What Alignment Is My Character?

[JobsforFun]

I am currently conflicted on what alignment to choose from, Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil. We're currently playing a home brewed 5e campaign, and I am playing a Death Domain Cleric so far I have been playing Neutral just going with the flow of the group. But I read more into the Death Domain and that it is usually recommended to play Evil alignments and the more I look into the Evil alignments they seem fun to play although I am slightly confused between the to alignments because I am not a fan of Chaotic Evil.

My characters close friend poisoned a King and my character harbored his friend afterwards and his friend somehow blamed the crime on him and my character was locked in jail until he broke free and hunted down his friend and killed him for betraying him. After that he became a sailor and sailed around the ocean stealing valuables and blundering towns after a while my character became a cleric and worshiped the Raven Queen. I am still trying to come up with more for the back story.

I want my character to have no fret about killing innocent people, he is willing to lie to benefit himself, doesn't respect the law and believes all politicians are corrupt and out for themselves, values friendship and would not turn against his friends unless they turned against him first, does not honor the weak, he has no problem with torture, he treats his enemies with no respect, and he is honor bound ex) Campaign we're playing a Evil Magician is trying to destroy the world and my character agreed to help now we're sailing around being pirates trying to destroy an evil organization called God Hand. Also a member of our group would have no problem betraying our party members for immortality but my character would attempt to kill anyone for betraying us without mercy.

I find my characters main goal is to eventually become some sort of king and he sees going with this group as a way to eliminate the competition.

(I apologize if I posted this in the wrong section I am new to this form site)

[Tanarii]

All you have to do is ask yourself, which of these do you feel fits the way you want to play better?

Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

That's all there is to it for choosing a 5e Alignment.

If you want us to help you work backwards to figure out what Alignment you should pick based on behavior, you'll need to tell us what Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw you've chosen. Trying to work backwards to figure out "what alignment am I" is really difficult in 5e, and without that info it's basically impossible. Because actions / behavior are a result of how you decide to roleplay (ie make in-character decisions) based on a combination of 5 factors: Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.

[JobsforFun]

I think I am going to go towards Lawful Evil, I want my character to still have honor but to be sort of unforgiving and putting himself first to sort of be his flaw

[lunaticfringe]

Chaotic Evil. You don't have to be Chaotic, just disrespect/have no faith in Authority and the rule of law (seems like your doing fine on that front). Be Contrary, hate to have your personal freedom endangered, & Take Risks.

But when in Doubt go Neutral. Your playing an Evil Campaign, the specific type of Evil is less important. You don't have to worry about some Pala-Nazi telling you how to be.

Your character doesn't seem Lawful I could be misreading the Situation, though.

[JobsforFun]

I think since my DM doesn't really mind what we do with alignments I will do a mixture of LE and NE that would work better for me I believe.

[Tanarii]

If it were me, I'd probably formalize it this way:

Alignment - Lawful evil (LE). I methodically take what I want, within the limits of my code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Personality - insert non alignment related quirk here
Ideal - Honor. Keeping my word, once given, is the only way to stay true to myself.
Bond - I will never turn on true friends.
Flaw - I have no respect for the weak, and will use or destroy them without qualms.

Most of the other stuff you've already talked about is covered decently by Lawful Evil general behavior. You may want to come up with an actual code.

On the other hand, you can use these same traits with Nuetral Evil and skip the code just as easily. You may need to change your Ideal to something else to match more closely though, since those usually (but not always) go hand in hand.

Edit: you don't need to be this formal if your DM is skipping the rules on rewarding inspiration for playing personality traits. But I find it really helps focus the mind on being in character to have them broken out a few easy to remember sentences with formal categories.

[Grek]

Honestly? True Neutral.

Your character is ruled out from being properly Lawful for harbouring a fugitive, escaping from prison and committing piracy. Your character can't be Good because they're OK with murder and torture. The honor and loyalty say Chaotic is right out. The remaining options are True Neutral and Neutral Evil. The Raven Queen herself is non-Evil (Lawful Neutral), and your character has been personally doing battle against the forces of Evil. Unless and until your character is party to some badness that you've not mentioned, they're True Neutral. Being willing to do Evil isn't enough if you never actually do anything bad. Possibly your character is a flavour of Neutral with Evil impulses with a favourable view on Lawfulness, but they're basically True Neutral in terms of how other people should/would view them.

[JobsforFun]

Honestly? True Neutral.

Your character is ruled out from being properly Lawful for harbouring a fugitive, escaping from prison and committing piracy. Your character can't be Good because they're OK with murder and torture. The honor and loyalty say Chaotic is right out. The remaining options are True Neutral and Neutral Evil. The Raven Queen herself is non-Evil (Lawful Neutral), and your character has been personally doing battle against the forces of Evil. Unless and until your character is party to some badness that you've not mentioned, they're True Neutral. Being willing to do Evil isn't enough if you never actually do anything bad. Possibly your character is a flavour of Neutral with Evil impulses with a favourable view on Lawfulness, but they're basically True Neutral in terms of how other people should/would view them.

To be honest I know I want Lawful Evil at this point. The back story I typed was more or so a rough way of how I want it, I picked Sailor as my characters background to get. Proficiency in perception and I couldn't think of an exact way to right it in. But I'll most likely go about editing my back story to fit more in line.

[JobsforFun]

If it were me, I'd probably formalize it this way:

Alignment - Lawful evil (LE). I methodically take what I want, within the limits of my code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Personality - insert non alignment related quirk here
Ideal - Honor. Keeping my word, once given, is the only way to stay true to myself.
Bond - I will never turn on true friends.
Flaw - I have no respect for the weak, and will use or destroy them without qualms.

Most of the other stuff you've already talked about is covered decently by Lawful Evil general behavior. You may want to come up with an actual code.

On the other hand, you can use these same traits with Nuetral Evil and skip the code just as easily. You may need to change your Ideal to something else to match more closely though, since those usually (but not always) go hand in hand.

Edit: you don't need to be this formal if your DM is skipping the rules on rewarding inspiration for playing personality traits. But I find it really helps focus the mind on being in character to have them broken out a few easy to remember sentences with formal categories.

Thanks, this really helped. I thought I'd enjoy playing a Evil Alignment.

One last question you put Bind as never betraying true friends so for Example my friends character would gladly betray us for immortality it would be in Lawful Evils guidelines to kill or at least sabotage him in some way correct? (I say this because If our DM roles 2 set numbers dice it would active something with his character and I'm assuming it's that since they haven't told us but he's mentioned the immortality thing before)

[Grek]

Changing the backstory to become more Evil is easy. Just put some actual villainy to counterbalance the heroic battles against Evil Magicians. Becoming more Lawful is more difficult, but a more developed personal code - possibly based on your character's religion - would neatly handle that. Lawful really needs an external or objective standard to measure itself by. The law of the land is one possibility. Promises are another. But a Code is the real gold standard in lawfulness.

E: If they betray you first, they're not a True Friend and immediately become fair game. Lawful Evil isn't about forgiving people, its about wanting both Might and Right on your side.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Fighting Evil Magicians doesn't necessarily make you Good unless you're doing it for the right reasons.

“I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.”
- Lord Havelock Vetinari

[JobsforFun]

Changing the backstory to become more Evil is easy. Just put some actual villainy to counterbalance the heroic battles against Evil Magicians. Becoming more Lawful is more difficult, but a more developed personal code - possibly based on your character's religion - would neatly handle that. Lawful really needs an external or objective standard to measure itself by. The law of the land is one possibility. Promises are another. But a Code is the real gold standard in lawfulness.

