NE: Necessary Evil?

[Beowulf DW]

This is a roleplaying thought experiment I've been grappling with for a little while. The issue I put before you, fellow Playgrounders, is how does one play an evil character without getting instantly smote (Smited? Smoten?) by anyone in the party with a leaning towards Good? In my experience (which admittedly isn't particularly broad) most PCs tend toward Good or Neutral on that particular scale. After all, it is much easier to justify a good person going out of his/her way for the sake of others, especially when going out of that way involves some particularly deadly obstacle, than it is for an evil character who might not care in the first place.

So, how does one justify the presence of an evil character in a campaign that isn't geared towards evil PCs? And more importantly, how does one avoid party conflict when playing an evil character? Do we give the evil character a higher cause to work towards? For instance, a lawful evil character who wants to impose order and justice on the world. This character believes that the best way to help sentient life grow and prosper is to impose laws and meet out strict justice. Not much different from some lawful good clerics or even paladins, but the means this Lawful Evil character is willing to employ could be much more sinister than a lawful good character. This evil character would have no qualms about killing a bunch of bandits who have surrendered. "After all, they're bandits; if they're brought back to a court to be judged they'll probably just be hanged anyway. They might even be tortured before hand! Giving them swift deaths now is the merciful thing to do, and it's the law." A character like this might be almost a cross between the League of Shadows and Judge Dredd, believing that kindness and mercy are mockeries of true justice. Such a character might even argue for the utter subjugation or even genocide (:smalleek:) of races like orcs and goblins, in order to establish peace.

So, I restate my question here: How do we turn evil into necessary evil? How do we get the lawful good PCs to tolerate or even respect, though never agree with, such a character's world views?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Remind the paladin that he can trade in his Paladin levels for Blackguard?:smallbiggrin:

[Beowulf DW]

Remind the paladin that he can trade in his Paladin levels for Blackguard?:smallbiggrin:

I think some ranks in diplomacy/bluff might be needed.:smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

A paladin can't knowingly associate with an evil creature regardless of its goals.

[fryplink]

My Evil Characters in Good Parties usually are just greedy and me-first. Making them necessary evil and respected by the team members powered by elemental good is always a bit more difficult. The one time that I tried to play such a character, he ended up like a less-effective Lelouch (from Code Geass).

My character did evil in a means justify the ends kind of way. Burnt down a full orphanage to kill a bad guy who would've killed half a city. Without blinking (literally, since I used eye-beams). Didn't labor over finding a better solution. Just acted decisive and brutal to achieve his ends.

[Beowulf DW]

A paladin can't knowingly associate with an evil creature regardless of its goals.

Forgot about that one. I don't play many paladins, you see. The OP has been corrected. The question of how to interact with good characters, especially lawful good characters, in such a way as to not hide the character's evil side, while still maintaining some level of harmony in the party still stands, though.

[fryplink]

A paladin can't knowingly associate with an evil creature regardless of its goals.

My DM (and myself as a DM) usually Rule-0 that one to read "Cannot allow associates to knowingly commit evil while around (barring creatures powered by elemental evil)"

[Mnemnosyne]

It is far harder to do in a sandbox, non-goal-oriented campaign, for one. Not impossible, but harder.

In a 'save the world' campaign, an evil character has basically the same motivation as a good one: the destruction of the planet is very bad for business. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHorkkXqnSI&t=6m58s) The same can apply to less pervasive and more regional threats - in any of these situations, the BBEG is threatening something that the evil character cares about - he has just as much motivation to stop it as the good guys, and will sometimes curtail his more objectionable tendencies in order to get along with them. Torture might be objectionable, but you're not going to ruin your relationship with powerful allies just to torture information out of some shlub who may or may not have the knowledge you seek. On the other hand, if you can go acquire the information without the knowledge of the rest of the group, you can present it in a way that they won't look too hard at how you learned that. In these cases, the evil character gets the job done as efficiently as possible without causing too much upset for his allies, and if necessary even feigns remorse and promises to atone or accept appropriate punishment after the crisis has been resolved.

Now, when we talk about paladins there's a problem because of certain expectations and the frankly silly paladin code. The same applies to Exalted stuff from BoED. My preference is to disallow that character class or rewrite the code to make sense.

When talking about more normal good characters, though, it's actually pretty easy to play a more evil character alongside them. Law and order is definitely a goal that can be shared between the good and evil. The evil character should clearly recognize that many of his viewpoints are unpopular, though. Arguing for genocide is generally going to be a non-starter; he might firmly believe that's a necessary solution, but he should also be smart enough to understand that the vast majority of people won't accept it. Such a character can recognize that his existence and his methods are repugnant to the majority of people, and accept that.

