AL play and Evil acts/Alignments.

[ZorroGames]

BLUF: Openly Evil characters in AL campaigns, one shot adventures.

Okay, help correct me if I am misunderstanding, but in AL play I had been told that Evil characters were to be avoided as a general rule. Locally in AL standalone gaming I see a much higher percentage of openly Evil alignment players than I expected. Often around 50% of the characters.

Now sometimes the Evil is nore constrained than other times but that is not my point.

My L/N Mountain Dwarf walked away when the questioning of two bandits turned to cutting one's throat to induce talking in the remaining bandit. I thought the young DM was about to have his eyeballs pop out of his face but as long as My Monk was not involved I left that to the DM and players involved. So my character was not saintly by any means. I know the experienced DM who was playing a character - whose character cut the throat - simply stated, "I'm Evil," in answer to the unspoken question. Point not raised during the rest of the adventure.

How common are avowedly Evil characters in any AL play your locale? Curious to compare to my situation.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Wow. Players like that exasperate me. 'Evil' is not really a character trait. It's barely a descriptor.

I famously ban evil character concepts for all but the most experienced roleplayers in any party. Too many incidents decades ago happened due to players who decided to play absolute sociopaths and live out all of their worst antisocial fetishes. I outright refuse to DM for AL games with evil characters. You want Zhentarim, go neutral or find another DM.

I don't see too many players that try to play these sorts of evil characters, but it might be that I play AL within my usual groups and players that do that have long since left.

[Spiderguy24]

My stance on evil characters is this. If you have your character do anything just for the sake of evil, that is considered stupid. You need to have an actual goal for doing something evil. What do you hope to accomplish? Emperor Palpatine for instance is Lawful Evil. His goal is to take over the galaxy and bring order to it while destroying the Jedi. He does this by being subtle and manipulating all sides, not running around and throwing lightning at the first random idiot he sees.

The Joker is Chaotic Evil, but he is far from stupid. No matter how crazy his schemes are, he is still smart enough to plan them out, and he always has a goal when he does. Even when he is just spreading anarchy and chaos, that is still considered a goal, and he makes up plans to accomplish said goal.

So next time a player has their character do a random thing just because they are evil, tell them to come up with an actual goal for said character, or face the wrath of the DM.

[Unoriginal]

Killing a captured bandit is really that shocking?

I'm not saying it's the only solution or that I'm encouraging it as the go-to way, far from it, but death would more than likely have been what awaited them if they were caught by law enforcers. And it's not like it was an horribly painful torture where the guy begged for death, like you sometime see when players want their PCs to be evil.

[smcmike]

Killing a captured bandit is really that shocking?

I'm not saying it's the only solution or that I'm encouraging it as the go-to way, far from it, but death would more than likely have been what awaited them if they were caught by law enforcers. And it's not like it was an horribly painful torture where the guy begged for death, like you sometime see when players want their PCs to be evil.

Yeah, this evil act passes Spiderguy's test with flying colors:


My stance on evil characters is this. If you have your character do anything just for the sake of evil, that is considered stupid.


It's evil, but not senseless.

That's not the only test, though. Even sensible evil acts can cause serious party problems, and it might be better to have a general "don't be evil" rule.

[ZorroGames]

Killing a captured bandit is really that shocking?

I'm not saying it's the only solution or that I'm encouraging it as the go-to way, far from it, but death would more than likely have been what awaited them if they were caught by law enforcers. And it's not like it was an horribly painful torture where the guy begged for death, like you sometime see when players want their PCs to be evil.

It happened without warning the other characters.

Bandit being questioned:
"I have nothing to say."

Wild Magic Sorceror, "I slit his throat." Very calm and collected.

Same character, "I turn to the other bandit, 'want to talk or die?' "

I just had the observing Monk walk away while questioning continued.

They were only alive I suspect because instructions were to "kill and capture" the bandits - live ones were worth 75 Gold IIRC. Dead ones, just got a thank you from the authorities.