E: If they betray you first, they're not a True Friend and immediately become fair game. Lawful Evil isn't about forgiving people, its about wanting both Might and Right on your side.

How about my my characters brother was a King and a close friend of my character poisined his brother and my character finds out and one of his main goals is to hunt his friend down and either kill him or make him awnser for his crimes in a swift harsh manner?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Your character is ruled out from being properly Lawful for harbouring a fugitive, escaping from prison and committing piracy.

I agree with these points (though I think the cold-blooded murder and lifetime of self-serving crime make the backstory as-presented solidly NE, though not without the possibility of redemption).

Ways to make it more lawful might be: the character didn't know his friend was a fugitive; the guy betrayed him because he was about to be found out. He served out his term, which was shortened for (entirely cynical) 'good behaviour'. He joined the navy after his release, rising to an NCO rank and abusing his position to bully subordinates and brutalise enemies/indigenous people.

[Malifice]

I want my character to have no fret about killing innocent people, he is willing to lie to benefit himself, doesn't respect the law and believes all politicians are corrupt and out for themselves, values friendship and would not turn against his friends unless they turned against him first, does not honor the weak, he has no problem with torture, he treats his enemies with no respect, and he is honor bound

Ah - the good olde 'I'm evil to everyone who isnt a PC' evil. No offence but thats a total cop out.

As a DM, I hate this kind of evil nearly as much as I hate the 'CN at all costs' PC.

For the record you're probably NE.

When I play evil (and when I DM it), I play evil. I have little regard for the lives of others, have no problem inflicting suffering, harming and killing others, and resort to force if I can get away with it. I have little in the way of empathy for those weaker than me.

Vs PCs or NPCs alike.

Most such PCs honestly believe they're good people, and usually commit such crimes for 'the greater good' or whatever. Its the world that is evil, and they're just good men forced to do 'what needs to be done' in the face of such 'evil'.

[JobsforFun]

I agree with these points (though I think the cold-blooded murder and lifetime of self-serving crime make the backstory as-presented solidly NE, though not without the possibility of redemption).

Ways to make it more lawful might be: the character didn't know his friend was a fugitive; the guy betrayed him because he was about to be found out. He served out his term, which was shortened for (entirely cynical) 'good behaviour'. He joined the navy after his release, rising to an NCO rank and abusing his position to bully subordinates and brutalise enemies/indigenous people.

I think that would work

[JobsforFun]

Ah - the good olde 'I'm evil to everyone who isnt a PC' evil. No offence but thats a total cop out.

As a DM, I hate this kind of evil nearly as much as I hate the 'CN at all costs' PC.

For the record you're probably NE.

When I play evil (and when I DM it), I play evil. I have little regard for the lives of others, have no problem inflicting suffering, harming and killing others, and resort to force if I can get away with it. I have little in the way of empathy for those weaker than me.

Vs PCs or NPCs alike.

Most such PCs honestly believe they're good people, and usually commit such crimes for 'the greater good' or whatever. Its the world that is evil, and they're just good men forced to do 'what needs to be done' in the face of such 'evil'.

I would be evil to PC's, I am still a nooby at DnD and I personally have anxeity about Rping somethings I am trying to get more into the Rping aspect since that is what makes DnD so much fun. I just wouldn't kill them randomly unless one of them betrays us.

[smcmike]

Ah - the good olde 'I'm evil to everyone who isnt a PC' evil. No offence but thats a total cop out.

As a DM, I hate this kind of evil nearly as much as I hate the 'CN at all costs' PC.

For the record you're probably NE.

When I play evil (and when I DM it), I play evil. I have little regard for the lives of others, have no problem inflicting suffering, harming and killing others, and resort to force if I can get away with it. I have little in the way of empathy for those weaker than me.

Vs PCs or NPCs alike.

Most such PCs honestly believe they're good people, and usually commit such crimes for 'the greater good' or whatever. Its the world that is evil, and they're just good men forced to do 'what needs to be done' in the face of such 'evil'.

Oh come on Mal. I have sympathy for your view that characters who commit evil acts should be labeled Evil. There's something to that. In this case, though, the OP knows the character is evil - he's TRYING to make an evil character.

Evil characters are allowed to love their mothers. Some of the most evil people in the history of the world committed their evil acts, in part, out of loyalty to their comrades.

If your rule is that anyone who commits an evil act is Evil, and also that anyone who is Evil must always commit evil acts, you're not leaving any room whatsoever for moral conflict.

On the other hand, I agree that TV antiheroes can get a bit stale, and are sometimes given a patina of "evil" to make them edgy, but not enough to turn the viewer off. On the other hand, there are plenty of good examples of characters who do truly evil things while loving their families - the protagonists of The Americans come to mind.

[Tanarii]

Being willing to do Evil isn't enough if you never actually do anything bad.Not true in 5e. Alignment is about your moral and social attitudes. They tend to result in specific behaviors, because the idea is you take the associated typical behavior it into consideration when making in-character decisions (aka Roleplaying). But Alignment itself is specifically not about actions, but instead how it thinks / believes / approaches these things inside. (Note that's not got anything to do with objective vs non-objective. Said attitude can still be objective.)


One last question you put Bind as never betraying true friends so for Example my friends character would gladly betray us for immortality it would be in Lawful Evils guidelines to kill or at least sabotage him in some way correct? (I say this because If our DM roles 2 set numbers dice it would active something with his character and I'm assuming it's that since they haven't told us but he's mentioned the immortality thing before)Thats why I said "true friends". The word 'true' was the cop-out, if you will. If a friend is willing to betray you, clearly he's not a true friend. :smallwink:


Ah - the good olde 'I'm evil to everyone who isnt a PC' evil. No offence but thats a total cop out.

As a DM, I hate this kind of evil nearly as much as I hate the 'CN at all costs' PC.Thats ridiculous. Building in the reason why you will work with other PCs and not automatically betray them during the first session is critical to a LE or NE character, just as it is for a CN character. Otherwise the campaign will fall apart. That's why AL has explicit rules that even an LE character must not screw with the party

Of course, one good reason is Power: working with these guys gets me lots of Power. Therefore, I will work with them, and not give them reason to kick me out / kill me.

You seem to want all Evil characters to be CE.


Most such PCs honestly believe they're good people, and usually commit such crimes for 'the greater good' or whatever. Its the world that is evil, and they're just good men forced to do 'what needs to be done' in the face of such 'evil'.Yeah that can be fun in an objective morality campaign, which seems to be the default assumption of 5e. Your character thinks her moral attitudes are good, when they are objectively evil.

[Malifice]

I would be evil to PC's, I am still a nooby at DnD and I personally have anxeity about Rping somethings I am trying to get more into the Rping aspect since that is what makes DnD so much fun. I just wouldn't kill them randomly unless one of them betrays us.

Evil isnt 'kill people randomly' - not even the criminally insane psychopaths do that.

Evil is Tony Soprano. Walter White. The Punisher. Dexter. Titus Pullo from Rome. Rastlin Majere.

You simply lack empathy for people. You may even believe youre a good person (some of the above certainly do). Its just you are prepared to harm others and kill for what you believe in, or when it's convenient or beneficial for you to do so, or you simply dont care if others die.

You need to have a reason for your evil. Make it nuanced.

[Tanarii]

You need to have a reason for your evil. Make it nuanced.IMO that's what personality, ideal, bond and flaw are for. Or she informal equivalent.

[Malifice]

Not true in 5e. Alignment is about your moral and social attitudes.

Yeah, which come out in your behaviours.


But Alignment itself is specifically not about actions, but instead how it thinks / believes / approaches these things inside. (Note that's not got anything to do with objective vs non-objective. Said attitude can still be objective.)

You cant murder children if you have a 'good' moral and social attitude. You cant be a rapist if you have the same.

The instant you become a rapist or start murdering children, then I know everything I need to know about your social and moral attitude, regardless of how you percieve yourself.


Thats ridiculous. Building in the reason why you will work with other PCs and not automatically betray them during the first session is critical to a LE or NE character, just as it is for a CN character.

Totally untrue. Its metagaming and poor characterisation.

This is crap said by players who want to play evil without the problems (lack of trust and no friends) that comes with being evil and screwing everyone over.

Sometimes its OK for certain concepts. But more often than not, its a total cop out.


Otherwise the campaign will fall apart.

Not in a mature party. Ive played an evil only Rolemaster campaign for 10 years and it worked just fine. PvP was expected, and the 'evil PC that doesnt harm his friends' trope was rare indeed.

Went through 20 characters in that campaign - 15 were killed by other PCs. We plotted and schemed and formed power divisions in the party. At times we worked together as it suited us. At times the party was controlled by a powerful PC that was able to keep us all in line. The penalty for betrayal was the whole party would attack you instantly. We had party charters, a long list of punishments for theft, backstabbing, betrayal and so forth.

It was a blast.


That's why AL has explicit rules that even an LE character must not screw with the party

No, AL has those rules because many DnD players are immature geeks with poor social skills. There are a ton of disruptive dweebs out there, and allowing one (in co-operative group play) to wander into a campaign and do what poor immature roleplayers do (lulz im gonna stab the bartender because he overcharged me 2 copper!!! And then im gonna break into his house and kill his family!! lulz I IZ EVUL!!!) and wreck the campaign.

Also not everyone signs up to evil PCs. Many players find torture, murder and worse distatesful.

Also, DnD is (at its heart) a co-operative game. Its fine to stray from that baseline, but everyone has to be signed up for it.


Of course, one good reason is Power: working with these guys gets me lots of Power. Therefore, I will work with them, and not give them reason to kick me out / kill me.

Can you name one evil character in fiction that didnt turn on his allies at some stage? Darth Vader? Tony Soprano? Lex Luthor? Walter White? Raistlin Majere? Anyone in GoT?


You seem to want all Evil characters to be CE.

No; I have a lot of time for LE PCs - PCs with a code of honor (I dont kill children and go out of my way to protect them, but I am merciless and cruel to everyone else - and those who harm children get strung up and killed in the most gruesome of ways as punishment to everyone else, etc).

CE PCs in my games are expected to be played CE. Arbitrarily violent, cruel and lacking in empathy.

To PCs as well as NPCs.


Yeah that can be fun in an objective morality campaign, which seems to be the default assumption of 5e. Your character thinks her moral attitudes are good, when they are objectively evil.

Mate most people think they're good people. Even child murderers and rapists. Good for them. Im sure most Evil villians in DnD think the same as well.

But theyre not.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, which come out in your behaviours.

You cant murder children if you have a 'good' moral and social attitude. You cant be a rapist if you have the same.

The instant you become a rapist or start murdering children, then I know everything I need to know about your social and moral attitude, regardless of how you percieve yourself.Sure. If it's objective. If it's not, then you know what you believe their attitude to be, because it's all personal judgement anyway. But like I said, D&D is pretty strongly inclined to objective morality, and this edition doesn't seem to be any different.

Which is the closest I think we've ever come to agreeing on alignment.



Totally untrue. Its metagaming and poor characterisation.

This is crap said by players who want to play evil without the problems (lack of trust and no friends) that comes with being evil and screwing everyone over.Thats crap and you know it. There is no way for 'mature' players to play an Evil character, specifically with traits that she will quickly betray her party, and has no reason not to, without the campaign falling apart almost instantly. Because if you make a character who will do that, then they will, and then it falls apart.


Not in a mature party. Ive played an evil only Rolemaster campaign for 10 years and it worked just fine. PvP was expected, and the 'evil PC that doesnt harm his friends' trope was rare indeed.

Went through 20 characters in that campaign - 15 were killed by other PCs. We plotted and schemed and formed power divisions in the party. At times we worked together as it suited us. At times the party was controlled by a powerful PC that was able to keep us all in line. The penalty for betrayal was the whole party would attack you instantly. We had party charters, a long list of punishments for theft, backstabbing, betrayal and so forth.What I'm reading here is the campaign kept falling apart, until the party instituted a reason that the characters wouldn't betray the party. But of course, that's not meta gaming to have a powerful PC with a rule that you don't betray the party, but having personal reasons not to is. /roll eyes



No, AL has those rules because many DnD players are immature geeks with poor social skills. At the risk of alienating everyone, yep, that pretty much sums up all of those who post here regularly. :smallyuk:



Can you name one evil character in fiction that didnt turn on his allies at some stage? Darth Vader? Tony Soprano? Lex Luthor? Walter White? Raistlin Majere? Anyone in GoT?OTOH as you say, D&D is a cooperative game. That means you do one of three things: don't Play evil characters, come up with reasons for them to work together (NOT meta gaming), or ignore that they shouldn't and have them work together anyway (IS meta gaming).

[smcmike]

You cant murder children if you have a 'good' moral and social attitude. You cant be a rapist if you have the same.

The instant you become a rapist or start murdering children, then I know everything I need to know about your social and moral attitude, regardless of how you percieve yourself.

While I agree with this, the rest doesn't all follow.




Totally untrue. Its metagaming and poor characterisation.

This is crap said by players who want to play evil without the problems (lack of trust and no friends) that comes with being evil and screwing everyone over.

For instance, being evil does not necessarily mean screwing everyone over. As you point out, there are LOTS of things one can do that gets EVIL written on their character sheet in capital letters. Not all of those things include screwing over allies.




Can you name one evil character in fiction that didnt turn on his allies at some stage? Darth Vader? Tony Soprano? Lex Luthor? Walter White? Raistlin Majere? Anyone in GoT?

Jaime Lannister - does he ever turn on an ally? Or, hey, every storm trooper. I don't remember any storm troopers turning on an ally.

Also, turning on ones allies "at some point" does not rule out a general principle of group loyalty.



CE PCs in my games are expected to be played CE. Arbitrarily violent, cruel and lacking in empathy.

To PCs as well as NPCs.

So if the character isn't interested in violent confrontation with allies, he can't be CE?

[Tanarii]

anyway, to avoid completely derailing another alignment thread and get back on topic:

I would be evil to PC's, I am still a nooby at DnD and I personally have anxeity about Rping somethings I am trying to get more into the Rping aspect since that is what makes DnD so much fun. I just wouldn't kill them randomly unless one of them betrays us.

If you're a new D&D player, I strongly recommend using the personality system of Alignment, Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw. I also strongly recommend looking at the examples given by your background, or if you don't have a background (ie you're making it up which is totally legal), then browse through all the examples.

Pay special attention to the Ideals that line up with 'Evil', and if you're thinking LE look at the 'Lawful' ones too. It's also worth checking out the examples of 'Any' to see how you can have an Ideal not bound to social or moral attitudes.

Then write them all down. One sentence each, for a total of five sentences. Read them before any session starts. These are your character motivations. Whenever you do make ANY in-character choice, they potentially should affect your choice, if appropriate. They are your tool for assisting in playing a character that isn't you.

That's the heart of Roleplaying. Making character choices and decisions as a character that isn't you. These are a fantastic tool for doing it, especially for someone new.

[JobsforFun]

Oh come on Mal. I have sympathy for your view that characters who commit evil acts should be labeled Evil. There's something to that. In this case, though, the OP knows the character is evil - he's TRYING to make an evil character.

Evil characters are allowed to love their mothers. Some of the most evil people in the history of the world committed their evil acts, in part, out of loyalty to their comrades.

If your rule is that anyone who commits an evil act is Evil, and also that anyone who is Evil must always commit evil acts, you're not leaving any room whatsoever for moral conflict.

On the other hand, I agree that TV antiheroes can get a bit stale, and are sometimes given a patina of "evil" to make them edgy, but not enough to turn the viewer off. On the other hand, there are plenty of good examples of characters who do truly evil things while loving their families - the protagonists of The Americans come to mind.

I agree, I can understand some people take alignment more seriously then others. For instance my DM doesn't follow it toostrictly. I am trying to form my character to some LE ideal. But LE characters can still have friends, for instances I believe (not entirely sure) once Lawful Evil characters give their word to do something they usually follow through and tend to not break their word. Why not have my character give his word to the group to follow and help them? I could be completely wrong here since I am sure most of you are more experienced then me but that is the generally vibe I am getting.

[hamishspence]

There's even Chaotic Good/Neutral characters who are ferociously loyal to their friends while still being extremely disdainful of local law enforcement.

"evilifying" a CG character like that might not be too hard.

[Malifice]

For instance, being evil does not necessarily mean screwing everyone over. As you point out, there are LOTS of things one can do that gets EVIL written on their character sheet in capital letters. Not all of those things include screwing over allies.

I actually agree. But that should be exception to the rule, not the rule.

How many time have you heard 'My PC is an evil monster, but he's loyal to his friends (PCs)..' Its a cop out.

Most evil people arent loyal to their friends. Because theyre evil. Again; Walter White, Darth Vader, Tony Soprano etc.

Evil people lack empathy. As a general rule, they care as much about their friends as they do about the cow they're eating for dinner. If they're prepared to kill a man for stealing their horse, or for bad mouthing their God or whatever, they're prepared to murder, rape and torture people, then thats who they are.

Im not saying one cant play a loyal evil person (heck even a loyal CE person - Titus Pullo from Rome is a fantastic CE hero who is loyal to Lucius Verenus). Its just they are the exception to the general rule.

I tend to see them as cop outs from players. As in 'I want to do all this evil stuff to NPCs but not to PCs'. Its (more often than not) a total cop out.


Jaime Lannister - does he ever turn on an ally?

Only his own King. Twice. He's renouned as the Kingslayer who renounced his sacred Oaths and killed the King. By stabbing him in the back. He turns on the House of Stark by pushing a child off a tower while under their hospitality. He helps orcehstrate the Red Wedding (another betrayal).


I don't remember any storm troopers turning on an ally.

Execute order 66.


Also, turning on ones allies "at some point" does not rule out a general principle of group loyalty.

Mate, never play with me in an Evil party. When I play evil, I play evil. Charming, and I'll have your back... right up until you turn it on me, and I have something to gain from killing you.

Like that nice magic sword you just found and that I want.

Some PCs are loyal. I play a LE Paladin who is loyal to his friends. Unless he thinks your useless (you miss a lot in combat due to bad rolls, or make silly tactical decisison) in which case I'll leave you to die at 0 HP and bleeding out, as I step over your body and loot the creature you just helped me kill.

Just like I would with an NPC.


Thats crap and you know it. There is no way for 'mature' players to play an Evil character, specifically with traits that she will quickly betray her party, and has no reason not to, without the campaign falling apart almost instantly. Because if you make a character who will do that, then they will, and then it falls apart.

I just told you I literally played in a 10 year long Rolemaster campaign that was only evil PCs, PvP, interparty conflict and party betrayal. It was like any other 'go to the dungeon and loot monsters' only that we were all evil bastards.

Particularly good betrayals that we didnt see coming were applauded.

It is possible in the right party. I have a table rule that I enforce: 'What happens at the table, stays at the table'. I also dont allow a single evil PC unless all players are OK with it, and OK with that rule.

And even then I only allow it if I know my players and know they're really OK with it.

It takes a mature group. But its definately possible.


What I'm reading here is the campaign kept falling apart, until the party instituted a reason that the characters wouldn't betray the party. But of course, that's not meta gaming to have a powerful PC with a rule that you don't betray the party, but having personal reasons not to is. /roll eyes

No the campaign never fell apart. If you were killed you came back at 1st level. We played all weekend every weekend for a decade and it was literally the best campaign Ive ever been in. Ill never be in better. We wound up with three seperate groups (of different power levels) adventuring around the realm, with the DM shifting between different groups depending on who turned up. If you were the sole survivor of a group conflict you formed a new group, or joined one of the higher level ones (as the new newbie). New PCs were forced to pitch the rest of the parties tents and go to the front of the party to find traps (at the pain of death) by a bunch of much higher PCs. You'd slowly climb the ladder, and ally with other PCs. It was all backstabbing, treachery, inter party conflict and mayhem.

Im getting nostalgic thinking about it.


OTOH as you say, D&D is a cooperative game. That means you do one of three things: don't Play evil characters, come up with reasons for them to work together (NOT meta gaming), or ignore that they shouldn't and have them work together anyway (IS meta gaming).

There is some strength to this argument. I have an expectation in games that my players are mature enough to play the characters they put forward. I hate 'CN Murderhobism' to the point that I wont allow those tropes in my games. I only allow evil if the guy can actually play evil (and not the childish psycho kill everyone and giggle for no reason PC that all too often rears its head when you allow evil PCs, or the cop out Evil - but only to non PCs variant).

If my players are up for it, and im sure they are, and they want it in, then I let evil PCs in my games. I explain the expectation - three dimensional evil PCs, who are.... well... evil.

This is not to say that I wont allow an 'Evil but loyal' PC (Almost certainly LE). I just expect better from my players; both in how they characterise their characters, and in the level of maturity they express in playing them out, and dealing with interparty conflict that results.


So if the character isn't interested in violent confrontation with allies, he can't be CE?

No but if he avoids it, he's probably not CE. Lets call a spade a spade here - he's not avoiding it 'becuase character' hes avoiding it for other reasons and hiding behind that as an excuse to play a 'CE' character that is loyal to his friends, cares about them and doesnt betray them or be violent towards them.

If I introduced a ton of DMNPCs they wouldnt get the same mercy. Its poor characterisation. If you're evil and you kill people who insult you, or who get in your waym then I expect initiative to be rolled if a PC at the table insults your PC, or gets in his way.

[Malifice]

I agree, I can understand some people take alignment more seriously then others. For instance my DM doesn't follow it toostrictly. I am trying to form my character to some LE ideal. But LE characters can still have friends, for instances I believe (not entirely sure) once Lawful Evil characters give their word to do something they usually follow through and tend to not break their word. Why not have my character give his word to the group to follow and help them? I could be completely wrong here since I am sure most of you are more experienced then me but that is the generally vibe I am getting.

They tend towards having a code of conduct or honor that puts them above other villians (in their eyes). They can also be disciplined, focussed and willing to obey the law (particularly if those laws help them in the end, or better yet, if they're the ones making the laws).

A great example is Steel Brightblade from Dragonlance. A LE Knight who is disciplined, honorable, but evil to the core. The Punisher is another example. He commits all kinds of atrocities (murder, torture, terror) but has rules that (in his eyes) make him a hero (he doesnt kill or murder those he deems innocent or wh havent broken the law).

You beleive in an ordered society, but have no time for the weak, are a racist/ fascist, think might makes right, or have some kind of foible that (in your eyes) makes you less of a monster.

The Nazis (Godwin lol) are often held up as an example of a contemporary LE regime.

Darth Vader also gets held up as LE, but for mine he is CE through and through.

[smcmike]

The vast majority of evil people don't kill people for insulting them, or getting in their way. Not all evil people are psychopaths, and not all psychopaths are killers.

There are a lot of ways to be evil.

Probably the most common category of violence in human history is violence by members of an in-group against outsiders. Should I expect a Mongol to treat his fellow raiders exactly as he treats his victims? Would a southern slave-catcher be just as likely to whip his partner in evil as his target?

Another category of evil is based upon our basest human drives, to put it delicately. I wouldn't want to see this sort of evil at the table, but it really has nothing to do with outward loyalty to friends.

[Tanarii]

I agree, I can understand some people take alignment more seriously then others. For instance my DM doesn't follow it toostrictly. I am trying to form my character to some LE ideal. But LE characters can still have friends, for instances I believe (not entirely sure) once Lawful Evil characters give their word to do something they usually follow through and tend to not break their word. Why not have my character give his word to the group to follow and help them? I could be completely wrong here since I am sure most of you are more experienced then me but that is the generally vibe I am getting.You can totally do it. It fits as either an Ideal, or a Bond.

Just from the Basic rules backgrounds (since I don't have my PHB handy and it's easier to cut and paste from anyway), here are a variety of Ideals that can apply to a LE character. Note many of them are Lawful, which you can choose to interpret as effectively being a little more Lawful than Evil.

Acolyte:
1 Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld. (Lawful)
4 Power. I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith’s religious hierarchy. (Lawful)
5 Faith. I trust that my deity will guide my actions. I have faith that if I work hard, things will go well. (Lawful)
6 Aspiration. I seek to prove myself worthy of my god’s favor by matching my actions against his or her teachings. (Any)

Criminal
1 Honor. I don’t steal from others in the trade. (Lawful)
4 Greed. I will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. (Evil)

Folk Hero:
2 Fairness. No one should get preferential treatment before the law, and no one is above the law. (Lawful)
4 Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want—what I deserve. (Evil)
6 Destiny. Nothing and no one can steer me away from my higher calling. (Any)

Noble:
2 Responsibility. It is my duty to respect the authority of those above me, just as those below me must respect mine. (Lawful)
4 Power. If I can attain more power, no one will tell me what to do. (Evil)
5 Family. Blood runs thicker than water. (Any)

Sage:
3 Logic. Emotions must not cloud our logical thinking. (Lawful)
5 Power. Knowledge is the path to power and domination. (Evil)
6 Self-Improvement. The goal of a life of study is the betterment of oneself. (Any)

Soldier:
2 Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority. (Lawful)
4 Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins. (Evil)
6 Nation. My city, nation, or people are all that matter. (Any)


Note especially the Criminal one Honor. They don't steal from others in the trade. Of course, a LE Criminal with that Ideal might be perfectly willing to kill someone that has wronged them, in the trade or not. Edit: Another good one to look at is the Folk Hero Lawful one. A LE Folk Hero that believes in Fairness, that everyone should get equal treatment before the law, might go to extreme and brutal lengths to take out those they deem to have somehow escaped the law. (like Malafice's example of the Punisher )

Meanwhile, Bonds provide a strong connection to things, your motivations independent of Alignment/Ideal, that might match up with them at times or conflict with them at others. Check them out if you haven't already, starting on page 37: http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf

[JobsforFun]

You can totally do it. It fits as either an Ideal, or a Bond.

Just from the Basic rules backgrounds (since I don't have my PHB handy and it's easier to cut and paste from anyway), here are a variety of Ideals that can apply to a LE character. Note many of them are Lawful, which you can choose to interpret as effectively being a little more Lawful than Evil.

Acolyte:
1 Tradition. The ancient traditions of worship and sacrifice must be preserved and upheld. (Lawful)
4 Power. I hope to one day rise to the top of my faith’s religious hierarchy. (Lawful)
5 Faith. I trust that my deity will guide my actions. I have faith that if I work hard, things will go well. (Lawful)
6 Aspiration. I seek to prove myself worthy of my god’s favor by matching my actions against his or her teachings. (Any)

Criminal
1 Honor. I don’t steal from others in the trade. (Lawful)
4 Greed. I will do whatever it takes to become wealthy. (Evil)

Folk Hero:
2 Fairness. No one should get preferential treatment before the law, and no one is above the law. (Lawful)
4 Might. If I become strong, I can take what I want—what I deserve. (Evil)
6 Destiny. Nothing and no one can steer me away from my higher calling. (Any)

Noble:
2 Responsibility. It is my duty to respect the authority of those above me, just as those below me must respect mine. (Lawful)
4 Power. If I can attain more power, no one will tell me what to do. (Evil)
5 Family. Blood runs thicker than water. (Any)

Sage:
3 Logic. Emotions must not cloud our logical thinking. (Lawful)
5 Power. Knowledge is the path to power and domination. (Evil)
6 Self-Improvement. The goal of a life of study is the betterment of oneself. (Any)

Soldier:
2 Responsibility. I do what I must and obey just authority. (Lawful)
4 Might. In life as in war, the stronger force wins. (Evil)
6 Nation. My city, nation, or people are all that matter. (Any)


Note especially the Criminal one Honor. They don't steal from others in the trade. Of course, a LE Criminal with that Ideal might be perfectly willing to kill someone that has wronged them, in the trade or not. Edit: Another good one to look at is the Folk Hero Lawful one. A LE Folk Hero that believes in Fairness, that everyone should get equal treatment before the law, might go to extreme and brutal lengths to take out those they deem to have somehow escaped the law. (like Malafice's example of the Punisher )

Meanwhile, Bonds provide a strong connection to things, your motivations independent of Alignment/Ideal, that might match up with them at times or conflict with them at others. Check them out if you haven't already, starting on page 37:

That works, now I need to create a Neutral Evil or even Chaotic Evil character since we usually host a campaign on Friday and we host a smaller one on Saturday that not everyone can make it to and our DM wanted Saturday to be the 'Evil' party. Basically we're in the same world as our current characters just not near each other and we'd meet up eventually down the road.

[Tanarii]

That works, now I need to create a Neutral Evil or even Chaotic Evil character since we usually host a campaign on Friday and we host a smaller one on Saturday that not everyone can make it to and our DM wanted Saturday to be the 'Evil' party. Basically we're in the same world as our current characters just not near each other and we'd meet up eventually down the road.
I'd go NE. The typical behavior associated with 5e CE is a bit to randomly bloodthirsty for my tastes.

From the Basic Rules:
Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust.

[Grek]

My last Chaotic Evil character was a dinosaur-riding cannibal who wore a skull for a hat, sneered at other races, robbed trains and consistently argued for just stealing whatever we wanted at sword-point rather than paying for it. Unplayable puppy-kicking monster? Nope! It's just Eberron!

She rides a dinosaur because Eberron Halflings are nomads who ride small feathery raptors around on the open plains. She eats people and wears skulls because of religious convictions regarding transmigration - by ritually consuming a worthy foe, that opponent is given a chance to be reincarnated as a halfling rather than sent on to ultimate destruction in the Eberron afterlife. She sneers at other races and cultures because they tore apart the continent with their pointless warmongering ambitions, unleashing plagues of undead, destroyed thousands of families and killed millions of people. She robs trains because her tribe was hired to do that to other nations during the war, but refused pay due to 'barbarous practices' and 'impiety' after the job is done. Its not really stealing if its rightfully yours, after all. She advocated stealing rather than paying because we were on an extremely important mission to stop a second Great War over a khyber shard mine found on international borders. A little theft now is a small price to pay for peace.

If you want to play a good CE character, start with broadly acceptable goals and motivations, then add a dash of callous pragmatism, some legitimate gripes about the rest of the world and a conviction that it is is beneath you to scrupulously obey the law or be nice to your obvious inferiors. Be willing to make concessions to your party's qualms (you wouldn't have accepted their help if they weren't worth all the trouble they give you) but also be willing to go the extra mile to get what you want.

[JobsforFun]

My last Chaotic Evil character was a dinosaur-riding cannibal who wore a skull for a hat, sneered at other races, robbed trains and consistently argued for just stealing whatever we wanted at sword-point rather than paying for it. Unplayable puppy-kicking monster? Nope! It's just Eberron!

She rides a dinosaur because Eberron Halflings are nomads who ride small feathery raptors around on the open plains. She eats people and wears skulls because of religious convictions regarding transmigration - by ritually consuming a worthy foe, that opponent is given a chance to be reincarnated as a halfling rather than sent on to ultimate destruction in the Eberron afterlife. She sneers at other races and cultures because they tore apart the continent with their pointless warmongering ambitions, unleashing plagues of undead, destroyed thousands of families and killed millions of people. She robs trains because her tribe was hired to do that to other nations during the war, but refused pay due to 'barbarous practices' and 'impiety' after the job is done. Its not really stealing if its rightfully yours, after all. She advocated stealing rather than paying because we were on an extremely important mission to stop a second Great War over a khyber shard mine found on international borders. A little theft now is a small price to pay for peace.

If you want to play a good CE character, start with broadly acceptable goals and motivations, then add a dash of callous pragmatism, some legitimate gripes about the rest of the world and a conviction that it is is beneath you to scrupulously obey the law or be nice to your obvious inferiors. Be willing to make concessions to your party's qualms (you wouldn't have accepted their help if they weren't worth all the trouble they give you) but also be willing to go the extra mile to get what you want.

That character idea sounds amazing

[Contrast]

Malifice - you seem very invested in the idea that every character is a paragon of their alignment.

There seem to only be brutal murders or evil tyrants in your evil alignment scale. What if I just want to play a brutish thug who doesn't care about people but is squemish about killing? Am I not allowed to play him becuase he's not Evil enough?

Also to say anyone evil is incapable of forming lasting partnerships or having positive relationships is...overly simplistic in the extreme. If I wanted my villians to be two dimensional orphan stabbers I'd stick to video games.

You seem to imply that anyone playing a character who demonstrates motivations and conflicts which go beyond 'more power and money for me' is playing some weird outlier on the evil scale. I'd argue the opposite is true - those in it for the chaos and destruction are the outliers. To put it another way - almost no-one will tell you they're the bad guy, they always think they're in the right. This doesn't necessarily make them non-evil but it does mean there's more to it than you're making out.

Speaking as someone who has been playing an evil character in a campaign for 2 years (I have lots of plans and contingencies, none of which have been triggered so far because I have made a point of not behaving in a way that would immediately get me killed - I am, in fact, one of the most trusted characters... because thats exactly the way my character wants it).

Edit - As a point of clarification, I would agree a hallmark of an evil person is being more willing to put aside or disregard those partnerships or relationships if they feel betrayed or it benefits them. But here again we have a scale and degree issue. There are many shades of grey before you reach black.

[Tanarii]

You seems to imply that anyone playing a character who demonstrates motivations and conflicts which go beyond 'more power and money for me' is playing some weird outlier on the evil scale. I'd argue the opposite is true - those in it for the chaos and destruction are the outliers. To put it another way - almost no-one will tell you they're the bad guy, they always think they're in the right. This doesn't make them non-evil but it does mean there's more to it than you're making out.Actually, if you look at the Ideals tagged (Evil), they are almost always about power or money, one way or another.

That doesn't mean that a Lawful Evil character can't have a Lawful Ideal, or a Chaotic Evil one a Chaotic Ideal, or any Evil character an (Any) Ideal. It just means that when it's an Ideal that lines up with (Evil) it's usually about gaining money or some kind of power. So if you're more Evil than driven by some other alignment aspect, or a non-aligned Ideal, then yeah, you probably are driven to attain money or power. (you = character) But I full agree that doesn't mean that ALL evil characters should have to be that way. Lawful Evil characters might be more LAWFUL Evil than Lawful EVIL. So to speak.

Edit: And that's not even getting into that characters aren't supposed to be defined entirely by their Alignment. I think of it more as the baseline situation, the last ditch for motivations ... if my Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw aren't affecting how I act, then lets consider the alignment sentence on behavior next. Obviously not precisely like that, it's not a checklist. But in terms of weight, it's the general that underlies and is less specific than the rest of a creature's personality.

[Contrast]

Actually, if you look at the Ideals tagged (Evil), they are almost always about power or money, one way or another.

That doesn't mean that a Lawful Evil character can't have a Lawful Ideal, or a Chaotic Evil one a Chaotic Ideal, or any Evil character an (Any) Ideal. It just means that when it's an Ideal that lines up with (Evil) it's usually about gaining money or some kind of power. So if you're more Evil than driven by some other alignment aspect, or a non-aligned Ideal, then yeah, you probably are driven to attain money or power. (you = character) But I full agree that doesn't mean that ALL evil characters should have to be that way. Lawful Evil characters might be more LAWFUL Evil than Lawful EVIL. So to speak.

Edit: And that's not even getting into that characters aren't supposed to be defined entirely by their Alignment. I think of it more as the baseline situation, the last ditch for motivations ... if my Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw aren't affecting how I act, then lets consider the alignment sentence on behavior next. Obviously not precisely like that, it's not a checklist. But in terms of weight, it's the general that underlies and is less specific than the rest of a creature's personality.

I see what you're saying. Maybe its just the way I do character backstories but my characters are very rarely 'I am evil because I want power' or 'I am good because good is good'. It might be 'I am evil because I was raised in a brutal slave camp with nothing of my own so now I am my own man and will stand on my own two feet no matter what anyone else says'. So the power and wealth would definately help achieve those goals but they're sort of secondary (and I note that being powerful and wealthy helps most good players to achieve their goals as well so thats hardly unique to evil characters).

Regarding the second point - I agree and to be honest I kind of feel the whole concept of alignment is harmful precisely because it entrenches ideas about characters. Don't try to make an Evil character, don't try to make a Good character. Make a character with characteristics and then play as that character. Don't think, no I shouldn't do that because its Evil and my character is Good, ask yourself 'what would my character do in this situation'. It's a shorthand to try and encourage that sort of roleplaying which I think has been hijacked and resulted in the opposite. But thats a topic for another thread methinks :P

[Tanarii]

Don't think, no I shouldn't do that because its Evil and my character is Good, ask yourself 'what would my character do in this situation'. It's a shorthand to try and encourage that sort of roleplaying which I think has been hijacked and resulted in the opposite. But thats a topic for another thread methinks :PNot really. That's exactly what 5e Alignment and Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw are trying to encourage. Knowing your motivations (plural!), so you can get in character. The key is they provide with a set of motivations far beyond 'I am Good'. That's why I suggested using them right off the bat.

Also, I hate the term backstory. Because it strongly implies, and is mostly commonly used by players, to list pre-game history, not motivations for use moving forward. Personal pet peeve, but it's why I stress motivations so strongly. Because they're what's important to roleplaying. Not history. (Edit: That's not to say that your character history can't be an important tool for the DM creating the narrative, since it gives them built in plot hooks.)

[JobsforFun]

One last question for Lawful Evil could my characters "goal" to become some sort of King or something of the sort?

[Tanarii]

One last question for Lawful Evil could my characters "goal" to become some sort of King or something of the sort?Set any in-character goals you want, including building them into a personality trait. For example, I'm fairly sure "I'd kill for a noble title" is a possible Flaw for the Guild Artisan background.

But you'll have to work with your DM as far as realizing your goal goes.

[Malifice]

Malifice - you seem very invested in the idea that every character is a paragon of their alignment.

Nah not at all man.

Im just saying that 'evil bastard who isnt evil to other PCs' is almost invariably a cop out by the player.

I'm not denying the trope exists; or that such a personality is viable and realistic; i'm just saying that its a trope that is relied on by players to 'be evil without most of the problems or drawbacks of being evil'.

Its the fist thing to come out of a 9/10 players mouths when they tell you they wants to play evil:

'OK DM; my character is evil and uses torture and murder as tools, and steals from everyone, but he's loyal to his friends (the other PCs)...'

My eyes roll almost every time.


What if I just want to play a brutish thug who doesn't care about people but is squemish about killing?

Then you're Neutral.


Also to say anyone evil is incapable of forming lasting partnerships or having positive relationships is...overly simplistic in the extreme.

I didnt say that. Evil people do form loving relationships. They're invariably self destructive and manipulative though.

Again, Walter White, Tony Soprano, Dexter. Raistlin Majere. Darth Vader. There is no doubt they love their families but they ultimately destroy them, or cause them to be destroyed by their actions.


If I wanted my villians to be two dimensional orphan stabbers I'd stick to video games.


Im not asking for two dimensional orphan stabbers. Im asking for the exact opposite.

Two dimensional back stabbeing uber murder hobos are an annoying, boring and immature trope used by the 'typical' DnD nerd who lacks social skills and any insight into human behaviour. Of course they're semi valid concepts (there are actual serial killers out there), but even monsters like serial killers have a series of rather complex justifications, psychology and motivations behind their evil.

My issue is the 'Evil to everyone but other PCs' is just as annoying to me. Its an excuse more often than its an actual intresting, developed or believable character concept.

You wanna play evil? Then man up and play evil. That doesnt mean 'play an evil serial killer' or 'wait fo the rest of the party to fall asleep and kill them for the lulz'. It means play an evil PC with motivations and justifications and personality. If youre prepared to do anything to rise to the top, but love your family and dont want them harmed (Walter White) then show me the conflict here. Inevitably these two desires are going to come into conflict. Provide a reason or justification for your evil acts, and then guide your characters actions from there.


You seem to imply that anyone playing a character who demonstrates motivations and conflicts which go beyond 'more power and money for me' is playing some weird outlier on the evil scale.

Then you're reading me wrong. Allow me to expressly state that this isnt what im inferring or implying at all.

I loathe 'moustache twirling murder psychoes' and similar. PCs who think an 'evil' PC is someone who breaks into a NPCs house and murders him for a minor slight, or who randomly kill 'because evil'. Thats beyond the levels of serial killer. Its unrealistic and breaks immersion.

The best monsters are the sympathetic ones. The ones that do evil deeds for a 'greater good' or only to provide for their family, or because of some great injustice in the past.

Define your character that way, and if its natural to rob or murder an NPC or a PC, then let it happen naturally. In character. Without any artifical [PC/ NPC] distinctions whacked on top.

[Addaran]

Nah not at all man.

Im just saying that 'evil bastard who isnt evil to other PCs' is almost invariably a cop out by the player.

I'm not denying the trope exists; or that such a personality is viable and realistic; i'm just saying that its a trope that is relied on by players to 'be evil without most of the problems or drawbacks of being evil'.


Mostly, it's a compromise between the rest of the group wanting a team-game without PVP and some of the party wanting to be evil.

Someone evil but not to his clan/family/love seems to be a lot more the norm then those who can't feel empathy. Everyone who's racist/homophobic/misogynist/religious-extremist/just-following-orders to the point of bullying, causing harm and/or killing fits that bill. Most of them still care for their family/friend/group.


Malifice, you know of this game? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Nomine_Satanis/Magna_Veritas
The system is pretty much made for competitive evil team that's expected to backstab each others. There is common goals (not being discovered/succeeding the missions) that are more important then all else. But aside from that, the characters all have different interest and even the "exp" is part of the competition. (the team leader makes report of missions, those that did better get a bigger share of the exp, lying allowed).

[Malifice]

Mostly, it's a compromise between the rest of the group wanting a team-game without PVP and some of the party wanting to be evil.

All well and good. But like I said, its a cop out and an eye roller for me.

I do balance the issue by simply not allowing evil PCs unless everyone is on board with the ramifications of that choice.


Someone evil but not to his clan/family/love seems to be a lot more the norm then those who can't feel empathy. Everyone who's racist/homophobic/misogynist/religious-extremist/just-following-orders to the point of bullying, causing harm and/or killing fits that bill. Most of them still care for their family/friend/group.

What about when a member of that group is the gender/ race/ sexuality/ religion? Or when they marry or ally with one?

You cant exclude PvP or interparty conflict as part of a personality or character concept. By defining yourself as 'highly confrontational and with bigoted beliefs, and a propensity for violence' its (assuming you are just naturally playing your PC) virtually inevitable.

I want to know why your PC is ruthless or lacks empathy? What are his qualms if any? Does he view himself as evil? Was he once a good man? What drives him to do what he does? What does he hate? Why?

From there, just let the character naturally evolve and react to the world around him. PC and NPC alike.


Malifice, you know of this game? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Nomine_Satanis/Magna_Veritas
The system is pretty much made for competitive evil team that's expected to backstab each others. There is common goals (not being discovered/succeeding the missions) that are more important then all else. But aside from that, the characters all have different interest and even the "exp" is part of the competition. (the team leader makes report of missions, those that did better get a bigger share of the exp, lying allowed).

Cant say that I do mate. Sounds like a serious version of Paranoia.

[Addaran]

What about when a member of that group is the gender/ race/ sexuality/ religion? Or when they marry or ally with one?