One thing I'd do is have the character take a reasonable number of skill ranks in Profession: Barrister, so he can quote the local laws verbatim. Additionally, the player should probably talk to the DM at length at the laws and justice system of the realm(s) the game is taking place in; players often have some peculiarly modern ideas of what the courts should be like, when the courts may simply amount to 'whatever the Baron/Count/Duke/King says'. It helps a lot to have these things more established in the world, and then remind their characters to think of things through their characters' point of view rather than modern ideas; a fair trial for everyone is not exactly something that's likely to be all that commonplace in a lot of D&D settings, for instance. Linked to that, another interesting idea is to have the character actually be officially authorized as a judge or whatever is appropriate for the area. Again, something to discuss with the DM, but if your evil character is a duly appointed representative of the law, as soon as you capture a group of enemies that surrenders, you can hold an immediate trial and sentence them.

Now if you want to play a character with big plans like genociding all orcs because their existence is not conducive to a peaceful society, you definitely have to be subtle about it. Good characters are unlikely to accept any legal reasoning for that at all. If you argue in favor of it, they'll keep a close eye on you, if you actually take steps toward it, they will intervene violently, and with reasonable cause to do so. It might simply not work out in a good character dominated party. You can do it on the sly, but that's likely to eventually lead to a big showdown at the end, which can be awesome, but if that's not what you're looking for, then certain goals just aren't compatible with working with the good guys.

[AgentofHellfire]

Well, though this doesn't solve everything, there's always matters of style to help with these things. While yes, it is indeed true that an Evil character would be willing to simply slaughter those surrendering bandits, an Evil Beguiler without too much sadism and lots of Enchantments/Illusions is probably not going to do so as readily--violence just isn't necessarily how they tend to solve problems, since they're so much better at subtler methods of doing things.

[Slipperychicken]

Don't do evil for the sake of evil. Share goals with the party and use 'evil' means (human shields, torture, demons, coercion) whenever you think it's the best way. Your character might recognize these actions are immoral, but that's the price he pays to defend the innocent, he's just doing what he's gotta do. Perhaps he tries to make up for it in other ways like charity work, maybe he thinks the ends justify the means.

Believe that the majority of people are sick bastards who will double-cross each other when the chips are down. Base your moral outlook on this.

[ArqArturo]

Undetectable Alignment, ranks in Bluff, as well as Sense Motive and Spellcraft might work.

Also, a lead sheet.

[Scow2]

Ditch "Pragmatic"/"Logical" Lawful Evil - Nothing pisses good people off more than the possibilty that their way is NOT the best way, and they're likely to kill you for it. You instead want to go with "Emotional" evil, possibly outright Chaotic - To a gnoll, babies taste GOOD. Stuff blowing up in fiery conflagerations is awesome and the screams of the innocent and the way they flop around burning to death is hilarious. Go "Heroic Sociopath" - but behind all that, you're a Party Animal. Be Psychobro - yeah, you tend to lose control and kill innocent people, but you've also saved every member of the party multiple times, and when it comes to intraparty conflict, you should be Good Guy Greg. You may occassionally joke about betraying the party, but when everything comes down to the line, you should be its strongest, staunchest backbone. Yes, you're a psychopath. But you're the party's psychopath, and probably flippantly apologetic about it as well.

Well, at least that's how I play my gnoll characters. Other evil characters probably need a bit more finesse, but are less likely to survive a party purge, I think.

[Waker]

Well, one could play a Lawful or Neutral Evil character as a professional "Sorry, nothing personal" type. He goes out to do his job, attempting to minimize damage inflicted on others, not out of morality, but because it would be sloppy. The party might not like him, but they can't argue that he doesn't get the job done. You might also consider a "Lesser of Two Evils" approach. You might be a bad dude, but at least you aren't some devotee of Tharizdun who's trying to unmake reality.
For Chaotic Evil you could live with all the emotional control of a hysterical teenager. You do everything with so much more feeling than other people. The party is your family and woe unto any who would harm them.

[Kane0]

And don't forget that Evil people can have double standards too. The party might be exempt from your ordinary worldview because they are friends or colleagues. Evil can be just as inconsistent as good.

[fryplink]

Also, you can be Evil without being pure evil. It takes far fewer evil deed to be an Evil character, than good deeds to be a good character (burning down an orphanage or committing genocide of one race makes one firmly evil without truly crazy levels of justification. Choosing to not burn down the orphanage or preventing a conflagration that will raise an orphanage or killing a person planning a genocide doesn't make me good). When you recognize that a dark splash on an otherwise good character will make a very dynamic evil person while giving the cleric a change to try to "convert you" (preventing an imminent smiting) you gain an unprecedented level of creativity with your character, as well as opportunities for several party members to experience character "growth".

