Evil, why not?

[Shadowscale]

I've always wondered why dms wont allow there players to play evil alignments, the typical group wont be all evil and if approached maturely a group could foster a bunch of different outlooks and still successfully adventure, its like curtailing an entire spectrum of characters and varied points of view.

The OOTS seems to pull off having evil n ts party pretty well, same with the Vector League.

[Malimar]

if approached maturely

There's your problem. Most DMs don't expect maturity out of their players (and most of them are correct in their expectations).

[Shadowscale]

There's your problem. Most DMs don't expect maturity out of their players (and most of them are correct in their expectations).

I see so much plot and character potential n approaching the three evil alignments in a well thought out way, so much potential. The outright ban seems to be The DM mistrusting a player could ever contribute to the group successfully.

[weckar]

Apart from the Paladin Problem, a different issue is that Evil characters require very different motivations from Good characters. Especially if a DM is running from a published module, it is reasonable to assume that if you're Evil, the adventure simply doesn't have anything FOR you.

[Shadowscale]

Apart from the Paladin Problem, a different issue is that Evil characters require very different motivations from Good characters. Especially if a DM is running from a published module, it is reasonable to assume that if you're Evil, the adventure simply doesn't have anything FOR you.

Becoming more powerful, wealthy, famous and keeping tabs on the world around you at large fulfilling the selfishness assumed with evil while still contributing. This fits all 3 evils.

I find it really dumb a paladin falls for having evil members in his party they aren't his deeds and he could always attempt to reform the party member over time and move them away from evil.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Some DM's have had one too many players run an "evil" character that was in fact a moronic, "do evil at random and in detriment to the party because it amuses me" character. Running an evil character requires you handle that character like a scalpel, carefully applying it only to further the game. Most people that want to play an evil character handle it like a hammer and smash the game into unrecognizable little pieces.

On the other side of the coin, some DM's have an overly simplistic view of alignment and simply can't think of any way that an evil character could be acceptable and ban them out of hand. I strongly advise any such DM, once identified, to discard alignment altogether. The game works just fine without it or with only minor tweaking such that it only applies to alignment subtyped outsiders.

[Kid Jake]

Generally the player wanting to rp an evil alignment wants to do so to do evil things. Evil things are usually pretty disruptive. So the easiest thing to do to keep things on track is just to say no evil alignments.

Personally though I find the evil alignments hella amusing so I've never turned a player down, but I could see why some DMs would.

[Shadowscale]

Some DM's have had one too many players run an "evil" character that was in fact a moronic, "do evil at random and in detriment to the party because it amuses me" character. Running an evil character requires you handle that character like a scalpel, carefully applying it only to further the game. Most people that want to play an evil character handle it like a hammer and smash the game into unrecognizable little pieces.

On the other side of the coin, some DM's have an overly simplistic view of alignment and simply can't think of any way that an evil character could be acceptable and ban them out of hand. I strongly advise any such DM, once identified, to discard alignment altogether. The game works just fine without it or with only minor tweaking such that it only applies to alignment subtyped outsiders.

So a bunch of morons ruin it for the rest of us forcing us to stifle our creative license and motivation for our character to have a background and life outlook outside the norm.

Why doesn't this apply to Chaotic neutral then, they do the exact same thing typically worse than say neutral or lawful evil.

[weckar]

While we of course should not assume archetypes, I think it is useful at this point to at least bring them up. Of the three basic evil archetypes (The LE Tyrant/Manipulator, the E Opportunist and the CE Walking Hurricane) the only one that seems at all compatible with an adventuring party structure is LE... barely. At least you can trust their word to a certain degree, and have a tendency to pursue narrow targets that the DM can put in front of them, no matter how far off.

[Kazyan]

Let's see...between the PvP, the player disrespect, that one time basically my entire party turned evil and crimped my campaign setting, the fact that I want the protagonists of a story to be the good guys--allowing evil characters basically means the party turns out very non-heroic in my group--and how the whole "morally ambiguous" thing gets old when the players basically confirms the doubt instead of leaving it in a gray area...

I don't like Evil characters anymore.

[Shadowscale]

While we of course should not assume archetypes, I think it is useful at this point to at least bring them up. Of the three basic evil archetypes (The LE Tyrant/Manipulator, the E Opportunist and the CE Walking Hurricane) the only one that seems at all compatible with an adventuring party structure is LE... barely. At least you can trust their word to a certain degree, and have a tendency to pursue narrow targets that the DM can put in front of them, no matter how far off.

Just saying if the player is willing to put in the work to build a character who is able to willing and justified to adventure with the others and don't go burning down villages or killing fellow party members, why can't they play ball and build around them to their character and personality just as they would with a good or neutral pc? Hell they usually put up with a lot of the same crap from Lawful good and Chaotic Neutral.

[Kazyan]

Just saying if the player is willing to put in the work to build a character who is able to willing and justified to adventure with the others and don't go burning down villages or killing fellow party members, why can't they play ball and build around them to their character and personality just as they would with a good or neutral pc? Hell they usually put up with a lot of the same crap from Lawful good and Chaotic Neutral.

I'll stop disliking my evil PCs when they bother to meet your specifications.

[Shadowscale]

Let's see...between the PvP, the player disrespect, that one time basically my entire party turned evil and crimped my campaign setting, the fact that I want the protagonists of a story to be the good guys--allowing evil characters basically means the party turns out very non-heroic in my group--and how the whole "morally ambiguous" thing gets old when the players basically confirms the doubt instead of leaving it in a gray area...

