the world.

This usually means I don't play in mixed groups of good / evil. I certainly don't want to play an evil character.

Its a similar story when I am GM I prefer the parties I gm for to be good, at least as a majority.

hamishspence
2011-09-09, 07:47 AM
As a player I always want to play on the lighter side of the aliengment pool, usualy always good. Also if I am playing good I want my actions to help people and improve the world.

This usually means I don't play in mixed groups of good / evil. I certainly don't want to play an evil character.

It's not that implausible to have an evil character dedicated to "helping people and improving the world".

What makes them Evil, might be their repeated violations of the rights of individuals, to serve "the needs of the group".

They might even only violate the rights of "non-innocent people".

But the violations are so serious- as to justify an Evil alignment.

Terazul
2011-09-09, 09:40 AM
Evil parties can be fun. With the right people.

Like with any alignment or character personality, people need to be both understanding, as well as mature about it. The trouble with many rookie players, which in turn causes other people to be wary of "Evil" on any sheet, is that they often equate "Evil" with "Violent". Which is not necessarily the case. While most adventurers will have a bit of a bloody streak, it should not be the core of their persona.

I for one, prefer the more "manipulative bastard" style of Evil play. In one campaign, we managed to orchestrate a full-on civil war between two city-states via subterfuge, forgery, and a lot of alternate identities. Only so that the party could come in later and appear as the saviors who brought it to an end, in addition to being the new rulers of this brand new unified little kingdom.

Blackmail. Dissolution of trust. Turning one's longtime friends into their most hated enemies. There's many ways to go around being Evil and making everyone miserable without just killing them.

Though the occasional Explosive Runes letter bomb doesn't hurt. Just make sure you have enough ranks in Forgery so it looks like someone else wrote it.

Earthwalker
2011-09-09, 12:06 PM
It's not that implausible to have an evil character dedicated to "helping people and improving the world".

What makes them Evil, might be their repeated violations of the rights of individuals, to serve "the needs of the group".

They might even only violate the rights of "non-innocent people".

But the violations are so serious- as to justify an Evil alignment.

I believe everything you have said here, the thing for me is. When playing in a world where you can detect if someone is evil, and having to witness the cruel and evil acts this person in your group is performing, you just get to a point where I want to either stop them hurting people or just saying "Look it appears you are evil and to be honest I don't want to work with you any more, I am off to look for people I feel more comfortable working with".

Trekkin
2011-09-10, 07:44 PM
In answer to the OP: Evil adventuring parties are, in my view, more interesting than good ones.

Naturally, I say this knowing full well that alignment is only as much of a straightjacket as a given group wants it to be, but in my experience people tend to see good as a more demanding alignment than evil. I think it's because Good typically boils down to a set of proscriptions; Good characters can't hurt the innocent, Good characters can't torture, etc. The logical assumption then is that nongood characters can do those things, but are also free to do good things, so the spectrum of possible motivations and methods opens up more on the deep end of the alignment spectrum. Of course, the argument could be made that truly Evil characters would be morally opposed to committing a Good act, but I think the abundance of apparently Good but secretly Evil characters in fiction biases people away from applying such strictures. Evil people can do good things with some evil intent in mind (see the plethora of evil philanthropists), but Good characters can't burn down a hospital to keep up a pretense of being Evil, for instance. Again, this isn't absolute, but how many DMs put "secretly evil" NPCs in a game while demanding the PCs not act even occasionally evil?

That said, there are tendencies for the parties generated when a DM says "let's play an evil party" to contain two-dimensional characters who intersperse random vandalism with senseless murder and call it evil. These typically get branded "chaotic evil", and I think they're the source of a great deal of the antipathy towards DMing for and playing in evil parties. The opposite end of the spectrum, though, is embodied in the Paladin, and that certainly has its share of detractors.

When I run an evil game in a normal setting, I usually set it up such that the PCs come up with a scheme (or they enact the scheme of another) and the world reacts to them, in keeping with the idea that heroes are society's immune system--they play the antigen rather than the response, and that lets them have the freedom to develop into something unique in ways heroes can't. As long as the world is structured so that they'd better hang together alive rather than dead separately, it actually becomes rather like a normal adventure, but in reverse.

Darth Stabber
2011-09-13, 12:54 AM
I refer you to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196674) thread about the group I am currently GMing. The players are mature, and they have recently become a much more compassionate form of evil (or they may have realized that information is somewhat easier to extract from the living). The rundown of the current party for those thatt don't want to read several pages of debate:

Tibbit Dread Necromancer(CE): would be a model CG character were it not for her gleeful dark experimentation. She's the party healer (all of them have tomb-tainted soul as a regional feat), and generally the loudest voice for good. She drifts back and forth between CN and CE depending on what sort of experiments she's been up to recently. She's also utterly bat**** insane, and was kicked out of a necromantic kingdom for her "zombie rights movement". She accepts, but strongly objects, to the evil label when she has it, and her insanity is pretty much limited to believing that all the undead are just "differently animated". The player and I frequently debate the alignment in light of insanity (it's always friendly and not during play), but with D&D morals having concrete definitions, she has very little room to argue from.

Human swordsage (NE): of the practical evil variety. He's never evil for the lulz, but as a formor assassin (and accomplished taxidermist), he doesn't ever hesitate to do the practical. He's had the most character development of the 3, and is on the cusp of TN.

Elan psion/uncarnate (TN): Escapee of one of the more cultish elan cabal, he seeks not redemption but trancendence. While certainly not good, his only black marks are aiding the DN, occasional "practicality", and whatever guilt by association is worth (not much in my book). Character is kind of dry at this point (fairly new player), but he has a very important side plot coming up and I'm guessing there will be some decent character development forthcoming.

As a GM I would almost rather run an evil campaign, depending on the players. If the players are mature it works out just fine, and they are easier to motivate, as manipulating the darker impulses of man is always easier. If I don't know the players or I know it would cause problems, I will instead aim for the more standard faire.

As a player I would generally rather play a neutral or evil character. The deeper character flaws and more complex web of competing interests intrigues me, and I have played enough goody two shoes for a while (though o-chul does makes me want to play a paladin again). I am certainly not going to be any form of stupid evil, and if the other players wonder why I have that E on my sheet so much the better (I will usually inform the GM of exactly why it's there). There is no reason why an evil character couldn't get along with, and sync harmoniously with non-evil adventurers (barring palladins of course), and there is no reason to resort to belkaresque comedic sociopathy. Fantastic speciesism, unneccessary cruelty, terrible wrath, extreme miserliness, unchecked slothfullness, overbearing pride, immense vanity, borderline slolapism, collossal arrogance, and general self centeredness are not neccessarily disruptive and add color and depth to a character, if played correctly, while allowing for character development, and providing the GM with useable plot hook bait. I's called the deep end of the alignment pool for a reason. If the game is "no evil" I'll downplay some things and go with neutrality.

Tzevash
2011-09-13, 05:17 AM
Quite hard to handle. I'd rather prefer a campaign where there is a balance between the party members' alignments and a real common goal, with a place for 1-2 good characters, 3-4 neutral, and 1-2 evil. It gives flavour to moral disputes without disrupting the group immediately.

All evil and all good is just monolithic, hence damn boring.

molten_dragon
2011-09-13, 05:21 AM
As long as the party is set up at the beginning to be evil, and the players have all agreed with it, then it's usually fine. Things tend to be a bigger problem if you have good and evil characters in the same party.