[Squirrel_Dude]

A paladin can't knowingly associate with an evil creature regardless of its goals.There is one caveat to this: If there is no other option or it is an exceptionally dire situation, any ally can be accepted for that moment. Only that moment.

This basically means that immediately after you and Asmodeus go punch Orcus in the face, the Paladin has to try and smite Asmodeus. It's not really a tenable alliance, I'll give you that.

[Waker]

There is one caveat to this: If there is no other option or it is an exceptionally dire situation, any ally can be accepted for that moment. Only that moment.

This basically means that immediately after you and Asmodeus go punch Orcus in the face, the Paladin has to try and smite Asmodeus. It's not really a tenable alliance, I'll give you that.

"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
-Asmodeus after being double-crossed by a Paladin

[ArqArturo]

"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
-Asmodeus after being double-crossed by a Paladin

More if that Paladin happens to be a Fist of Raziel :p.

[CRtwenty]

Excluding Paladin and Exalted types there's absolutely no reason why an intelligently played Evil character can't get along with the rest of the party. An Evil PC should recognize the power and protection he gets from his party members and should be willing to work alongside them to achieve their common goals. He's not going to betray them unless there's a very good reason to do so (IE one of the PCs rolls a Paladin and decides to go all Smitey).

Sure an Evil PC may have some evil goals (creating a secret cult to his evil god, wiping out an "impure" noble house cause they have elf blood etc.) that he pursues on the side. But most of his interaction with the party is going to be the same as the rest of the PCs. Just because he's spending his loot building a secret dark temple doesn't mean he's not going to fight the Dragon just as hard as everybody else, ya'know?

In short an Evil PC is still a PC. He should work with the party, not against it.

[Beowulf DW]

"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
-Asmodeus after being double-crossed by a Paladin

If nothing else, it was worth starting this thread for that. :smallamused:

[Waker]

If nothing else, it was worth starting this thread for that. :smallamused:

When in doubt, quote Firefly.

[Kuulvheysoon]

When in doubt, quote Firefly.

I find that that's a generally good policy to live by.

[Elderand]

Ditch "Pragmatic"/"Logical" Lawful Evil - Nothing pisses good people off more than the possibilty that their way is NOT the best way, and they're likely to kill you for it. You instead want to go with "Emotional" evil, possibly outright Chaotic - To a gnoll, babies taste GOOD. Stuff blowing up in fiery conflagerations is awesome and the screams of the innocent and the way they flop around burning to death is hilarious. Go "Heroic Sociopath" - but behind all that, you're a Party Animal. Be Psychobro - yeah, you tend to lose control and kill innocent people, but you've also saved every member of the party multiple times, and when it comes to intraparty conflict, you should be Good Guy Greg. You may occassionally joke about betraying the party, but when everything comes down to the line, you should be its strongest, staunchest backbone. Yes, you're a psychopath. But you're the party's psychopath, and probably flippantly apologetic about it as well.

Well, at least that's how I play my gnoll characters. Other evil characters probably need a bit more finesse, but are less likely to survive a party purge, I think.

Yeah....no. It might work with your group but in my experience being anything other than LE will get you killed far faster. Why ? Because the party knows that if a LE character solemnly swear to all the gods, his mother and his own soul that he won't betray the party then he more than likely won't because he lawful. The NE and CE psycho who joke around about burning people ? That guy is one "I'm bored" moment away from turning on the party for fun.

[Malroth]

And even if he's not Most "good" murderhobos imagine that they are since thats what they would if it wouldn't make the DM scratch the "G" off their alignment entry.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Yeah....no. It might work with your group but in my experience being anything other than LE will get you killed far faster. Why ? Because the party knows that if a LE character solemnly swear to all the gods, his mother and his own soul that he won't betray the party then he more than likely won't because he lawful. The NE and CE psycho who joke around about burning people ? That guy is one "I'm bored" moment away from turning on the party for fun.

Clearly, your group plays the south end of the alignment pool as Lawful Evil, Stupid Evil and Stupid Evil.

Admittedly, it's hard to play a CE team player.

But NE?

I've successfully played a NE character in a group of mostly-Good characters.

I actually played it like the thread title - Necessary Evil. He wasn't wantonly cruel, but if killing the old man's daughter was the only way to stop the lich-lord from rising again? He's already cleaning the blood off of his axe. The other characters (mind - NOT players) were pissed at him, but a fairly good portion of the time they ended up admitting that his actions were justified.

The Road To Hell, after all, is Paved With Good Intentions.