I don't like Evil characters anymore.

So your stereotyping all evil as the same, wouldn't that be akin to the chaotic good character who destroys all structure for the greater good or the lawful stupid paladin who wrecks everything for standing outside his morality.

One does not have to lead with their alignment it simply shows what kind of a person you are and how you live inside your head.

[weckar]

The main problem is, I think, that an Evil character at one point or another will have to do Evil things. Remember that alignment is about action, not thought or intent. If an Evil character is slumming with an otherwise Good party and basically contributing, he'll need to do a lot of catching up in his off-days not to go at the very least Neutral.

[Knaight]

There's also the matter of what particular style of campaign a GM wants to run. I generally toss alignment systems anyways, but there are certainly games where part of the requirements for the PCs is that they be a heroic sort to at least some extent - because that's core to the concept of the broader games. There have also been games (less in D&D than in other systems) where character restrictions included making a character who was very much not a bastion of moral purity, because that is again part of the core concept of the campaign.

[Chronos]

Not only does the player of an evil character need to be mature, but all of the players need to be mature. Otherwise you're going to get "Bob gets to play an evil character; why can't I?".

And some DMs do ban Chaotic Neutral, too.

[Kazyan]

So your stereotyping all evil as the same, wouldn't that be akin to the chaotic good character who destroys all structure for the greater good or the lawful stupid paladin who wrecks everything for standing outside his morality.

One does not have to lead with their alignment it simply shows what kind of a person you are and how you live inside your head.

Don't tell me my preferences are wrong because of a hypothetical. This is what actually happens in my groups most of the time, not what should happen.

[Extra Anchovies]

Read any random page from this thread on the exact same topic that we had just last month. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373609-Why-ban-alignments&highlight=ban+alignments) That's why you should or should not ban alignments.

[Kid Jake]

What is it from an rp perspective that a LE character brings to the table that an exceptionally morally ambiguous LN doesn't?

[Shadowscale]

The main problem is, I think, that an Evil character at one point or another will have to do Evil things. Remember that alignment is about action, not thought or intent. If an Evil character is slumming with an otherwise Good party and basically contributing, he'll need to do a lot of catching up in his off-days not to go at the very least Neutral.

I'd imagine as long as the party is benefiting and upping their status and they would continue adventuring to serve their own ambitions per say lawful evil could be making connections and aquiring wealth for future projects and the like say a lawful evl enqusitor for example which despises undead and all savage races seeing them as unworthy of living and commits atrocities against them which benefits the party who is also trying trying to survive agaisnt these monsters.

Not sure if I'm making any sense or not. Am I missing something? hell even Belkar to help defeat a greater good and for protection stayed in the OOTS

[Shadowscale]

What is it from an rp perspective that a LE character brings to the table that an exceptionally morally ambiguous LN doesn't?

Same logic could be used in reverse saying what makes lawful evil so different to make it unusable in most parties?

At some point it becomes a video game if your shoe horned into being the always helpful heroic adventure who oozes lawful good and selflessness.

[Kid Jake]

Same logic could be used in reverse saying what makes lawful evil so different to make it unusable in most parties?

At some point it becomes a video game if your shoe horned into being the always helpful heroic adventure who oozes lawful good and selflessness.

My point being that you most likely CAN play the character you're envisioning without labeling him as Evil. If you aren't planning on burning orphanages or kicking puppies then you shouldn't even stand out. What makes looking down at your sheet and seeing a big ole E on the page such a big deal?

[ImperatorV]

"Evil things" doesn't necessarily have to be destructive to the party. A CE character could easily hang around with a party of heroes because as long as he doesn't slip up too bad with his bloodlust, he can get away with murder, get paid for it, and be popular with everybody. That's a much better deal than most IRL CE people get.

In game, such characters might be indistinguishable from your typical neutral, except for the occasional suggestion that torture would be a fast way to get the information you need or that raising undead minions to help stop a villain is an acceptable trade-off. Or maybe they don't suggest, and just go ahead and do those things, and when the angry party confronts them they pull a "I did what I had to do."

Also, SilverClawShift Campaign Archives. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?116836-The-SilverClawShift-Campaign-Archives) The second tale. Great example of NE and LG working together (although not without arguments and drama). Also a good read in general.

[weckar]

The characters you're describing could very well just be Neutral. If you're not planning on doing anything on the List of Evil Acts, you may as well avoid the issue.

[Shadowscale]

My point being that you most likely CAN play the character you're envisioning without labeling him as Evil. If you aren't planning on burning orphanages or kicking puppies then you shouldn't even stand out. What makes looking down at your sheet and seeing a big ole E on the page such a big deal?

My question is what's wrong with it to begin with? We all just want to play our characters and if our actions get us into deep water and killed, then we made bad choices to play in the long term.

If you can make it work why is it bad?

[Shadowscale]

"Evil things" doesn't necessarily have to be destructive to the party. A CE character could easily hang around with a party of heroes because as long as he doesn't slip up too bad with his bloodlust, he can get away with murder, get paid for it, and be popular with everybody. That's a much better deal than most IRL CE people get.

In game, such characters might be indistinguishable from your typical neutral, except for the occasional suggestion that torture would be a fast way to get the information you need or that raising undead minions to help stop a villain is an acceptable trade-off. Or maybe they don't suggest, and just go ahead and do those things, and when the angry party confronts them they pull a "I did what I had to do."

