Evil adventurers

[Koren]

My DM has so far been against characters who are Evil, usually in any range. As I understand it, this is because most evil characters seem to be against working with a group by nature, and so any efforts he tries to push the party towards working together end up in murder. Now I would love to have a short term game where it is one evil character undermining a bunch of good ones, but I've heard a lot that this is a terrible idea so I'm moving on to my other idea:

I want to try having an Evil character working alongside good characters, willingly, no intent to sabotage or kill them. How would something like this come about? Whether it be a backstory thing (he grew up with a Good-aligned party member and while they don't agree, they still are able to work together) or a character quirk (they get to feel good about himself, he gets to kill things and take stuff. It all works out.)

Conversely, what would be a reason the Good-aligned party actually keeps him around?

[Honest Tiefling]

Be the Punisher. His goals are typically the same as the other superheroes, but where he divulges is in his methods, not his values. Your character could want justice and protection as much as the paladin, but the wussy widdle paladin won't get his widdle hands dirty while people suffer. While he refuses to get information from torture or use evil spells, people die. Tell the dead how much easier you sleep at night because you kept your values while they suffered. I'm sure little Suzy would love to hear how you couldn't stop her and her family from being killed because eeeeeeeeeethiiiiiics.

If the party is fighting an even larger evil, that's a pretty good reason to keep a semi-competent person around. Hordes of demons invading? Yeah, probably time to reconsider this whole 'don't work with evil people' thing. Zombie outbreaks are also good.

Another angle is an evil character attempting to be good...And failing. This can quickly fall into comedic territory, but many groups like a few bits of dark humor. A good aligned party might decide (or be charged with) redeeming an evil character that has shown some promise of being able to redeem themselves, especially if they had a bit of a rough start. When Mommy enslaved Daddy's eternal soul for decades in a torturous existence, it takes a toll on a person, okay?

[LaserFace]

Evil characters need some sort of strong bond with a party, if you expect it to last. Maybe someone with the group is a lover or friend or family. If you let there be loyalty problems, or the evil character is looking for excuses to backstab, it's basically guaranteed to be an awful experience. So, get loyalty down.

A good party might accept an evil character if that loyalty is demonstrated. If a Lawful Evil knight is adventuring solely for his own benefit, but swears on his honor (which he values) that he will cooperate with the party and never harm them, it could work out.

Alternatively, the party might keep an evil character around if they're Just That Good. If help is scarce, maybe they can't be picky. But, I think this should be short-term because D&D really is a party-focused game, and anything to compromise the party is an invitation for the game to fall apart.

[HandofBlades]

When you make an evil character change how you view evil and good. Good is selfless evil is selfish. Also aim for lawful as principled and chaotic as unprincipled. So a lawful evil guy would do good things not because they are good but you would owe him favors later on. Or you are evil and want to kill someone more evil do you join up with people working to kill said evil.

[Chugger]

Sorry to pull a Mr. Mackey on you, but "Evil is bay-ad*, m'kay?"

*That's how I hear him saying "bad", to those who don't know the show.

[Millstone85]

I am playing an evil character in a goodish party, who never schemed against said party.

The idea is that my character has a dark past, pretty standard for a warlock, and if ever pushed into a "last flask of water in the middle of the desert" kind of situation, would totally choose to save their own skin at the expense of others. The character could otherwise pass for neutral, just another mercenary on the road.

My character originally joined the party because of a bit of meta fortune-telling. The patron foresaw great challenges in the future of this party, that would serve as training for the warlock. My character was naive and overconfident at the time, very "Just you wait, we will get to be badass soon".

Then stuff happened. There was a time skip. My character joined an organization. Now everyone in the recomposed party represents different organizations that are all investigating the same thing.

[smcmike]

Having evil characters absolutely requires DM buy-in, so if your DM isn't interested, I wouldn't push it. Instead, try to focus on making a morally complex non-evil character. Since D&D is a game mostly about violence, most characters end up being fairly morally complex, whether they or their players realize it or not.

That said, there is zero reason why an evil character and a good character can't coexist, given strong plot ties. If you are all members of a military unit, for instance, you don't have a lot of choice but to get along. The key is not to play the evil character as a stupid psychopath. When you've got a prisoner, you can jokingly suggest carving him up a little, but when the Paladin frowns and says no, you back off. This lets you signal what sort of character you are playing without destroying the party.