[Zanos]

Any PC with "long term" evil goals benefits from being seen as being considerably from being seen as anything but evil. I generally see Neutral Evils as pragmatic, but how you want to limit yourself makes a big difference. Is killing everyone in the party advantageous right this second? Perhaps. Is forging false friendships that cause other people to fight for and maybe even die for you? Almost certainly. The character may, on the other hand, suggest that torture and bribes are legitimate options in advancing the parties goal as a whole. An Evil PC in a party of goods is certainly selfish, but is also reasonable. Unless the party is throwing detect evils around every five seconds and is composed entirely of Paladins, they have no reason to kill someone who has been every bit as helpful as the rest of the party. Hey, maybe you can even turn some of the neutrals and less devout goods against him if he decides the guy who pings on his evildar needs to die.

Of course, if his/her particular Evil is to bathe in the blood of newborns, then yeah, this doesn't work as well. You could still make it work though.

As the character grows in power, this may become more of an issue. He may see less need for alliances(although he should, since he should see the benefit of still having the other powerful PCs on his side) and believe he can accomplish things on his own power. Room to RP that, I suppose.

TL;DR: Backstabbing people is not advantageous for an Evil PC who is playing the long game. By making oneself legitimately useful to your party in morally questionable ways, they would have to be playing very LG character's to object. Nobody should complain(in character, anyway) that you used a vile spell to down a dragon in one turn if you downed the dragon in one turn.

[Deophaun]

A paladin can't knowingly associate with an evil creature regardless of its goals.
But there's no consequence if a paladin does knowingly associate with evil creatures. It's under "associates," not "code of conduct," so venturing out with the Evil Army of Badness and Wrong and joining their Best Buds Club isn't even a gross violation of the code of conduct. It fails to register as one of the three things that cause a fall. And a prohibition without enforcement is no prohibition at all. May as well just cross out the section in the PHB for all the RAW good it does.

The ironic thing is that this means the supervillain evil, where your ultimate goal is to enslave/destroy humanity or something equally cliche, won't trip the Paladin's act-or-fall trigger, because it's not right in front of him. It's the everyday evil, like a cleric casting deathwatch, that causes the smites to be deployed. So evil that is more likely to align with the party's goals causes a bigger problem for party unity than evil that promises sure betrayal.

[Elderand]

Clearly, your group plays the south end of the alignment pool as Lawful Evil, Stupid Evil and Stupid Evil.

Admittedly, it's hard to play a CE team player.

I've successfully played a NE character in a group of mostly-Good characters.

No, the way people in my group perceive alignement is this.

LE : Will murder, torture and maim whitout blinking, but is good to his word
NE: will murder, torture, cheat , lie and maim and will betray anyone if he get a better offer.
CE : Will go out of it's way to murder, torture and other things because it's fun.

A LE character might not burn down an orphanage if it's in his personal code that you don't mess with kids.
A NE character will not burn down an orphanage unless there is something in it he wants gone or someone paid him well to do it.
A CE character already burned down the orphanage and is presently sifting through the remains of the orphans for the purpose of distributing the charred meat to the local militia/watch next BBQ

A NE character will betray the party if it's in his best interest, a CE character will betray the party if he finds it more amusing than letting them live. A LE character will not betray the party as long as the party was precise enough in it's wording of the "contract". But if he find a loophole all bets are off.

That perception is why they don't take chance with NE and even less so with CE

[fishyfishyfishy]

I have a friend in a gestalt campaign in which I am the DM who plays a NE Grey Elf Wizard/Archivist. His character believes that people are weak and deserve a firm guiding hand (him, naturally) so that their suffering in the prime material might be eased. He uses devious methods to gain domination and control over others. He does not resort to violence unless absolutely necessary, because if it comes to that he has already failed somewhere else. Magic is one of several tools he uses to further his goals because it's power is incredible.

He has convinced his adventuring party that, while his methods can sometimes be cruel and harsh; they are necessary for the good of all. They actively help him further his goals, KNOWING his end game is to rule the world. Until recently, he was the only evil character in the [EDIT largely good /EDIT] group.

[Pickford]

Forgot about that one. I don't play many paladins, you see. The OP has been corrected. The question of how to interact with good characters, especially lawful good characters, in such a way as to not hide the character's evil side, while still maintaining some level of harmony in the party still stands, though.

Just play a Lawful Neutral character - My country, right or wrong.

To wit: Ask no quarter villain, for none shall be given! (Thus if the opponent attempts to surrender, execute them.)

This would be neutral, not evil, in the given context as it was predetermined that it would be a fight to the death.

[Beowulf DW]

Just play a Lawful Neutral character - My country, right or wrong.