Also, SilverClawShift Campaign Archives. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?116836-The-SilverClawShift-Campaign-Archives) The second tale. Great example of NE and LG working together (although not without arguments and drama). Also a good read in general.

You seem to understand what I'm getting at, I just wonder why DMs assume players can't pull things like this off so they don't even allow them to try right off the bat.

[Kid Jake]

My question is what's wrong with it to begin with? We all just want to play our characters and if our actions get us into deep water and killed, then we made bad choices to play in the long term.

If you can make it work why is it bad?

I should reiterate that I don't think it is. Most of my campaigns fall under the south side of the alignment spectrum and have a grey and black morality.

That being said, it doesn't make sense to worry so much over semantics when it sounds like the sort of character you're describing is perfectly doable without sidling them with the big E that makes so many DMs nervous.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So a bunch of morons ruin it for the rest of us forcing us to stifle our creative license and motivation for our character to have a background and life outlook outside the norm.

That's it exactly.


Why doesn't this apply to Chaotic neutral then, they do the exact same thing typically worse than say neutral or lawful evil.

What gives you the idea that it doesn't? CN isn't as universally banned because "those players" tend to get banned directly. Chaotic stupid is just as disruptive as stupid evil most of the time and is quite often more disruptive to the point of the player being asked to leave rather than the alignment being banned. That and CG tends to work pretty well while CE is usually already covered by a ban on evil so it's not as apparent that the alignment is the problem rather than the player.

[weckar]

The silly thing is, you seem to have a slightly skewed idea of what Evil (capital E) MEANS in a D&D sense. I'd recommend giving the BoVD a read. It's a slightly extreme example of things, but to me all character concepts presented here are squarely in the Neutral area of things.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Some DM's have had one too many players run an "evil" character that was in fact a moronic, "do evil at random and in detriment to the party because it amuses me" character. Running an evil character requires you handle that character like a scalpel, carefully applying it only to further the game. Most people that want to play an evil character handle it like a hammer and smash the game into unrecognizable little pieces.


I can plus one this from painful personal experience. The only time I've seen openly evil characters not disrupt the game almost immediately is an all evil party. You may still get a problem PC, but the PCs that can work together do so...usually by murdering/framing/collecting bounty on the problem PC.

[jedipotter]

I lot of people can't really handle evil. When you tell a player they can be evil, they just go crazy. They loose anything like common sense and act nuts.

I've run a lot of evil games. I'm evil and I love evil. But so many players.....just, for example(real examples, sigh):

1. They feel they must be evil 24/7. Even when it is pointless. Like where one member of an evil group is hurt, but they want to be at full hp for the next encounter. The shop has 5 potions of healing, on sale for 25 gold each. The group has just over 2,000 gold. Yet, they refuse to just walk into the shop and buy the potion. They will spend the next couple of hours and try and break into the shop and steal all five potions....muhahahhah.

2. They feel they must be evil 24/7, even when it directly harms their character and the plot. The evil group has dinner with the king, and just as the king starts to explain some plot details....the werewolf fighter rips apart a servant and eats him at the table with the king and says ''oh your food was ok, but i like my meat fresh''...Muuhahahaha.

3. They feel like consequences should not matter. So on day 1 the evil group attacks the temple of good as they are ''bored'' and ''killing good folk is always fun''. But come day 4 most of the group badly wounded and is effected by two curses and a poison effect. Theyrun back to the good temple and want to get them to cured and all. But suddenly the good clerics attack them. The players whine and complain.

4. They just don't work together. The evil group encounters a band of centaurs...and they immediately split up and fight five separate battles. They are not a group at all. All five characters die.

And from the DM side, I've seen DM's have problems with:

1. When the characters are evil, they can ''do anything'', as most people see evil as ''you can do anything''. This can make things impossible for a DM as the players won't ever stick to any plot and they can attack everyone, good or bad, at will.

2. When the characters are evil, the DM has to have both the good and the bad guys really come after the characters. And a lot of DM's are very uncomfortable with ''attacking the characters'' is such a direct way.

3. The whole evil vs evil makes a lot of DM's uncomfortable. They can ignore things like poison in a normal game, but in an evil game, other evil folks should use it against the characters. The same thing with dirty tricks and traps. It's one thing to trick a good person with the ''oh no can you save the baby from the burning building trap'', but a lot of DM's can't handle the ''you meet evil guy at graveyard at midnight and he attacks with targeted spells and poison''.

Just to name a few...

[Red Fel]

It doesn't sound like you're arguing in a vacuum, OP. It sounds to me like you are having us play the role of your DM.

Know what? If your DM doesn't allow Evil alignments at his table, take it up with him.

Personally, I love Evil alignments. Anyone who reads my posts knows this. I adore the delicious variety and nuance that little E can bring to a character.

And at tables where that's welcomed, I excel. The other players have fun. I have fun. The DM has fun. Everyone enjoys it.

And at tables where that's not welcomed? I play a non-Evil character. Know why? Because it's not a fight worth having.

Look, at the end of the day, the other posters have given plenty of reasons, such as: The DM has had bad experiences with evil PCs before, and doesn't want to go down that road again. The DM doesn't have confidence in his players' maturity. The DM (or the module) has nothing to offer an evil PC by way of motivation. One of the other players already said he was playing a Paladin. Any other of a number of perfectly legitimate reasons for a DM to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."And you know what? You snap your fingers, you twirl your mustache, and you scowl, "Curses, foiled again!" And you move on.