[Hrugner]

It works out fine as long as the DM knows what motivates the evil character. Tying the evil character's well being to the well being of civilization by making them a high ranking government type works pretty well. Forcing the good party on the evil character in order to help him with a mutually beneficial task also works. If the evil character is completely independent this is much more challenging.

[Xrposiedon]

Evil doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means IMO.

Think of a work environment in real life. Have you ever known a person at work who is a worthless POS, who you would love to run over with your car because of some of the stuff they say or tell stories about? ....but hey....life doesn't work that way.There are evil people in society everywhere....they live among us, around us all the time.

Just because you may be evil aligned doesn't mean EVERY action you take is evil. In fact, most of your actions wont be. Will this look good to the king if I give aid to a quest? (In the back of your mind you are thinking...this is going to make me look good). A good aligned player will do it because its the right thing....an evil character just has motives.

Now....given, if you are playing flat out, Jeff Dahmer murder man....that's a whole different thing.

[Tanarii]

When you make an evil character change how you view evil and good. Good is selfless evil is selfish. Also aim for lawful as principled and chaotic as unprincipled. So a lawful evil guy would do good things not because they are good but you would owe him favors later on. Or you are evil and want to kill someone more evil do you join up with people working to kill said evil.
Sounds about right. Very selfish and beyond questionable methods are okay. Reasons to cooperate with the party and not pointlessly backstab them are mandatory. But diabolical or weird strange sick twisted eerie godless evil stuff is to be left to villains.

IMO is works best when the the majority of the party is neutral or evil, with strong motivations to be (possibly reluctant) anti-heroes fighting Big Evil. Although a token good guy to be e conscience usually makes things more interesting.

I've played in straight out Evil campaigns, and they almost always disintegrate in the first or second session. I've also had the 'joy' of playing in a campaign where the DM assigned character that was CE but enchanted to be LG, and the other players knew I was compelled. First session the DM had local BBEG secretly dispel the enchantment and send me back to betray the party to him. Which I did, thereby ending that game. Not sure what that DM was thinking.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Many mass murderers have day jobs so I can't see why having an evil character in a party would be a problem unless the player has no patience.

[oxybe]

I'll quote and slightly edit myself from reddit:


The no-fun stick up his bum paladin is a trope for a reason: any alignment can be muckled up and made into a jerkwad... evil jerkwads characters are just, ironically enough, honest and upfront about it.

However the important takeway from Meowcolm's post is this:

>Playing D&D is a cooperative communal endeavor.

Everyone who came to sit at the table has come together to play D&D together, and like any social gathering, be it D&D, Friday Night Magic, Sunday afternoon football or Monday evening poker or whatever... don't be a jerk.

That's like, rule no.1 of hanging out with other humans "don't be a jerk".

If you can't follow that rule, you can't hang out here.

You can make evil people who aren't jerks and ruin other peoples' fun, the same way you can make a paladin who doesn't use the gap between his buttcheeks as a 10ft pole suppository repository.

and that's it. I've played a lot of evil characters and the trick is, surprise surprise, don't be a jerk... to the other people around the table!

Evil people are still people. They have friends, families and social circles they care about.

Does that mean Vorpal Von Hackenslash goes around joyfully beating all midwives bloody with the newborns in their arms?

No, largely because he understands that's frowned upon in some circles, like the one he's in right now with the other PCs, and his actions will reflect on the people he associates with, ie: the PCs, kind of like any other person who's somewhat socially conscious.

It also means that he knows where to direct his evil: towards things that threaten the party, his favorite tavern, his sister who's a weaver in the town of Citiesburgh.

He also does the tasks that other people in the party might not have the heart to do (largely because they happen to have a heart) or give a viewpoint that may be a bit more utilitarian rather then humanitarian that comes from wanting to see the party succeed or be put in less danger then needed.

In short: Oxy's guide to playing evil characters

1) Don't be a jerk to the people around the table and ruin their fun.
2) Evil people are still people and treat them as such.

[Sigreid]

It's really not that hard to have an evil character in a good group. The goodie goodies are tools, but they're useful tools. More than that, they are tools that can be depended upon not to back stab you if you just follow a few rules.

1. Have your character tell them up front that you will help, but you don't do half measures. If someone starts a fight you will ask for, nor give quarter.

2. Don't steal or murder when they are libel to discover it.

3. Be a reliable ally to them as well. No stealing their stuff. No stabbing them in their sleep. No abandoning them to their fate.

In short, be reliable but brutal. And mostly, don't be a jerk.

[Naanomi]

Just have realistic motivations beyond 'I like to act evil' and you should be just fine. I like the 'lawful/Neutral evil' mercenary types sometimes. "I will do anything for cash, and following my contract with you guys while looting ancient lairs has been incredibly lucrative... so I got no reason to rock the boat. Just keep this coin flowing and we should keep getting along just fine"

[Regulas]

Making evil characters that work easily with groups are actually pretty easy if you just follow two basic rules you should already be using for any character you ever create anyway:

1. Your character has a motivation to be on the quest. Their motivation might be different but the objective must be completed. The end of the world matters as much to a cleric of Cyric as to any good guy.

2. Your character has a specific reason to work with the group. He could just be thinking he's taking advantage of them, it could be prophetic reasons that they will accomplish the goal he wants, or he just thinks he can't do it alone. Regardless just as with any character you need to have a reason to work with people.


Aside from that extra point:
3. Evil is not an obligation. Your character understands that actions have consequences (Chaotic evil doesn't mean immediately stab everyone in sight no matter the situation) and unlike a good character that can't just arbitrarily do evil things, evil characters can do anything. There's nothing stopping an evil character from doing good things because it's convenient for him, even if he's an evil cleric or paladin. Want to stop the end of the world? I'm pretty sure you can force yourself to work with the kinder's for awhile.



Some of my favourite concepts:
Secret evil: Cleric of Cyric disguised as a cleric of Tymora (Who he killed and replaced before start of campaign) because he wants to help them achieve their end goal (but needs to do it deceptivly as an agent of cyric should). As far as the party is aware I seem to be the morally good compass of the party. What they don't know is that I am commonly sneaking off to do evil things. Kill prisoners in the dead of knight. Release locked monsters. Burn down buildings. I also convince them to take the more evil options, but professing "noble" reasons for why. A huge part of the fun is the risk of getting caught eventually, and if not then there's a chance for a big reveal late down the line.

The Mad paladin (this is from a book character I think actually). You're a Paladin who was turned evil, but the process made him insane. You still believe yourself to be an agent of good and constantly profess as much, but your actions don't match your words, brutality, murder, torture are all in the cards when needed and when the party confronts you over it you seem entirely oblivious. So think a normal paladin who occasionally has brief psychotic episodes.

The manipulative assassin: You are tasked with assassinating a number of rivals/betrayers or other evil figures on behalf of your own equally evil faction. Since your targets are all evil you figure a really easy way to do it would be to just get some adventurers to help you do it for you. To them they are just slaying orcs or necromancers or other things heroes want to slay to begin with.

[Afrodactyl]

I only ever go for evil characters when you have a reason to be adventuring with a good party and be loyal to them, and a code of ethics to stick to.

I've got a Lawful Evil Fighter prepped as a backup character should my current Chaotic Neutral Warlock die.

We're currently working for a pretty shady organisation, but ultimately working towards fighting an evil god/emissary of said god, so he's going to be a paid goon from the employer to make sure the party don't die and don't do anything stupid (we've managed to get the overall job done so far, but no plan has held water and things have been interesting to say the least). He will shake down or hurt people for money/info, and loves killing things, but won't physically hurt anyone who ultimately doesn't deserve it unless he has no other choice, and will always come to the rescue of children.

So between a greater evil, getting paid to stay with the party until they succeed and a moral code, my evil character should be fine.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

I agree with a lot of the posts here regarding how to play an evil character. Its about your characters motivations and has to be deeper than just "i like doing evil things."
In almost all game i've played in the only banned alignment was Chaotic Evil, because then its to hard to RP not betraying the party at the drop of a hat.

[Koren]

I'd like to clarify that this isn't a character I plan on making anytime soon, it just sounds like fun.

That and I like making characters, and hearing stories of characters.

[Unoriginal]

OP, I just have one question.

How do you plan of making your character evil?

I mean, what actions are you ok to have your character do regularly to be qualified one of the evil alignments?


Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are Lawful evil.

Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. Many drow, some cloud giants, and yugoloths are neutral evil.

Chaotic evil (CE) creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. Demons, red dragons, and orcs are chaotic evil.

[cZak]

I'd guess that about half the games I've played have been with evil based characters.
None have ever devolved into a murder-fest, PvP or 'uncomfortable' scenarios. It has almost nothing to do with the brand, it's about the maturity of the group. We had a strong connection for our characters to work together.