You cant exclude PvP or interparty conflict as part of a personality or character concept. By defining yourself as 'highly confrontational and with bigoted beliefs, and a propensity for violence' its (assuming you are just naturally playing your PC) virtually inevitable.

I want to know why your PC is ruthless or lacks empathy? What are his qualms if any? Does he view himself as evil? Was he once a good man? What drives him to do what he does? What does he hate? Why?

From there, just let the character naturally evolve and react to the world around him. PC and NPC alike.



Cant say that I do mate. Sounds like a serious version of Paranoia.

When i make an evil character in a team of good, i make sure that i'm not specifically against one of the characters concept. I won't be a dwarf-racist if there is dwarf in the team. Or the emerald enclave won't be my big enemy if half the party is in it. I don't see it different then discussing each player's character class/race to make sure we aren't all playing the same character or having huge weakness.


For INS, yes and no for the serious part. The world itself is full of joke, political jab , etc. But with the right DM, it definitively sound like the perfect setting for the kind of evil game you describe.

[RaynorReynolds]

The big thing a lot of people here are forgetting is that you dont have to follow governmental laws and regulations to be lawfully aligned.

[Malifice]

The big thing a lot of people here are forgetting is that you dont have to follow governmental laws and regulations to be lawfully aligned.

Thats right. You can have your own code.

[Herobizkit]

What I usually ask when Clerics are involved: What Deity do you actually worship, if any? That, paired with alignment, really helps color what and why your Cleric believes.

When I think Lawful Evil, I immediately think of the Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard). He's the guy who reeks of charm and awesome; he always has a scheme within a scheme and thinks two moves ahead of everyone else. He's almost always the guy the Good guys go to when Good just doesn't get the job done.

A Lawful Evil Cleric of Death. Asmodeus seems the most likely candidate for such a Magnificent Bastard unless your DM is super-into FR canon (Asmodeus is back to "might be a God, but probably not" status after the shift from 4 to 5e).

Oh man.

You could be a guy who LOOOOOVES contracts. Especially when dealing with the aged and wealthy. ^_^ Your job is to ensure that the dead stay dead so they can't come back and take what's yours. :)

[Contrast]

Then you're Neutral.

The guy who happily breaks peoples kneecaps for money but doesn't like killing people gets an insta-pass on being evil? I guess we're using two very different morality scales here which is going to make this conversation pretty difficult. This is kinda what I meant about the paragon thing - in my understanding its very possible to have an evil character who has never thought of (edit - directly) harming someone else. To try another example, what about a loan shark - he's going to take advantage of people when they're at their lowest and weakest and he's certainly going to rough people up to make them understand he means business but he's not a murderer and he won't cross that line except in self defence. I don't see why this character gets a pass on being evil just because he won't murder people.

Edit2 - Actually lets remove violence entirely. A judge who accepts bribes to let murderers go free or someone who knowingly dumps unsafe waste to save money. These are not violent acts but they are not good acts and I would not call them neutral acts.

Thats like saying you can't be Good unless you're literally willing to sacrifice your life for someone else as anything less is just Neutral. Certainly being self-sacrificing is a trait that Good characters will often demonstrate but its not the only one and you're placing an exceedingly high barrier here.


Again, Walter White, Tony Soprano, Dexter. Raistlin Majere. Darth Vader. There is no doubt they love their families but they ultimately destroy them, or cause them to be destroyed by their actions.

I admit I can't think of any good examples off-hand of 'evil' relationships lasting and flourishing in fiction but I'd argue this is because of the nature of narrative fiction where the bad guys must have their comuppance. I think actual history provides many examples of truly terrible people dying of old age in their beds and mourned by friends and family. This point may of course be somewhat counteracted by the fact that RPGs tend to follow the narrative tropes of fiction writing so I guess this one does depend a lot on how much your DM is willing to purposefully orchestrate your demise.


My issue is the 'Evil to everyone but other PCs' is just as annoying to me. Its an excuse more often than its an actual intresting, developed or believable character concept.

You wanna play evil? Then man up and play evil. That doesnt mean 'play an evil serial killer' or 'wait fo the rest of the party to fall asleep and kill them for the lulz'. It means play an evil PC with motivations and justifications and personality. If youre prepared to do anything to rise to the top, but love your family and dont want them harmed (Walter White) then show me the conflict here. Inevitably these two desires are going to come into conflict. Provide a reason or justification for your evil acts, and then guide your characters actions from there.

Ah ok this is where I might have misconstrued you slightly. The OP was talking about a character who is loyal to his friends and brutal to his enemies (which I would say is your standard mafioso/deranged soldier style approach to 'evil'). I interpreted this more generally as a character trait effecting both NPCs and PCs, while you've interpreted it to mean that the PCs are in a special 'don't get murdered' category, while the rest of the world is in a special 'get murdered' category. I agree with you that that is dumb and if that is how someone is planning on playing an evil character then they should probably not be playing an evil character.


Then you're reading me wrong. Allow me to expressly state that this isnt what im inferring or implying at all.

I loathe 'moustache twirling murder psychoes' and similar. PCs who think an 'evil' PC is someone who breaks into a NPCs house and murders him for a minor slight, or who randomly kill 'because evil'. Thats beyond the levels of serial killer. Its unrealistic and breaks immersion.

The best monsters are the sympathetic ones. The ones that do evil deeds for a 'greater good' or only to provide for their family, or because of some great injustice in the past.

Define your character that way, and if its natural to rob or murder an NPC or a PC, then let it happen naturally. In character. Without any artifical [PC/ NPC] distinctions whacked on top.

Agreed :) The only thing I would say here is that the obvious answer on how to run an evil PC and it make sense that the other PCs hang around with you is to purposefully build links when you make the characters. For example, a hypothetical evil barbarian was thrown out of his clan after he drunkenly beat his father to death when he tried to beat his mother, years later following the death of his mother his brother who has since found religion and become a cleric has sought him out and seeks to turn his anger to righteousness and heal his battered soul. His brother was helped through the early years at the monastery by another acolyte, who have become best friends, who has trained his body to fight and accompanied the cleric on his journey. The barbarian is jealous of their closeness but would fight to the death to save the life of the monk if it meant his brother did not have to grieve the loss of his friend.

Three characters off the top of my head, one of which is evil who would hypothetically all fight and die for each other. Would you find that objectionable on the basis that I'm purposefully making my character less 'evil' towards PCs than non-PCs? If not, I going to suggest that your real objection isn't to evil characters who mysteriously like the PCs but more generally to poorly characterised and developed characters (which is a problem I don't think is in any way unique to evil characters).

[smcmike]

If not, I going to suggest that your real objection isn't to evil characters who mysteriously like the PCs but more generally to poorly characterised and developed characters (which is a problem I don't think is in any way unique to evil characters).

So true.

I would say the biggest characterization problem that I see is giving characters principles, whether those principles are good, bad, law or chaos, and having them stick with those principles no matter what. This makes for a good hero, but it's also really rare in real life!

It's fine to make an evil character who attempts to live by good principles, and fails. For instance - "I don't kill innocent people" is a nice good-guy principle. An evil character may try very hard to live up to this ideal, but fail whenever the cost of not killing innocents gets too high. "I don't kill innocents unless they are orcs, because Orcs aren't innocent" is a fine principle for an evil guy. So is "I don't kill innocents. Sometimes I get angry, though, particularly when I've been drinking."