As for the Paladin thing? It doesn't matter that the Paladin himself isn't doing Evil. By allowing the Evil PC to travel with him, and protecting him from others, a Paladin aware of his Evil colleague's misdeeds is granting him imprimatur. He's complicit in the Evil by failing to intervene. His character features force him to thwart his colleague. If he fails to do so, he will eventually fall; if he does so, he is effectively forced into PvP. There is no win there.

And as others have mentioned, CN carries almost as much of a stigma as Evil. More, in some ways, because people use it in an attempt to be Evil without pinging on Detect Evil. It smells like a racket anytime you see it on a character sheet.

But none of that is the point. Reading your responses, it sounds like you really aren't asking, "Why don't some DMs allow Evil at their tables?" It sounds like you're insisting, "Evil should be allowed at every table!" And while I don't entirely disagree, I recognize that there is a justification to exclude it. Just like there are times it's appropriate to exclude Tome of Battle, or Psionics, or Incarnum. Just like there are times it's appropriate to exclude Dragon Magazine and Dragon Compendium. Just like there are times it's appropriate to exclude the Dragonborn template, the Quori, the Kalashtar, Dragonmarks, and Warforged. Sometimes it's not appropriate to the campaign. Sometimes it's not within the DM's comfort to handle. And sometimes somebody just has a distaste for it.

Much as it hurts me, I suck it up and play a Good character. And then I show them. I show them all.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

You seem to understand what I'm getting at, I just wonder why DMs assume players can't pull things like this off so they don't even allow them to try right off the bat.

I have only seen DMs ban Evil PCs when they had been previously burned by allowing them. In my experience, the player who wants an evil character in an non-evil campaign seeks an excuse to be evil to the other party members. Certainly there are players who are mature enough to explore the roleplay possibilities. It is just to much of a hassle to explain to the other players why "Bob" can be evil but the rest of you cannot. It's a different matter in a game where alignments do no exist, or at least there is no "Detect Evil." I've had players who handled being evil in GURPS with great panache. Your immature player seems to prefer to be "evil" rather than a Sadistic Paranoid Egomaniac. Evil sounds "cooler" to these sorts of players and they seem to cause more trouble in games that have alignments.

[atemu1234]

So your stereotyping all evil as the same, wouldn't that be akin to the chaotic good character who destroys all structure for the greater good or the lawful stupid paladin who wrecks everything for standing outside his morality.

One does not have to lead with their alignment it simply shows what kind of a person you are and how you live inside your head.

For starters, I don't like evil because when people play against type. Lawful Good going to chaotic evil means for greater good is exciting. But evil alignments tend to encourage following stereotypes; it's the paradox of alignment. "If alignment is based on actions, then what is a good character who acts evil, or vice-versa?"*

*not a real quote

Secondly, alignment descriptions provided throughout various materials discourage most good and neutral alignment stereotypes, while encouraging evil ones.

I allow evil PCs, but they get a very short leash, destructively speaking.

[Theomniadept]

Most DMs fall under the fallacy that Evil equates a problematic player. Not true, as I onc eplayed a Chaotic Evil PF Summoner named Louis Cypher (+10 points to the house that guesses the reference) who was a good little boy as he attempted to slowly corrupt the in-game world (DM never let this happen because it's my world no you can't touch it you can only look at it). My issue is that every single problem player I've dealt with has not been of the evil alignments - rather, it's been all around the board.

Lawful Good - Congratulations, this tightwad will decide the party's morality arbitrarily and will throw a hissy fit for hours if you make him drop for doing blatantly chaotic things like executing unarmed prisoners that ping on his Paladin's Detect Evil vision. He will PvP the evil party members.

Chaotic Good - Tries to play Robin Hood but really just wants his murders to be pointed in the direction of evil. Just a recolor of evil in a different vector. Expect him to exact vigilante justice quite often. He probably won't PvP the party, he'll just rogue-style slit their throats.

Lawful Neutral - If he's a worshipper of St. Cuthbert double his alignment to Lawful Lawful. His Lawful is more Lawful than Paladin Lawful, and if anyone from a peasant to the king himself is breaking the law expect him to start a fight. PvP is the reason he built his character, but if his character is a Monk then the problem sorts itself out.

Chaotic Neutral - This guy wanted to play crazy stupid murderhobo. This guy wants to eat the King. This guy wants to swing a Gnome double-flail as his weapon. If the party/DM can keep him more interested in doing crazy stuff than murder stuff then PvP can be avoided but the more bored he gets the more murderous he gets. Also the alignment of 'I'm totally not evil, I just happen to not be motivated by evil when I do evil things'.

True Neutral - The 'I wanted no weaknesses' alignment. This guy will probably be playing Tier 1 and will probably be min-maxing, which means Tier 0.5 or Tier 0. He's not here for a campaign, he's here for godlike powers and he cannot afford ANY weaknesses, and alignments are weaknesses. Expect PvP when he wants to forcibly take his share of the loot, and by his share I mean all the magic items and coins and gems - the rest of the party can have the mundane stuff like crowbars. And given his build he might be able to solo the rest of the party.

Lawful Evil - Wants to get stuff done but wants control over the party. Like Paladin but without a code to lose powers. And he better get that control or else. No control means PvP, meaning everyone has a bad time.