[Naanomi]

In my own games I generally allow evil alignments, but also have NPCs respond normally to known homicidal maniacs of any alignment...

but in general Adventure League, Lawful Evil characters are allowed if they are Zhentarim (which tends to support ruthless and unethical but not randomly disruptively murderous types)

[ZorroGames]

In my own games I generally allow evil alignments, but also have NPCs respond normally to known homicidal maniacs of any alignment...

but in general Adventure League, Lawful Evil characters are allowed if they are Zhentarim (which tends to support ruthless and unethical but not randomly disruptively murderous types)

The Wild Mage slit the throat and the Ranger had a secret mission to poison a "threat" to " "family" - both were Zhentarim.

[PunyPaladin]

but in general Adventure League, Lawful Evil characters are allowed if they are Zhentarim (which tends to support ruthless and unethical but not randomly disruptively murderous types)

Or Lord's Alliance.


However, you may play a character with the lawful evil alignment, but only if you are a member of either the Lords’ Alliance or Zhentarim factions.

[ZorroGames]

Or Lord's Alliance.


However, you may play a character with the lawful evil alignment, but only if you are a member of either the Lords’ Alliance or Zhentarim factions.

Yeah, a Lord's Alliance L/E type too.

Everyone else is a Harper it seems.

I am Order of the Gauntlet.

No Emerald "whatever it is called" types as of now.

[Naanomi]

The Wild Mage slit the throat and the Ranger had a secret mission to poison a "threat" to " "family" - both were Zhentarim.
Oh, I think AL explicitly forbids pvp or other working directly against other party members

[Tanarii]

Alignment is overall / general. Not specific acts. If a character is doing something that fits in with the NE or CE typical behaviors regularly in AL, they're out of line given the rules.

That's not really much of answer, but it's the way 5e Alignment is supposed to work. One act of 'evil' doesn't make a character evil. Alignment is supposed to be a motivation the player uses to inform PC behavior.

But yeah, players seem awfully willing to off captured enemies. In AL or out. I usually let it happen (because the player made a choice) and say "he's dead" and move on to consequences. Which includes inviting the group to decide if their PCs are going to have a knock-down argument after the fact. Not players, PCs. And that only works if the players are mature enough that I as a DM can say "okay you guys have a huge row about it" then move the game on without bad blood among the players. That's harder in AL because pick-up groups.

Edit: also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players are ever captured (knocked out in a TPK instead of killed, for example), they'll be in serious danger in a campaign where prisoners being killed out of hand if they don't cooperate is a thing.

[ZorroGames]

Oh, I think AL explicitly forbids pvp or other working directly against other party members

The threat was an NPC. The wizard (a Harper) fireballed the person in melee (allowed to attack "allies" in the rules of the pit fight) willingly, which surprised me a bit. The NPC had to die for a vital NPC to live (have to leave it there) for plot purposes apparently.

[ZorroGames]

Alignment is overall / general. Not specific acts. If a character is doing something that fits in with the NE or CE typical behaviors regularly in AL, they're out of line given the rules.

That's not really much of answer, but it's the way 5e Alignment is supposed to work. One act of 'evil' doesn't make a character evil. Alignment is supposed to be a motivation the player uses to inform PC behavior.

But yeah, players seem awfully willing to off captured enemies. In AL or out. I usually let it happen (because the player made a choice) and say "he's dead" and move on to consequences. Which includes inviting the group to decide if their PCs are going to have a knock-down argument after the fact. Not players, PCs. And that only works if the players are mature enough that I as a DM can say "okay you guys have a huge row about it" then move the game on without bad blood among the players. That's harder in AL because pick-up groups.

Edit: also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players are ever captured (knocked out in a TPK instead of killed, for example), they'll be in serious danger in a campaign where prisoners being killed out of hand if they don't cooperate is a thing.

My L/N dwarf Monk just walked off but 'marked' the Sorceror as 'unreliably dangerous' because of that act. The rest of the party seemed to shrug and take advantage of the freaked reaction of the other bandit NPC.

The Ranger is on my "watch" list because he was willing to commit murder most vile (avoiding spoiler here) casually with the NPC in the pit fight, just had not had an opportunity before the Wizard acted.

Had my character been N/G - my old favorite alignment back in the "dark ages" of Strategic Review magazine - perhaps a discussion about threatening NPC pridoners first or at least warning the other PCs would have been coming.

Reinforced my PC's views on other races in the game. :smallwink: