My DM Doesen't Want me to be Evil

[Darthteej]

Here's the scenario-

Him: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, first time running it, very exited to be doing so. Been playing and running for 5 years, and has played with some bad people over that time.

Me: I want to be a Tiefling Sorcerer, Chaotic Evil. Figure it's appropriate for a campaign set in the most infamously morally ambiguous setting. Have promised to tone down the optimization, and play my character like Belkar(post-mindtrip) instead of Belkar(pre-mindtrip). In other words, I'll just be a friendly psychopath more than willing to pretend to be a helpful adventurer.

Him:Insists that he has NEVER seen a CE character who hasn't screwed over the campaign in some way, shape, or form.

You guys: Opinions on the matter? Should I back off and play a more traditional hero? CAN chaotic evil be played without ruining campaings?

[Fax Celestis]

You asked, your DM said no. Just drop it and try something else.

[Darthteej]

You asked, your DM said no. Just drop it and try something else.

Oh come on now, I've been posting on GiTP for a year; we both know the thread's not ending with that. Everyone knows there must be at least one person advising me to get elaborate revenge on the DM by building a stupidly powerful character before the thread is done.

Besides which, my DM hasn't explicitly said no, he just says he needs strong evidence that chaotic evil does not equal wrecked campaigns.

[Venger]

Here's the scenario-

Him: Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, first time running it, very exited to be doing so. Been playing and running for 5 years, and has played with some bad people over that time.

Me: I want to be a Tiefling Sorcerer, Chaotic Evil. Figure it's appropriate for a campaign set in the most infamously morally ambiguous setting. Have promised to tone down the optimization, and play my character like Belkar(post-mindtrip) instead of Belkar(pre-mindtrip). In other words, I'll just be a friendly psychopath more than willing to pretend to be a helpful adventurer.

Him:Insists that he has NEVER seen a CE character who hasn't screwed over the campaign in some way, shape, or form.

You guys: Opinions on the matter? Should I back off and play a more traditional hero? CAN chaotic evil be played without ruining campaings?

yes, of course. there are no bad character concepts, only bad players. chaotic evil is associated with stupid evil, lolevulz, or chaotic derp, among others, leading to comments such as "I RAEP AND KILL THE SHOPKEEPER CUZ IM EVIL". the worst players and roleplayers are chaotic evil.

that said, it is more than possible to have a viable CE character that doesn't go around in mindless slaughter mode.

as long as it's not important to you mechanically (which as a tiefling sorcerer it isn't unless you planned on other things) just write NE on your character sheet and roleplay him how you want. neutral on the law/chaos axis inevitably has a leaning and since neutrality means obeying the rules/code of conduct or whatever some of the time that always leans towards chaos. just say you're a chaotically inclined NE and you'll be good

I had something of a similar problem. when starting out a game, I played the first session with everyone and gave the DM my sheet and he said everything was fine but was surprised I was NE (my favourite alignment. do all the bad deeds you want without being beholden to baator or the demons when you die) because I wasn't saying "rape and kill" to every question, because evil is patient and capable of cooperating with the party when it is in their interests.

essentially I RPed my char in an inteligent manner and was a team player (protect the wizard, heal the fighter, etc) that's really the main thing. CE derps don't make good players because they often haven't played the game before and are too used to things like wow where you just beamspam attacks all day and are unfamiliar with a noncompetitive rpg as opposed to more experienced roleplayers who know that team unity is vital to success.

tl;dr as long as you're an adult about it, there's no problem RPing CE. if your DM's got negative connotations, just go NE if there's no mechanical benefit to being CE/loss for being NE

[Tenno Seremel]

Switch to neutral evil. It's not that alignments are that clear either.

EDIT: fast-typing ninjas…

[ClothedInVelvet]

I would say your DM is probably right. While it's a lot of fun to play a CE character, they have a habit of going off the rails somewhere along the line. And while that's fun and probably good in a standard campaign, it majorly screws with preset adventures like Ravenloft.

I'd say save your CE character for when he busts out the generic campaign and having a CE party member would spice things up instead of messing things up.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm with Fax. Your DM said no, it isn't THAT big of a deal. Play CN if you want.

[Darthteej]

I might just have to go with the alignment switch. I've actually threatened to just play the same damn character, but with a different alignment written down. My DM's one of those guys who's totally loose unless you bring up something very specific and arbitary that he's had a bad experience with *shrugs*. Thanks for the help.

[Krazzman]

In our Groups LG has broken more One-Shots than anything else.

CE is not bad you just do what you want to do and if this means kill that child because he tried to pick pocket you...so be it. With CE you can be cruel in one and heartly in the next.

Alignments are murky, if CE broke his campaigns you can tell him, this lies in the character concept, not alignment. CE, NE und CN are quite close together hell if you have a LG character in your group he can break the game if the rest is more neutral aligned. This is just a question about the concept you could tell him your alignment could be described between CN and NE and then explain how your character would react. CE just means "Tons'n, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's, ton's of Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun" with your good ol buddy chad...

But as Fax said, if you can't get him to come to mind...say it's NE with tendencies to CN.