Neutral Evil - Just wanted to qualify for the Assassin PrC. No real difference from the other evils, just a lack of originality, usually playing a dark, brooding character. If he's a vampire then it usually sorts itself out.

Chaotic Evil - This guy just doesn't want to play. He's the kinda guy who learned Diplomacy from League of Legends Bronze Tier Solo Ranked games. He is probably more interested in destroying the game world rather than interacting with it. PvP is unavoidable, because he's more interested in killing ALL the characters in your backstory just to see your reaction.

Yeah, I didn't mention Neutral Good - I just haven't had any bad NG players yet. Maybe that alignment just lacks a murder-spin to it that players will attempt to use to justify murder.

[Chronos]

Quoth Shadowscale:

At some point it becomes a video game if your shoe horned into being the always helpful heroic adventure who oozes lawful good and selflessness.
Video game? How so? The heroes being heroic isn't a video game thing in particular (and in fact, many video games let you play villains). Heroes being heroic is a story thing in general. Yes, there are some stories about antiheroes or villains, but most of them are about heroes, because that's mostly what people want from stories. Why should the stories we tell collaboratively around the table be any different?

[Extra Anchovies]

Most DMs fall under the fallacy that Evil equates a problematic player.

I'd only say it's fallacious if it's never true. However, evil character all too often does mean problem player. I have yet to see a maturely run evil character in an in-person game in which I have participated, and I have myself been the problem player once or twice (but then, that was in middle school, when pretty much everyone is a problem player). I do, however, like your assessment of the most common problem players of each alignment.

Also, your summoner's name explained (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LouisCypher) (although I'll admit that I googled first and understood later).

[Theomniadept]

I'd only say it's fallacious if it's never true. However, evil character all too often does mean problem player. I have yet to see a maturely run evil character in an in-person game in which I have participated, and I have myself been the problem player once or twice (but then, that was in middle school, when pretty much everyone is a problem player). I do, however, like your assessment of the most common problem players of each alignment.

Also, your summoner's name explained (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LouisCypher) (although I'll admit that I googled first and understood later).

....Close, but I'm looking for the more specific answer to my character's name. You're 75% there though.

Yeah, evil alignments do cater to the bad players, but I'm more prone to seeing Chaotic Neutral murderhobos while Lawful Neutral seems to like to operate under the 'Evil Gets S**t Done' banner.

[Kid Jake]

....Close, but I'm looking for the more specific answer to my character's name. You're 75% there though.

Yeah, evil alignments do cater to the bad players, but I'm more prone to seeing Chaotic Neutral murderhobos while Lawful Neutral seems to like to operate under the 'Evil Gets S**t Done' banner.

I'm guessing he goes by Lu.

Lucifer, that is.

[Prince Raven]

I do allow evil characters in my games, but I expect my players to be mature about it, in the same way I allow Paladins but expect them to be matue about it. My current game has a Lawful Good Paladin and a Neutral Evil Ranger, I've yet to have a problem with them.

[Curmudgeon]

Every D&D character has the same goal of self-improvement: to gain XP, new levels, and new capabilities. Alignment is of secondary importance.

If you think about it, adventurers are pretty much always bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. I find it very hard to justify any Good alignment. Evil, on the other hand, is easy.

[hamishspence]

Every D&D character has the same goal of self-improvement: to gain XP, new levels, and new capabilities.

That's the out of character goal. In-character, there can be other goals - like "protecting the local villages by putting a stop to (or at least reducing) monster attacks, for the more altruistic ones.



If you think about it, adventurers are pretty much always bad guys: they go around killing people and taking their stuff. I find it very hard to justify any Good alignment. Evil, on the other hand, is easy.

In a "points of light" type of world (4E named it, but didn't invent it) adventurers may be the thing standing between villagers, townsfolk & cityfolk, and extinction.

[Jeff the Green]

I don't ban Evil characters. (I trust one of my groups to be mature and the other is unserious enough that casual genocide isn't any more disruptive than what usually goes on.) I am, however, wary of them. The problem for me lies in the tricky balance between Evil and Villain. When I DM, I plan on the PCs winning in the end (though obviously this isn't set in stone) and I really don't like DMing stories where the villain wins. So if you manage to be an Evil hero (Belkar post-fever dream) that's fine, but it's easy for Evil characters to slide into Villain territory (Tarquin, Nale).

[Ansem]

I can say from personal experience that playing evil is hardly different from playing good.
I play lawful evil most of the time with chaotic evil without the ****fest that people assume must evolve from it.
Not allowing evil is not knowing the alignment system well enough or just not capable of simply not being a ****.
I have had neutral alignments banned more than chaotic and evil due to it being *meh, neutral can do whatever I want* compared to chaotic which is *my own laws* compared to being the ADHD beatstick rampaging town.

I cant say I am amazed here by how immature most people want to handle the situation of letting someone play an evil alignment here.
Just admit you AND your group simply isnt mature or smart enough to handle it or stop being a little child about it.

[Earthwalker]

First time I saw the name Louis Cypher it was in Angel Heart.



Just admit you AND your group simply isnt mature or smart enough to handle it or stop being a little child about it.

I will freely admit I am too lazy to work with a mixed alignment parties so I don't want evil and good. Oddly I can play with lawful and chaotic. (perhaps thats part of my problem)

I also don't want to spend my time listening to my players going around and being evil, slowly making the world a worst place.

I don't think is me being a little child. Some of it is personal taste.

I would say yes Evil and Good can work in the same party. Its just not something I am interesting in exploring when I play.

[Arbane]

Another reason to avoid evil characters: "I want to eat babies, lol!" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384228-The-innocent-must-burn!)


What is it from an rp perspective that a LE character brings to the table that an exceptionally morally ambiguous LN doesn't?

As I like to say, "Any sufficiently pragmatic evil is indistinguishable from neutrality".


Same logic could be used in reverse saying what makes lawful evil so different to make it unusable in most parties?

At some point it becomes a video game if your shoe horned into being the always helpful heroic adventure who oozes lawful good and selflessness.

Eh, I'd say LE can Play Well With Others better than the other evil alignments. (Anecdata time: My current PF group has a bunch of neutrals, my character (CG), and an LE monk. He's greedy, skirt-chasing, loves poison, tries to torture prisoners, and can be REALLY exasperating sometimes. But at least he's loyal to the rest of the group.)


....Close, but I'm looking for the more specific answer to my character's name. You're 75% there though.

Yeah, evil alignments do cater to the bad players, but I'm more prone to seeing Chaotic Neutral murderhobos while Lawful Neutral seems to like to operate under the 'Evil Gets S**t Done' banner.

One of the Shin Megami Tensei games? It's not like it's an uncommon pun. (I think Jack Chick used it in one of his comics.)

I forget who said it, but "there are only three alignments for players: Neutral Greedy, Chaotic Backstabbing, and Lawful Snotty."




I will freely admit I am too lazy to work with a mixed alignment parties so I don't want evil and good. Oddly I can play with lawful and chaotic. (perhaps thats part of my problem)

I also don't want to spend my time listening to my players going around and being evil, slowly making the world a worst place.

I don't think is me being a little child. Some of it is personal taste.

I think most D&D players haven't read Michael Moorcock. That's where D&D gets the Lawful/Chaotic split, but in most people's minds, Good/Evil is more important.

And I'm inclined to agree. I wanna play _heroic_ fantasy. (Yes, I know the classical meaning of the word 'hero'.)

[AvatarVecna]

Why not evil? Let's answer a question with questions:

1) Have you given the DM reason to believe you wouldn't play a Stupid Evil character?

2) Is the DM willing to alter the stories they're setting up to have a motivation suitable to your character?

3) Will you be able to play your character in a way that doesn't ruin the fun for the other players?

The problem with the alignment system (or rather, with the people using it) is that they don't play character who have an alignment, they play characters who are defined by their alignment.

You see this all over the alignment spectrum, from the Lawful Good Paladin who refuses to put a toe out of line for fear of divine retribution, to the Lawful Neutral Wizard using powerful magicks to blindly enforce the law with no regard to context or common sense, to the Lawful Evil Cleric who micromanages the party and silences those who resist, to the Neutral Good Fighter character who preaches peace and love in between swings of their greatsword, to the True Neutral Druid who refuses to take a side on anything, to the Neutral Evil Sorcerer who uses his spells to turn the rest of the party into his undead minions, to the Chaotic Good Rogue trying to convince the party that the government is a tyrannical monster that needs to be toppled, to the Chaotic Neutral Bard who just wants to get laid, to the Chaotic Evil Barbarian who wants to rape and pillage his way across the world.

You wanna know why DMs forbid Evil characters? Because Evil heroes are difficult to do right; because the DM isn't willing to adjust the story just to give the party's token prick enough motivation to not kill his allies; because the players aren't willing to play an evil character who doesn't flavor his milk with the blood of the innocent every morning. The other six alignments can, at least, be worked with, or worked around in extreme cases. But you're not just "Not Good", you're Evil, with a capital E, and and capital letter alignments magically remove a person's ability to play their character subtly.

It can be done right; and if it's done right, it can be one of the most wonderful things you'll ever behold, like Belkar. But regardless of the fact that it can be done right, that fact is that it isn't, except by a small handful who have proven their maturity with a DM willing to indulge them. The problem isn't the alignments: it's the players who can't play them.

And whoever said something along the lines of "what, a handful of idiots ruined it for the rest of us?", don't talk like it's a minority ruining it for the majority: the majority is the casual players who play every once in a while, or the experienced players who can't think outside the box; those are the people ruining Evil alignments for everyone, and those people are the majority. DMs who don't want to bother with curtailing to Evil characters? They're also a majority. It sucks, but that's the reality of the situation.

[Theomniadept]

One of the Shin Megami Tensei games? It's not like it's an uncommon pun. (I think Jack Chick used it in one of his comics.)

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Summoner was sort of the second hint to the puzzle.

I remember when I ran a game I wished it ran longer - as the players played the world slowly grew worse as more and more outsiders made it their battleground. I was heavily inspired by the first SMT game to make the story similar - Good won some odd thousands years ago, which is why evil races live underground. Now whom will the players aid? Law, Chaos, or Neutrality?

[Raven777]

Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PunchClockVillain) of (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ByronicHero) all (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight) kinds (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkShepherd) can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon) contribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecruitingTheCriminal) to (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildCard) a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicity) functional (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork) party (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueCompanions?from=Main.Nakama).

[atemu1234]

Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PunchClockVillain) of (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ByronicHero) all (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight) kinds (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkShepherd) can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon) contribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecruitingTheCriminal) to (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildCard) a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicity) functional (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork) party (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueCompanions?from=Main.Nakama).