To wit: Ask no quarter villain, for none shall be given! (Thus if the opponent attempts to surrender, execute them.)

This would be neutral, not evil, in the given context as it was predetermined that it would be a fight to the death.

I can't help but feel there may be a slight misunderstanding. I'm not trying to create and evil character right this second. I just wanted to start a discussion on how to play an evil character in a more compelling way than the jerk that kicks puppies and keeps Sacrificing Virgins for Fun and Profit in his personal library.

[Pickford]

I can't help but feel there may be a slight misunderstanding. I'm not trying to create and evil character right this second. I just wanted to start a discussion on how to play an evil character in a more compelling way than the jerk that kicks puppies and keeps Sacrificing Virgins for Fun and Profit in his personal library.

Oh, well for one thing you're just doing things for yourself, so you could be like Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; When you take a job, you always see it through. (i.e. One employer pays you to kill someone, you negotiate with that someone to pay you to kill the other employer...then kill both right after you're compensated).

[jidasfire]

I've never quite bought the notion that Lawful Evil is less evil by default than the other two, or even that Lawful Evil types don't lie. After all, Darkseid is Lawful Evil and he's absolutely terrible. Lawful Evil politicians and gangsters lie all the time. It basically depends on the degree of evil and the character's motivations.

The best resolution is to find a way to draw the line between evil character and villain. At the barest minimum, an evil person has little to no compassion for most others and likely believes that the ends justify the means. Such a person could still be a useful ally to a noble cause, so long as what they seek doesn't readily conflict with the goals of the heroes. A villain, on the other hand, generally has some goal which is dangerous and destructive to the heroes or the world at large. Such a person can never have goals that align with the heroes for any extended period, and therefore should be avoided in such a game.

[Azoth]

Just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they view themselves that way or they are a big source of it. I played an evil character in a party of truly goody goods, and while there was conflict it never rose to PVP levels.

My character viewed himself as a martyr of sorts. He did the messed up things the others couldn't to get things done. He lied, stole, and tortured prisoners. His excuse was that it was always for the greater good, and that the ends justified the means. He didn't feel bad about any of it, or try to atone for it either. To him it was simply the quickest and most efficient way to accomplish their goals.

He would not harm innocents, didn't lie to the party, or steal anything that would be missed either. His evil acts were confined to being used on the enemy and their supporters. The party didn't like what he did, but they couldn't argue with the results. They also kept an eye on him to keep him from going too far overboard.

There was conflict, as I said, but mainly in character arguments and lectures on morality. Alot of it boiled down to him being likened to those he was trying to stop, and that if he didn't change his ways he would become what he hated and hunted.

[Greymane]

I think it's really important to remember that characters are more than just their alignment. They have personalities first, which warrants the alignment, not the other way around. It's perfectly reasonable for good and evil characters to get along as friends because they have some things in common. They could be close friends or family members, for example.

In one game I was in, I played a Lawful Evil Wizard. He had a habit of attaching himself to adventuring parties because it was a good way to make money and discover lost treasures. He respected legitimate authority, kept his word, and regarded the party's Lawful Good Favored Soul as a friend (and later spouse) due to their having similar pasts that they could relate to one another on. He was, however, pragmatic to a fault and saw nothing wrong with consorting with Devils so long as one was careful not to fall for their traps. Neither the Wizard or the Favored soul got along with the other party members because they were liars, oathbreakers and thieves. And most of them were Chaotic Good. So the Wizard and Favored Soul were rather united in their disdain for the chaotic antics. In that game (and most of our games) the primary source of party conflict has been the Law-Chaos spectrum.

[Spuddles]

It's a bit of a read, but it does a pretty good job showing how a chaotic evil sociopath can be a team player in a party of all good characters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html)

[Ardantis]

This reminds me of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's book, "Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophesies of Agnes Nutter, Witch."

It was about a demon (Crowley) and an angel (Aziraphale) who met at the beginning of the world, and have since gone their separate ways. The angel has become an antique dealer, and the demon a highway overpass designer. They both openly admitted to perpetrating lifetimes of fairly low-grade good/evil.

Ultimately, they team up because the forces of CAPITAL LETTER Good and Evil want to have a final showdown and start the apocalypse. However, our heroes kind of like the world they've helped to build and live in, so they saddle up together to stop the greater powers.

Sure, it's a satire, but it speaks to the fact that ELEMENTAL Good and Evil are often out of touch with everyday life. They didn't rail against the god or act blasphemous, but it was the idea of the victory of the local and colloquial against the general and the absurd.

The gods can be convinced, they're just harder nuts to crack. Plus, friendship > ideals.