Hope this helps.

[CommodoreCrunch]

Make it clear to him that Chaotic Evil does not equal Chaotic "Cheese and Penguins" Stupid.

He's probably only played with people who's idea of "Chaos" is "lolrandum". Combine that with Evil and you get a PC who kills peasants, rapes chickens and attacks the other PCs for no reason other than "bcuz im eee-vuhl, duH!"[sic]. These people are either bad players, new players, or both. Some can be cured, while others need to be dropped into a hole and forgotten. No matter what, these types of players have never, in my experience, enhanced a campaign. They've always detracted from the story, been general annoyances and have ruined entire plotlines singlehandedly on many occasions. So if this is the type of **** he's had to put up with, I can see where he's coming from.

However, people who play CE intelligently can add a lot to a campaign. It can add intrigue and suspense and challenge the PCs unexpectedly. I had a CE character once who's goal in life was to kill Nerull. Whenever he'd kill someone, he'd whisper a message to Nerull to them as they died, usually to the effect of "Tell Nerull I'm coming to kill him." This resulted in a couple of difficult, unforseen combats where we had to fight things that had been sent by Nerull to kill my character. Another CE bit of my backstory came back to bite the party in the ass as well, which set things in motion for one of the best moments of the campaign.

Basically, this boils down to two points. First, from what I've heard of Ravenloft, denying a CE character is like denying ominous thunder and lightning in a B movie horror flick; it shouldn't be done. Secondly, his past experiences with CE PCs doesn't matter. If he's reasonable, you can give him assurances that you won't mess up his game. Try asking him where on the campaign CE hurt him in the past, so you know what types of behavior to avoid, and assure him that you will do so.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Krazzman makes a good point. Any alignment can screw things up, it all depends on what their motivations are and how they're going to play. Even the best-played character can screw things up if they play in a way that runs contrary to the DM's plans and the DM can't adapt.

I would suggest telling your DM what your schtick is. How will your character manifest his personality? Will he cut up everyone he meets? Smash every statue he finds? Or something a bit less random. If your DM is aware of how you're going to be acting, he'll probably be a lot more comfortable that you're not going to ruin things.

[Diefje]

Anyone can break a campaign. Your DM is overreacting.

That said, it's pretty easy to just change the alignment. No matter what you say, he has an idea of CE that he doesn't want to deal with. It's just his houserule. If he DMs more games introduce some CN and NE characters that still work well with the group, and get him to warm up to CE. But that will take time, if it happens at all.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Put your alignment to chaotic neutral then simply roleplay your character how you originally intended and see if it becomes a problem. If it causes a problem then tone it back. And if it works then it works and you can safely change your alignment to evil offically.

[Rapidghoul]

As has been brought up in various flavors: alignments are fluid, play one step away with tendencies towards, etc. However, be careful with teasing alignments. I played in a game with a "chaotic neutral" druid who played very obviously chaotic-evil. In character, he claimed everything was a neutral act, and our characters judged him too harshly since we were good aligned (if you've seen The Gamers 2: Dorkness Rising, very much like the wild mage, but not funny). In the long run the player was so stubborn, the group fell apart.

I'm not saying this is an inherent failure of chaotic evil characters, even for players that toy with lines. I played a lawful good ultimate magus that played lawful neutral a lot while surrounded by paladins and the like. They saw me as callous, but they liked me well enough.

Play to maintain party unity by acting past your alignment, don't play a fake alignment to keep party members (or the DM) off your back. If you need to play off chaotic evil, play a neutral evil player that doesn't like to be bossed around. Align as neutral evil. Build up traits that lean chaotic.

[Larpus]

Put your alignment to chaotic neutral then simply roleplay your character how you originally intended and see if it becomes a problem. If it causes a problem then tone it back. And if it works then it works and you can safely change your alignment to evil offically.
This.

Best alignment ever, you can be a sick bastard when you want/have to but still be considered good enough so the party's Pally doesn't smack you in the face.

But the only situations where a CE (or just Evil for that matter) ruins a campaign is when the player is playing it as the "up to 11 CE", being as random as possible and kicking puppies and burning children for pointless fun.

But then, a stick-to-behind LG can be just as annoying and party breaking.

[Darrin]

Me: I want to be a Tiefling Sorcerer, Chaotic Evil. Figure it's appropriate for a campaign set in the most infamously morally ambiguous setting.


I would have to disagree here. Ravenloft is the *LEAST* morally ambiguous setting. The genre of Ravenloft is "horror", and if you glance through the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft sourcebook, it's quite heavily slanted with the PCs being innocent and good (the Lightbringers, all those postive-energy ACFs, etc.) in a world that is so thoroughly evil and corrupt that the entire world around them, even nature itself, is either outright plotting to kill them or has been forced against them by blind allegience to Strahd.