Are we forgetting Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, and Stupid Good now?

Also, like wikipedia, TVtropes is a ****ty source.

[Raven777]

My omission to address the cliche reprehensible character tropes you mention is not denial of their existence, merely acceptance that they have already been discussed to death here and elsewhere and that I couldn't add much about them other than an agreement with previous posters. My point is rather to say that there are perfectly viable "evil" behaviors to be role-played in a neutral or even good party, and I listed a few interesting ones garnered from a widely accepted source. A source a lot of people here also appreciate because it is often witty and informative. You, on the other hand, bring these archetypes back to the forefront like some sort of be all end all to the debate and dismiss a widely accepted body of work on narrative tropes without much backing of your own to justify your claim. Do I misunderstand what you intended with your post, or did you eat the cranky cereals this morning?

[ImperatorV]

Are we forgetting Chaotic Stupid, Stupid Evil, Lawful Stupid, and Stupid Good now?

Also, like wikipedia, TVtropes is a ****ty source.

For talking about characters, there is no better source. It's not like interpreting stories has ever been very precise or professional anyway.

[Templarkommando]

As a DM, in the past I've tended toward banning evil alignments, though I've had a change of heart lately. The reason for my hesitance in this regard is that so frequently I have characters come in and do crazy and bonkers things. What I've come to realize is that a player is extremely likely to play the character that they want to play. If you ban the alignment, they just put a neutral where the desired alignment goes, and then start a several hours-long argument about alignment whenever the DM calls you on it.

Here's what I've decided the new danger of playing an evil character is: actions have consequences. If you're a bank robber, no ones going to sell you a gun that knows about it. As your infamy grows there are definite consequences in a generally good or lawful society. Expect investigators, inquisitors, and others to come after you proportional to your actions.



There are advantages to playing an evil character though, and those should also be taken into account. There should be nothing scary about having an E after your alignment entry. A well played heist or betrayal deserves a reward. We can see some of the advantages of this portrayed in popular series such as Game of Thrones (where 90% of characters are probably evil in some way). If you can pull off a coup... more power to you.

[Haluesen]

I've always wondered why dms wont allow there players to play evil alignments, the typical group wont be all evil and if approached maturely a group could foster a bunch of different outlooks and still successfully adventure, its like curtailing an entire spectrum of characters and varied points of view.

The OOTS seems to pull off having evil n ts party pretty well, same with the Vector League.

I was gonna say something but it looks like almost every type of viewpoint is expressed here already. :smallbiggrin: Still I guess I have a little point of view to give that others might find interesting.

You're kinda grouping all DMs as the same in what they do, when they very clearly are not. A lot don't accept evil characters because of bad players that don't handle them well; people with bad experiences tend to stick to what they've learned from them. In general I allow evil characters with the understanding that the players will play them out undisruptively; it's easier to ban bad characters or players than it is to ban alignments. But I don't allow CE. I'm not trying to limit freedom of choice or be oppressive, I just can't handle them well. I know how to motivate or handle (in a good or bad way) NE characters that tend to just be selfish or loners, and LE characters who want power, glory, rewards, etc and don't care how they get them. CE, and by extension CN played as CE, I just don't know what to do with. That's my comfort zone, and for some people that's just how it is.

I hope that helps at all. :smallsmile:


Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil) characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PunchClockVillain) of (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ByronicHero) all (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight) kinds (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkShepherd) can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NobleDemon) contribute (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecruitingTheCriminal) to (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildCard) a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicity) functional (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork) party (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueCompanions?from=Main.Nakama).

All tropes that make some good sense here. :smallbiggrin:

[gooddragon1]

And sometimes somebody just has a distaste for it.

Yep, that does happen.


Yeah, I didn't mention Neutral Good - I just haven't had any bad NG players yet. Maybe that alignment just lacks a murder-spin to it that players will attempt to use to justify murder.

Well, Neutral Good can also try to influence party morality like Lawful Good and may not follow all the laws of society like Chaotic Good if they're trying to get the best outcome. The plus side I guess is that they're not as likely to PvP over it.

[SowZ]

I've found the best solution to letting people play Evil people is to get rid of the labels. People aren't really Evil or Good very often. A character like Marv from Sin City technically fits the CE description best, but is not what anyone has in mind with CE. When players don't think of their character's as just 'Good' or 'Evil' people, they generally play what would still qualify as 'Evil' more nuanced.

Back when I still used alignment, I allowed Evil characters as long as certain guidelines were followed. I did not want insane psychopath's murdering every civilian in their path. I would not tolerate rape. I want to know your character's motivation is something I can work with. Etc. etc.

[Prince Raven]

A lot of people don't understand that an Evil alignment does not equate to being a Disney villain. Kiritsugu in Fate/Zero would be Neutral or even Chaotic Evil by the D&D alignment and he's a protagonist.

[Marlowe]

I always use Black Lagoon as my go-to for "This is how Evil PCs should act. Fetish outfits optional. No, you cannot build Roberta.":smallcool:

[Thrudd]

Characters need to fit into the game the DM has planned. Sometimes that means everyone is good. Or evil. Or whatever is appropriate for their setting and campaign plans. Just because something is in the book does not mean it will be or should be a part of every game. Alignments, classes, races, gear, spells...all of it is available or restricted at the DM's discretion. If someone is tired of the DM not giving them what they want, they should ask someone else to be the DM, or try doing it themselves.

[Marlowe]

Somebody brought up the Silverclaw "second tale" as an example of NE and LG working together.

It's been a value since I've read it, but aside from the Necromancy (which the Swashbuckler and Factotum also indulged in) did the Warlock do any Evil the entire campaign? Would i have changed anything if she'd have been CN?

[Arbane]

A lot of people don't understand that an Evil alignment does not equate to being a Disney villain. Kiritsugu in Fate/Zero would be Neutral or even Chaotic Evil by the D&D alignment and he's a protagonist.

He's not a very good one. By the end...

Everyone he loves is dead or out of his reach, and he's psychologically broken.

And everyone with any sense knows the REAL hero of that story is ISKANDAR, KING OF CONQUERORS!! and his comic-relief sidekick, Waver. :smallbiggrin:

Waver, BTW, is just about the only person to get out of that mess unscathed.

[Earthwalker]

When people are playing Good / Evil characters how do you feel about your party changing your alignment.

I don't mean them just deciding you have to be something else, but the slow process of starting to see the other guys point of view.

If you play Evil that is in a party with good people. Lets say a 4 man group, 2 good, one neutral and one evil. Over time the good people work convincing the evil to mend his ways. Show him compassion and forgivness and slowly the evil guy turns neutral.

See I often play good and I am unsure how I feel about being in the reverse group. I am playing an idolistic good guy who thinks he can right the worlds wrongs. Over time the two evil guys telling me that the world is a terrible place and why bother playing fair, the other guys certainly aren't doing that. I think if I planned or thought about a fall down the ladder I would be fine with this. I normally don't and half way though a campaign I would feel I wasn't playing who I wanted to be. Its wierd.

This is after all character growth.

[Endless Query]

Having been a GM who has banned being evil on a number of occasions, I can come up with a list of reasons.

First: In a distinctly less mature group of players (we were all young once, we all grew, still everyone starts somewhere) being evil turns into "Oh, hey, if your character doesn't come back because a terrible accident happened to them, I get more loot for my character's progression!" If you know that sort of motive or habit exists in your player base, banning Evil may really be more a statement of "You people had better like each other, get along with each other, and not hose each other for personal gain."

Second: Depending on the specific game or edition, a character willing to do selfish, or borderline things, not out of malice, but for personal gain, can frequently actually be Neutral, as some alignment definitions specify tyranny, hatred, sadism, etc. etc. extremely villainous traits for someone to actually be considered evil within the game's alignment system. In theory, a majority of "gray" alignment characters can fit in as neutral, which makes sense, if, along the usual spectrum "White" is good and "Black" is evil, morally gray character are literally neutral.

Third: As mentioned, if there's a Paladin in the party, or even some varieties of Good (Chaotic or Lawful) Cleric, the beliefs of their order (and the ever troublesome Detect spells that they have access to), simply means an evil party member can be straight out unviable, because even if you argue "Well, just because their magic thing says the person is evil doesn't mean they should just kill them out of hand if they haven't done anything," (a perfectly fair statement I feel like people should sometimes remember, outside of alignment requirements that force all evil characters to be mustache twirling supervillains, in which case that's a perfectly understandable and legitimate response) the character's willingness to not kill them very likely doesn't because a willingness to work with the other person longer than necessary. And if you ever plan to have your players get to visit a town, or just have some time off to make items or all those other things, any sort of GM enforced necessity will be likely dissipated.

Also ultimately, these sorts of games function largely as communal storytelling, and if including excuses and reasons to force the evil character either to stay with the party, the party to keep them around, and them to stay active and invested in what the party is doing feels like it would be forced, or so obviously artificial you mine as well hang a sign on the character saying "This is a Party Member, you may not interact with them like you normally would a real person," the verisimilitude of the experience is lost, and whatever suspension of disbelief your party had going is easily strained.

That being said, I have had cases where evil-ish characters managed to function in a party just fine. While, technically, I believe the character in question was neutrally aligned, they tended to do a lot of dubious stuff (as in that setting Necromancy wasn't soul torturing evil), like have undead minions as their bodyguards and stuff (dressed up with incredibly extensive disguises to hide their true nature), and tended to try to push the party overall towards missions and such that would benefit him and expand his power, and he was more than willing to torture adversaries for information (which is probably the most unpleasantly evil thing he'd done, and even then, due to a values dissonance with medieval culture, one could argue torture, in and of itself, wouldn't be considered intrinsically evil), and despite that sort of tone to his overall behavior, in any setting where Necromancy is not a wickedly evil act simply due to ripping souls out of the heavens or whatever for personal gain, that character could easily be neutral. As has been observed in this thread, outside of a few edge cases, if you aren't planning on being perturbingly villainous or disruptive, you don't really need to be evil to play a less morally firm character. At least in any flexible alignment system. There's always the settings and systems that go for stuff like "Anyone who steals anything for their own benefit is evil. Period." In which case evil PCs may be more common simply because the bar for "evil" is set so low.

[Raven777]

Third: As mentioned, if there's a Paladin in the party, or even some varieties of Good (Chaotic or Lawful) Cleric, the beliefs of their order (and the ever troublesome Detect spells that they have access to), simply means an evil party member can be straight out unviable [...].

Couldn't it mean instead that the Paladin or Good Cleric are the ones to be unviable? Why are classes that say to other players "no, you cannot play that" not the problem?