I've noticed (personally) that the major difference is that evil tends to be proactive & good is reactive.
Just seems that 'evil' looks to advance their own self interests; establishing power, influence, a base, etc... Players tend to develop storylines for the DM to extrapolate.
In a 'good' theme, more along the lines of finding bad things to stomp on. The DM has to provide bait/ hints of what is to be done; haunted graveyard, humanoid raiders, tyrannical OverLord to depose, etc...

[Tanarii]

Aside from that extra point:
3. Evil is not an obligation. Your character understands that actions have consequences (Chaotic evil doesn't mean immediately stab everyone in sight no matter the situation) and unlike a good character that can't just arbitrarily do evil things, evil characters can do anything. There's nothing stopping an evil character from doing good things because it's convenient for him, even if he's an evil cleric or paladin. Want to stop the end of the world? I'm pretty sure you can force yourself to work with the kinder's for awhile.

Honestly, this is the biggest disconnect I see for people trying to play evil characters. They aren't trying to play evil characters, they are trying to play Movie Villians. And Movie Villians are Cartoonish Evil. That's fine for the DM's Viliians (unless, yknow, the players think it isn't), but for players it's not necessary.

If you want to play an evil character, just stop trying to play a good one. For most TRPG players that will instantly result in a Neutral evil PC, using the textbook 5e definition of 'do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.' Not trying to be good won't result in a Neutral character, trust me on that. :smallamused:

[Koren]

OP, I just have one question.

How do you plan of making your character evil?

I mean, what actions are you ok to have your character do regularly to be qualified one of the evil alignments?

Currently I don't really have a plan tbh. If I could come up with a decent idea then maybe I'd start developing a character, but since my DM is inherently adverse to them I'm just listening to ideas.

What would probably be the easiest way for me to do it, though, would be a sociopath. He works with the group because he acknowledges the strength in numbers and nothing more. Maybe play a class that is generally physically weak, or a race that frequently has large numbers to bolster the idea. He would be the one asking questions like "what's in it for me?"

Another quick idea is a Drow fresh out of the Underdark, who wants to be a Hero so badly. He tries so hard, but really he's still just as homicidal.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd argue that a sociopathic drow is...Actually not the best way to convince your DM. As a sociopath, he's unlikely to form any bonds with the party or allied NPCs, unlike what others have suggested. As a drow, he'll have cultural reasons to backstab the party, which is another point others brought up. And third, if he keeps committing murder, the party (of presumed good-neutral alignments) will turn on him for moral or practical reasons.

Perhaps you could explain what it is about this concept that draws you? It could be salvaged, but I strongly urge to drop the sociopath angle. Sociopath characters also tend to become loners, so even if that wasn't your intention, you might not get it past the DM.

[Dudewithknives]

There are many kinds of evil. Some can work with the party, some don't.

I have played evil on quite a few occasions, some of them the party never even figured out.

Ex. I played a Cleric of Palor, but did it as LE. There is only 1 law, my god's law. There is only one punishment for breaking the peace, death. All other worship is blasphemy, and thus against my god's law. I was so Gung ho in my RP that everyone hough I was a paladin.

I played an evil rogue assassin who was a cold blooded murderer, he killed people for the challenge of proving he was the greatest killer in the world. He did not even keep their loot, he killed because he liked it. However the group had grown up with him since birth practically and everyone came from the same orphanage so the group looked at it as, well at least he won't kill us.

I played a NE cleric of Morgion, the God of plagues and planning. Who had armies of the undead, but I was so useful to the group that they did not care. We were in a pirate / islands based game and I replaced the crew with the undead that never needed to be fed, used no supplies, never turned on you, and did not get paid. The group loved me. Although they did think I was worshiping the god of death not disease and planning.

[GorogIrongut]

All that needs to be said on the Good/Evil dichotomy can be found in a hard to get your hands on book written by Eve Forward called 'Villains by Necessity'. One of my favourite books of all time.

Essentially it highlights amongst many things, that while Evil is selfish, being selfish doesn't stop one from loving, forming bonds and having common goals. It's humour can be just as real (i.e. not in the evil overlord sense of cheesey overly scripted laughter).

People who are evil are just like you and me... Their motivations are simply more selfish and they usually have a harder time recognizing the established social mores of the time.

We're surrounded by a lot of people every day who suffer from these afflictions.

p.s. If you can beg/borrow/steal a copy of the book, you won't regret it.