Insisting on a character concept that breaks one of the DM's core concepts for the campaign is likely to (at least) cause some consternation. Your best strategy is to talk to the DM and get him to elaborate on what his assumptions about the campaign are, and see if you can find some common ground. If the DM is insistent that he wants an all-good party vs. Strahd, then you can point out that "secret turncoat/hidden spy", "reformed villain/henchman", and "innocent turns to evil, then redeems himself to save the party" are all very common tropes in the horror genre, and would work perfectly well in the Ravenloft setting.



Him:Insists that he has NEVER seen a CE character who hasn't screwed over the campaign in some way, shape, or form.


This may be your ace in the hole... the party is going up against effin' *STRAHD* for crissakes. Does the DM expect a cakewalk, or does he expect the party to get betrayed at some point? Why *wouldn't* Strahd have someone on the inside, reporting their movements, waiting for the perfect opportunity to betray them all and stomp out a potential insurrection? Bad things are going to happen, but if you and the DM work together, you get to play the character you want to play, and when you do go bad, then the DM has more control over how and why. That way, if the party gets screwed, it's to move the plot forward, rather than to take it off the rails for your own personal reasons. Of course, if the DM isn't prepared to manage players with wildly different campaign goals, then he's still likely to say "no."



You guys: Opinions on the matter? Should I back off and play a more traditional hero? CAN chaotic evil be played without ruining campaings?

All things considered, it's probably a moot point. In my experience, the "Alignment" line on a character sheet is a meaningless fig leaf. Players play the characters they like to play, regardless of whatever klunky mechanics the game designers or DMs have attempted to weld on top of player behavior. Most gaming groups have "that guy" who always plays a dark, mysterious, untalkative psychopath, and recreates that same cookie-cutter character over and over again, regardless of whether there's some scribble on his character sheet that says "Paladin" or "Lawful Good".



CAN chaotic evil be played without ruining campaings?

It takes a very mature group, with players who are willing to adhere to the genre tropes and building interesting character stories rather than demonstrating PWNage against the other players. The D&D rules are stacked very, very heavily towards racking up PWNage, not so much towards building interesting character stories. I want to have a lot of trust in a player before I allow them to secretly or explicitly subvert the common goals of the rest of the group.

[Andreaz]

This.

Best alignment ever, you can be a sick bastard when you want/have to but still be considered good enough so the party's Pally doesn't smack you in the face.

But the only situations where a CE (or just Evil for that matter) ruins a campaign is when the player is playing it as the "up to 11 CE", being as random as possible and kicking puppies and burning children for pointless fun.

But then, a stick-to-behind LG can be just as annoying and party breaking.

<reads>
<reads again>
<sigh>

[Gullintanni]

Besides which, my DM hasn't explicitly said no, he just says he needs strong evidence that chaotic evil does not equal wrecked campaigns.

Belkar? We've got 816 pages and counting of well-rp'd Chaotic Evil that hasn't ruined the campaign yet :smallamused:

[Leon]

You asked, your DM said no. Just drop it and try something else.


I'm with Fax. Your DM said no, it isn't THAT big of a deal. Play CN if you want.

I'm with this vote.

If you don't like what the DM has decided then you are free to leave his game.

[Project_Mayhem]

This.

Best alignment ever, you can be a sick bastard when you want/have to but still be considered good enough so the party's Pally doesn't smack you in the face.

But the only situations where a CE (or just Evil for that matter) ruins a campaign is when the player is playing it as the "up to 11 CE", being as random as possible and kicking puppies and burning children for pointless fun.

But then, a stick-to-behind LG can be just as annoying and party breaking.

Chaotic Neutral doesn't really work like that. If you're using it as an excuse to evil acts while claiming 'but I'm not evil!', then you're probably evil. CN is more of a not-very-structured self interest - it no longer means you are insane.

[Lilithgow]

I'm enclined to chime in with Fax, and state that if your GM throws down the final ruling, too bad, no CE for you.

But, if he's looking for being convinced, work with him on some character stuff. Get him to give you a hypothetical situation, and then you honestly respond to that - explain how your character is Chaotic and Evil - and try to work out a character arc. I've always found that the evil alignments required more work between player and DM, so ask him what he wants, and what the potential of having you in the party can do for the story.

As other people have said - you could just put 'neutral' down, and run with that - I know I have had similar knee-jerk reactions when I see that dreaded consonant down on someone's sheet.

[hewhosaysfish]

One thing you haven't mention is how long you've been gaming with this particular DM.
If the group's relatively new then it may be best just to pick another concept to go with; if you've known eachother a while then it may be possible to just ask him to trust you.

I do have to disagree with the people suggesting that you play exactly the same character with CN or NE written on his character sheet.
If the DM has had bad experiences with disruptive CE characters then he's almost certainly had bad experiences with disruptive CE-characters-that-the-player-argues-are-totally-CN-despite-all-the-evidence; Switching to the exact same character just with the alignment changed is going to ring some major alarm bells for him and look a lot like you're trying to sneak a CE character past him using the oldest trick in the book.

[Vangor]

My understanding of EtCR is the party is assumed good, quite good.

More the point, explain the character to your DM. I generally direct my players away from CE, LG, and NN alignments because those tend to become dominating aspects of the character with CE playing random and thoughtless evil, LG playing law as good, and NN playing balancing with extremes. However, this is because players often see alignments as helping to define the character rather than a simplified description for mechanical purposes (detect evil, domains, etc.). Players act in some manner because the character is CE, which is, in my opinion, wrong; the character should be CE because the player acts in some manner.

I have often considered having all players begin with neutral alignment and simply assign alignments based on actions. No reason, for instance, you could not begin play as a NN sorcerer who becomes CE by way of actions which are CE as per the views of the DM.

Our discussion would then be about what is nonconducive to tabletop gaming. Certain all of us agree actions which aggravates the rest of the group and makes DMing more difficult than necessary are to be avoided. This, of course, depends on the group and DM.

[panaikhan]

I don't have any personal experience playing or DM'ing CE.
That said, I've played and DM'd the other two evil alignments.

LE is the easiest to work into a group (as long as there are no paladins) as there can be a 'sworn oath' by the character to tow the party line when needed.

NE is a little harder - if the group's goals and the characters goals don't follow similar lines, it makes for difficult situations.

CE needs to be played very carefully, and with the right group. If the rest of the group aren't going to give the knee-jerk reaction of "it says CE on his sheet, we can't trust him" then it's worth at least discussing it.

[Psyren]

Remind your DM that being evil in Ravenloft means he can screw with your character in all kinds of exciting ways via random curses. He'll come around.

Although personally I'm in favor of the "Write CN and roleplay" option. As long as you're not being pre-vision Belkar it shouldn't be an issue.

[panaikhan]

----------

[Tyndmyr]

Oh come on now, I've been posting on GiTP for a year; we both know the thread's not ending with that. Everyone knows there must be at least one person advising me to get elaborate revenge on the DM by building a stupidly powerful character before the thread is done.

Besides which, my DM hasn't explicitly said no, he just says he needs strong evidence that chaotic evil does not equal wrecked campaigns.

I do that, when the DMs being ridiculous. In this case, he's really not. CE DOES have a strong correlation with chars who are disruptive in the randomly stabby/stupid evil way. I've seen it plenty, and know a fair amount of people that outright ban it(or the entire corner, NE, CE, CN).

Does it hamper your build in any way?

Does having NE or CN on your sheet instead prevent you from playing a char like Belkar?

If not, I'd just pick another alignment and run with the same idea. Alignment is descriptive, not proscriptive.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

The thread title is misleading. Your DM doesn't want you to be Chaotic StupidEvil. Play Neutral Evil. Promise to NOT ruin the game. Problem solved.

[Provengreil]

This.

Best alignment ever, you can be a sick bastard when you want/have to but still be considered good enough so the party's Pally doesn't smack you in the face.

But the only situations where a CE (or just Evil for that matter) ruins a campaign is when the player is playing it as the "up to 11 CE", being as random as possible and kicking puppies and burning children for pointless fun.

But then, a stick-to-behind LG can be just as annoying and party breaking.


If you tried that with me, I would notice and shift your alignment. This only really works with DMs you can sweet talk into allowing it. Neutral on the good/evil axis can be doing both good and evil acts in balance, or maybe do good while being almost entirely tolerant of evil that doesn't adversely affect you, etc. If you commit mostly evil acts, you're evil.

[Dralnu]

You asked, your DM said no. Just drop it and try something else.

This. You can try to sway his position, but don't repeatedly nag him if he doesn't want to budge. If he doesn't want to deal with an evil character and the potential headaches that may likely ensue then he's not obligated to do so.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Best alignment ever, you can be a sick bastard when you want/have to but still be considered good enough so the party's Pally doesn't smack you in the face.

What you're describing IS NOT CHAOTIC NEUTRAL. It's chaotic stupid, which is chaotic evil with immunity to Smite Evil. :smallannoyed:

[Larpus]

Ok, I feel like i have to apologize and expand on my response.

I was assuming the starting point of "the PCs are always good", which is quite true in most settings and campaigns.

In such a situation, G-E Neutral is as evil as you can be without giving your DM headaches, I didn't mean to say "hey, do whatever the hell you like, kill puppies, burn orphanages and then say 'what, I'm not Evil, see, I just gave a platinum to the hobo'".

I assumed that the OP wanted someone who is a bit on the psycho side and is obviously not Good as per the alignment, but as long as he's not outrageously Evil, there's nothing barring the concept from being just Neutral.

The usual thumb-rule the tables I frequent use when regarding evil is something along the lines of "someone who pursues Good through rather Evil means", as the DMs I play with tend to consider more the intention of an action rather than the action itself when ruling whether it's Good or Evil.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Figure it's appropriate for a campaign set in the most infamously morally ambiguous setting.

I would like to point out that A) Castle Ravenloft isn't actually set in Ravenloft, last I checked, and B) While the setting may be morally ambiguous, the adventure really isn't.


CAN chaotic evil be played without ruining campaings?

As long as you think of it as "playing Chaotic Evil" then, no, it cannot be played without ruining campaigns.

Playing your alignment is stupid. You might play a character whose alignment best matches up with Chaotic Evil, but you should never play an alignment. That way lies Miko, Belkar, and every ******* whose CN Kender ruined a game.


You asked, your DM said no. Just drop it and try something else.

Also, this.

And don't do the "play exact same character, put down CN on the sheet". That's stupid, vindictive, and a great way to screw up a game and/or friendship.

[Duriel]

One thing you haven't mention is how long you've been gaming with this particular DM.
If the group's relatively new then it may be best just to pick another concept to go with; if you've known eachother a while then it may be possible to just ask him to trust you.

I do have to disagree with the people suggesting that you play exactly the same character with CN or NE written on his character sheet.
If the DM has had bad experiences with disruptive CE characters then he's almost certainly had bad experiences with disruptive CE-characters-that-the-player-argues-are-totally-CN-despite-all-the-evidence; Switching to the exact same character just with the alignment changed is going to ring some major alarm bells for him and look a lot like you're trying to sneak a CE character past him using the oldest trick in the book.

WELL why is LN or any neutral alignment any different? Has basically said that all the characters in party must be explicitly GOOD? And besides until you actually act, alignment is just 2 letters on your sheet. He ultimately CANT decide what your character does or does not do. I've been In campaigns where people started as one alignment and it changed. ITS ONE THING to be Evil from the OUTSET...and another to actually fall or develop tendencies or predilections through RP with reason.

Thing is, as an Evil character

* Why is your character Evil?
* How did they get that way (IN the campaign, not before its start)?
* Exactly what "Evil" things do they do, and why dont (or do they) disrupt the parties actions?

You can be Evil aligned and not be a total kill-and-rob-random-npcs-all-the-time-and-backstab-the-party-d-bag kind of character. (I say so with a 19nth lvl CE cleric and 8th lvl LE rogue ). EVEN THEN you can still be an "antihero" without being an Evil one.

[Bayonet Priest]

I used to have a player who only ever played a Chaotic Evil Halfling Rogue. Every single game it was the same character. I lost two shopkeepers to him, he would wait till the rest of the party was gone and then come back and rob the place. I was planning on running Red Hand of Doom for the group but I knew the rogue player wouldn't be able to stop himself from murdering all the friendly NPCs he could. I also didn't want to ban the evil alignment from the game because I don't like telling the players what to do with their characters. The game never started for time related reasons but the biggest worry I had when planning it was the rogue player.

Interestingly the longest running game I ever DMed and the most fun I had doing so was for a party that was aligned Good-Neutral. They operated like adventurers, motivated by loot and general heroicness rather than a desire to murder whoever they felt like. It was actually kind of nice.

So yeah, I know evil is not really the problem and it's really the player that can make it one but I now have issues with evil PCs because of my own experience.

[The Reverend]

I had a dm accuse me of derailing a campaign while playing a neutral style character, Warning it was a RIFTS game.
Our party had a platinum diamond encrusted macgiffin that secreted golden macguffins.
The enemy, a powerful off world technological species wanted the macguffin and were preparing a full on planetary invasion to find it, on a massive scale.
My character came thru a rift at game start did not know about magic etc but when informed that they would just go away when they got the macgiffin and no one would get hurt I made it my mission to give the "enemy the mcguffin as I had witnessed more than one planetary invasion and this world had no coordinated defenses, planetary batteries, or even an organized planetary defense force. Therefore little chance of helping me survive.

On the first occasion my character said I'll hold it while everyone else fights....then proceded to jetpack out of there in the middle of the fight.
I did similar stunts throughout the game because I liked being alive.

So derailing can happen with any alignment given the right circumstances

[Fax Celestis]

I would like to point out that A) Castle Ravenloft isn't actually set in Ravenloft, last I checked

It is. It's set in Borovia, which is part of Ravenloft.

[Menteith]

CE characters can easily be loyal friends who are willing to give their life for the right cause. They can be passionate about defending the freedoms of themselves and others. They can feel empathy, respect, even admiration of others and have goals as varied as those of any other alignment. Chaotic Evil also doesn't preclude enlightened self interest - if I behave in this manner, people will respond to me accordingly. Even if you're running a sociopath, most people behave fairly logically (if I kill the magic shopkeeper, then I will have gained a minimal short term benefit and have lost fairly significant long term benefits), and should still behave rationally.

With that said, I'd respect the wishes of your DM.

[Hiro Protagonest]

CE characters can easily be loyal friends who are willing to give their life for the right cause. They can be passionate about defending the freedoms of themselves and others. They can feel empathy, respect, even admiration of others and have goals as varied as those of any other alignment. Chaotic Evil also doesn't preclude enlightened self interest - if I behave in this manner, people will respond to me accordingly. Even if you're running a sociopath, most people behave fairly logically (if I kill the magic shopkeeper, then I will have gained a minimal short term benefit and have lost fairly significant long term benefits), and should still behave rationally.

With that said, I'd respect the wishes of your DM.

...DId you seriously put "sociopath" and "feels compasion for others" in the same description?

[Kish]

The hardcover book, Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, is not set in, indeed presumes the nonexistence of, the Ravenloft demiplane. Count Strahd and all the rest exist on the Prime Material Plane, with sections on locating the village and castle in multiple published settings, based on which setting your ongoing campaign is in.

Ravenloft is by far the least morally ambiguous setting. A chaotic evil PC in Ravenloft is practically guaranteed to become an NPC fast, without the DM doing anything to encourage it, just if the DM doesn't go out of his/her way (quite far out of his/her way) to ensure that doesn't happen.

These two paragraphs are unrelated; I know no reason a chaotic evil PC would be any worse in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft than in any prepackaged adventure designed to assume heroes, since Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is not set in the Ravenloft demiplane. I just noted two severe misconceptions in this thread, one of them by the OP.

[Menteith]

...DId you seriously put "sociopath" and "feels compasion for others" in the same description?

None of those things have to apply to the same person. Just tossing out various qualities of CE that aren't entirely about pillage and murder.

[hamishspence]

...DId you seriously put "sociopath" and "feels compasion for others" in the same description?

Same paragraph- but two separate descriptions:

CE characters can easily be loyal friends who are willing to give their life for the right cause. They can be passionate about defending the freedoms of themselves and others. They can feel empathy, respect, even admiration of others and have goals as varied as those of any other alignment.

Chaotic Evil also doesn't preclude enlightened self interest - if I behave in this manner, people will respond to me accordingly. Even if you're running a sociopath, most people behave fairly logically (if I kill the magic shopkeeper, then I will have gained a minimal short term benefit and have lost fairly significant long term benefits), and should still behave rationally.

[darksolitaire]

A quick note. If you are playing a horror game, you should not be one doing evil things. You should be one who is done evil things. Horror, as a genre, plays differently then normal heroic fantasy. You are basically agreeing to set of different rules, one of which might be being victimized. Now, who do you think is more easily victimized, NG or CE? Good alignments are those who care more about their fellow men, and can be targets indirectly, where evil alignments are colder, not caring about strangers.

[Pigkappa]

Don't play an evil character in that adventure. EtCR is one of the best adventures out there for a Good party. As an Evil one, you'll soon realize you're lacking any kind of reason to stay in Barovia unless you work hard with your DM to build one just for you.

I'm currently DMing that adventure, and I told the players to be Good or, if necessary, LN. The first time I DMed it, there was an assassin in the party and that wasn't funny. There are already enough evil, intelligent creatures to worry about.

[Curmudgeon]

A Lawful Good character who spends most of their time and energy mistrusting companions they suspect aren't up to their high standards is a poor party member. On the other hand, a Chaotic Evil character who dithers about whether to brutally slaughter opponents or make them flee in terror can still contribute usefully to the objective of overcoming obstacles and is thus a helpful party member.

It's a matter of how you play the characters, not the alignments.

[hamishspence]

Good alignments are those who care more about their fellow men, and can be targets indirectly, where evil alignments are colder, not caring about strangers.

Unless you're running "Evil by virtue of doing horrible, horrible things to transgressors".

Imagine a monarch who gets very upset at undeserved human misery of any kind- but has robbers and fraudsters crucified.

[Pigkappa]

Well, in Ravenloft it's also a matter of alignment, actually.

The following is a spoiler, so the ones who need to play the adventure aren't supposed to read it (but they likely will anyway)

If you play the adventure as written, the party will have a reason to enter Barovia (e.g. find the Sunsword). This one is usually something which can be done quite soon, let's say in 1 level and a half. Now, they are in this awful land full of evil and extremely dangerous and intelligent creatures. Good characters are supposed to help the inhabitants; Evil characters are likely going to notice that there's no reason to stay there, and will leave.

[hamishspence]

See aforementioned "good by inclination, evil by deed" type.

While it's true that good characters make personal sacrifices to help strangers, it does not automatically follow that everyone who does so, is good, or even neutral.

[marcielle]

Put your alignment down as CN or NE. Just play your character how you want. Simple as cupcake. Personally, I put my chars down as True/Lawful Neutral at start, do what I like, and then let DM decide if my char needs a n alignment switch. Besides, you are a Warlock. It's not like your class is mechanically restrained by your alignment.

[Venger]

Put your alignment down as CN or NE. Just play your character how you want. Simple as cupcake. Personally, I put my chars down as True/Lawful Neutral at start, do what I like, and then let DM decide if my char needs a n alignment switch. Besides, you are a Warlock. It's not like your class is mechanically restrained by your alignment.

OP said he was gonna be a sorcerer (which indeed carry no restrictions whatsoever on alignment) warlocks must be evil or chaotic (although there's no consequence if you change your alignment, so that's kind of whatever)

[darksolitaire]

Besides, you are a Warlock. It's not like your class is mechanically restrained by your alignment.

I'm not 100% sure this is sarcasm, which it probably is, but I'll respond anyway. Warlocks must start as chaotic or evil.


Unless you're running "Evil by virtue of doing horrible, horrible things to transgressors".

Imagine a monarch who gets very upset at undeserved human misery of any kind- but has robbers and fraudsters crucified.


True, but I'm considering more of PCs rather then NPCs. Evil PCs tend to be, in light of my limited experience, more of the emotionally cool type rather then good intentioned psychopaths.

[kudosmog]

It's a matter of how you play the characters, not the alignments.

This.


I like the way my wife plays her CE character.
She has a goal, she works with the group to achieve her goal. She's evil, but she's far from stupid.

But, sometimes....we begin down a different path and she has moments of standing up for herself to try and convince the group to advance more quickly towards getting her goal finished. Typical behavior.

Other times, we specifically go all out, trying to gain quick power for the group with little to no downsides, and she will outright disagree that its the best course of action.

After I go around "chess matching and diplomancing" NPC's into helping us, and then lay out this well thought out plan that will advance her character and the rest of the party to a level she seemingly wanted...she will try and fight it.

When she makes me literally speechless both in game and out of game, I feel she did a good job RPing CE.

Now, the big thing is not ruining the party because of it. She could easily just trump everything I say with nonsensical chatter, but eventually she will give in....for no good reason. And that makes her alignment and her RP fun, for everyone.

I think it's all about randomness and freedom. She wants to be the one making the decisions. She doesn't like being told what to do. Make things sound like it was her idea and she's good to go etc etc. Organization isn't her thing, she wouldn't want to listen to battle plans.

Doesn't have to be all about pwning farmers and flaying cattle for no reason. I think people in the past have just chosen CE as an alignment so they can justify being *****.

[Menteith]

True, but I'm considering more of PCs rather then NPCs. Evil PCs tend to be, in light of my limited experience, more of the emotionally cool type rather then good intentioned psychopaths.

The last CE character I ran was more evil because of extremity of action than anything else. Individuals who wronged him -whether personally or because it went against what he felt was morally right - were subject to brutality, but he didn't strike out at random people to make himself feel better. For example, he detested slavery, and was willing to commit atrocities in order to stop it.

[lord pringle]

Most of my friends can't play CE. Some can sort of play LE and NE but only one can play CE. He is the guy who runs his character as a concept instead of a sheet. I love him for this. I for one have a bit of trouble playing CE. Not for the evil part but it's hard for me to play villainous but not chessmaster.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

OP fails, /threaded 1st reply, variant of 'help my DM won't let me play pun-pun' exactly like the best GitP thread ev

[Kane0]

My Current (Pathfinder) Party Consists of:
-Evil Ninja
-Chaotic Rogue
-Good (But not lawful) Cleric
-Neutral Good Magus (Me)
-Lawful Neutral Cavalier (I think)
-True Neutral Pyromaniac Wizard
-Paladin :smallconfused:

Our party pretty much puts aside alignment except as a rules mechanic and general guideline for player reaction to situations, not as much interaction. Our characters' personality replaces their alignment as much as possible, leaving our games theoretically very 'gray' but still very 'black & white' when it comes to detecting and smiting alignments.
You could say that all our alignments are in reality written on the sheet as 'PC' with our 'alignment' in brackets next to that.:smallamused:

[Darthteej]

Okay, so he decided to let me play the charcter without any argument whatsoever. Thanks anyway.

[Andreaz]

Just be cool about it and clearly define what is "evil" in your character. That little set of traits is what matters when playing, not the evil tag.

[JadePhoenix]

I think you should play something else. Your DM doesn't want a CE character in his game. Sounds pretty clear for me.

[Dazed&Confused]

Orcs are CE, yet they build their own societies and don't go frenzy killing each other for stupid reasons.

[Leon]

my Cleric has just joined the Evil side of the alignment grid (to be fair he has been evil for a long time just not officially, it took a random beggar slaying to change over) Kill a lousy bum in a sewer and change alignment, watch a wizard set fire to Romes sewer system and do a lot more harm to a lot more people and get let off with a warning...

All that's changed for my PC is that he's more in the grip of a book that he possess (is possessed by...) and will happily be heading slowly down the path of Lich - after all the best way to gain more knowledge is to live longer to hoard more of it..

Where this leads is that early in the campaign things were a lot stricter and the DM has mellowed over time to some things (multiple DMs sharing the load helped as well) so if you really have a burning need to be Evil start elsewhere and then drift over slowly while showing that while the PC is evil its not a disruption to the game.

[Suddo]

Orcs are CE, yet they build their own societies and don't go frenzy killing each other for stupid reasons.

Chaotic Evil can work but only if one Orc is stronger than all the other orcs because that makes him the leader. As soon as someone else is strong he becomes the Leader. You can actually be quite lawful with the Chaotic Character it just requires you to play by a different set of laws. Its Might makes Right laws which tends to lead to you being a masochistic, child murder/rapist and having problems with authority. The Paladin of Slaughter states: "She disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her.." That's the Chaotic part; "...refuse to help to those in need..." That's Evil; "...Sow destruction and death at all opportunities." That's CE.

I personally believe that everyone who isn't bound by a Alignment should start at True Neutral and become Evil or Chaotic on their own time. It causes proper character development and you can't lean on your alignment for reasons behind your actions. I also run Taint in my games so evil characters are often going down a dark and winding road. A little bit of taint means you could be Lawful. A lot and you're Chaotic and essentially a NPC.

Oh and: You're DM said no drop it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Can't people read past the entire thread? The DM is letting him play CE.

[Suddo]

Can't people read past the entire thread? The DM is letting him play CE.

Oops I was skimming a little. I thought he was referring to the guy above him DM and how he was allowing any alignment.

[imneuromancer]

As a GM, I generally don't like dealing with characters that don't really want to be part of the party. If there is no good reason for you to be adventuring with the other characters, then why are you there?

If your chaotic evil necromancer is geased by a god to adventure with a party and gets shocked every time they don't do a Good Act, then that may be fun to role-play and you have a reason to be in the party. Otherwise, what is the point?

As a player, my general rule of thumb is that if another character exhibits something that other characters' don't like, I get the character (note: NOT THE PLAYER) kicked out. Player rerolls character that will fit in, start again. Wash, rinse, repeat until you get a party of like mind and that actually wants to work together. It doesn't have to be a big deal, you just get done with a dungeon, you split the loot, then the following discussion occurs:

Good Guy: Hey, Evil Guy, where do you want to go now?
Evil Guy: I think I want to go back to Greyhawk.
Good Guy: OK, great! The rest of us are going to Veluna. Seeya later, and good luck on your travels!
Good Guy's Companions: See you around, Evil Guy, we'll miss you! (everyone exists stage right).

[Rubik]

Good Guy: Hey, Evil Guy, where do you want to go now?
Evil Guy: I think I want to go back to Greyhawk.
Good Guy: OK, great! The rest of us are going to Veluna. Seeya later, and good luck on your travels!
Good Guy's Companions: See you around, Evil Guy, we'll miss you! (everyone exists stage right).I make it a point that whenever I play an Evil character (regardless of the other half of my alignment), I can Play Well With Others. Many Evil characters are nothing if not self-serving, and when you have an incredibly powerful group of 'friends' who are willing to go out of their way to protect you, you'd damned well stay in their good graces. You don't always have to act Good, but you need to at least be willing to sacrifice a bit (whatever 'sacrifice' might entail) for them so they'll lay down their lives for you. Feel free to play up how much you actually did, and how much danger you put yourself in for their sakes.

I generally put ranks into Bluff so I can put in a little effort at little cost to myself, but make it seem like I did so for other reasons, and put myself in a lot more danger than I actually did.

Make them happy to play with you because you pretend to play well with them, and things will go much more smoothly. And only succumb to your perverse nature when it's appropriate to do so and/or are away from their prying eyes. You enjoy causing pain? Extract just a bit more than necessary when you're in a fight. Be the only one in the party not averse to torturing prisoners for information. Use more painful alternatives whenever possible.

I also give my characters at least one positive no matter how Evil they are. I had a goblin who hated any sentient creature less intellectual than he was (and given he was an Int-based caster, that was mostly everyone), but he loved animals, even exceptionally stupid ones, and would go out of his way to be nice to them and spare them pain and discomfort, to the point where if it came between a kitten getting kicked or an innocent human about to die, he'd kill the commoner every time.

[Menteith]

X - Evil is difficult to run sometimes just because what is and isn't Evil varies so drastically from person to person. I've been told that my Evil characters are neutral and that my good characters are Evil. So much of what differentiates a character in alignment (for me, at least) is in motivation, which makes it very difficult to pin down a straight alignment. Real people are fairly complex, and no one anywhere gets up in the morning thinking their evil.

[JaronK]

It's perfectly possible to play a CE character in a good group... see Jayne from Firefly for a great example. The problem is most players don't know how to much such characters and have them be functional.

Personally, I love playing evil characters in good campaigns. I'm the guy that has to take care of things for the party when they don't want to get their hands dirty. I'm the one who solves those annoying moral quandaries for them without them having to worry their oh so high and mighty minds. But an important point here is that the character WANTS to be liked by the rest of the party. They're his friends. He likes friends. He just also likes money and comforts and such, and he's willing to make the hard choices and get things done efficiently.

JaronK

[Mnemnosyne]

This was touched on before, but, Ravenloft is not morally ambiguous. It is the antithesis of morally ambiguous, in which the player characters not only are expected to be good, they must be good, or at the very least, non-evil, or else.

Every time you do something evil - actually, intentionally evil - you run the risk of the dark powers taking note, and then potentially 'rewarding' you with a power that makes you stronger but more monstrous, and once this happens enough times, you become a darklord, imprisoned within your own domain, with your greatest desires always at your fingertips and yet always slipping out of your grasp in a cruel game of giving you just enough hope to believe that this time, maybe this time you'll overcome it, and then snatching everything away at the moment when it hurts the most.

So while I normally say playing an evil character is fine and dandy (as long as you do it in a reasonable manner and have a good reason to share goals with the party and not backstab them), Ravenloft is absolutely not the place to do it. Even a good character is likely to run afoul of a powers check once in a while, much less a truly evil character.