[Sariel Vailo]

I was the only good character in a campaign of evil we all started neutral barbarian nomadic tribe destroyed and children captured.i was a fighter and began to take more risks was i evil no did i string a guy up by his neck and snap it as i went to atack his friends yes(bless cg)did i use talk no jutsu on a the wife of a slave trader whose husband said stopped the family buisness of slave trading. Did i snap a mans neck after insulting him while chained up Yes. did i do all this to save my adopted children and would slaughter any who got in my way yes.did we befriend pirates yes.
Did they also hunt slavers and kill them yes.
So it is all about the stories but a lg player wont work on this kind of game its ive got little to loose.
I think in reality i only killed 5 guys in a campaign that started at level 1 and went to 20.number of clothless unconcious bad guys to many count.

[Sicarius Victis]

A point that's been mentioned a couple of times here, but that seems to have been largely ignored, is that Evil doesn't necessarily mean selfish, and can even be for the sake of Good. How about an Oathbreaker that fell because they found their oaths too restricting, and didn't believe that they could complete their sacred mission - to slay their enemies, or even just to protect their friends - while bound in such a manner? How about a Tyranny Paladin who believes that oppressing the people is the best way to keep them safe from sin, protecting them from each other and themselves? How about an Assassin who uses "Evil" means - such as poison, torture, and cold-blooded murder - to hunt down and eliminate those who could become threats to a "Good" society? All of these can be considered "Evil", yet none of them are necessarily "Evil" because they want to act that way.

[scalyfreak]

A point that's been mentioned a couple of times here, but that seems to have been largely ignored, is that Evil doesn't necessarily mean selfish, and can even be for the sake of Good.

The seventh season version of Arya Stark comes to mind.

[Zendy]

Be evil not dumb.

[Koren]

I'd argue that a sociopathic drow is...Actually not the best way to convince your DM. As a sociopath, he's unlikely to form any bonds with the party or allied NPCs, unlike what others have suggested. As a drow, he'll have cultural reasons to backstab the party, which is another point others brought up. And third, if he keeps committing murder, the party (of presumed good-neutral alignments) will turn on him for moral or practical reasons.

Perhaps you could explain what it is about this concept that draws you? It could be salvaged, but I strongly urge to drop the sociopath angle. Sociopath characters also tend to become loners, so even if that wasn't your intention, you might not get it past the DM.

The sociopath and the Drow are two separate ideas, they definitely would not work at all together. The sociopath in general wouldn't work with hated races like Drow, Tieflings, or lizardfolk (as I understand the lore).

The Drow idea would have to be evil in action more so than anything else.

[Contrast]

Currently I don't really have a plan tbh. If I could come up with a decent idea then maybe I'd start developing a character, but since my DM is inherently adverse to them I'm just listening to ideas.

What would probably be the easiest way for me to do it, though, would be a sociopath. He works with the group because he acknowledges the strength in numbers and nothing more. Maybe play a class that is generally physically weak, or a race that frequently has large numbers to bolster the idea. He would be the one asking questions like "what's in it for me?"

Another quick idea is a Drow fresh out of the Underdark, who wants to be a Hero so badly. He tries so hard, but really he's still just as homicidal.

If your DM is against evil characters I didn't think a sociopath or 'lol murder' drow are the way to go.

People always seem to want to jump right into the deep end. Why not dip your toes in first?

When you play a good character do you always give all your money to charity and help everyone for no reward and constantly actively seek out the poor and unforuntate? No? Then why do your evil characters all need to be insane murderers?

Hell most PCs are most of the way there already. Be petty/vindictive and selfish (note: again, you do not need to be these things with everyone all the time). Congrats, you're immediately on the evil spectrum. If you can't roleplay that in a way which is enjoyable for the rest of the party I'd rethink the concept overall.

[Grim Portent]

A point that's been mentioned a couple of times here, but that seems to have been largely ignored, is that Evil doesn't necessarily mean selfish, and can even be for the sake of Good. How about an Oathbreaker that fell because they found their oaths too restricting, and didn't believe that they could complete their sacred mission - to slay their enemies, or even just to protect their friends - while bound in such a manner? How about a Tyranny Paladin who believes that oppressing the people is the best way to keep them safe from sin, protecting them from each other and themselves? How about an Assassin who uses "Evil" means - such as poison, torture, and cold-blooded murder - to hunt down and eliminate those who could become threats to a "Good" society? All of these can be considered "Evil", yet none of them are necessarily "Evil" because they want to act that way.

'Ends justify the means'/'For the Greater Good' type evil essentially?


Personally as a GM and a player I prefer groups that are openly villainous, but generally my groups tend to be a mix of good and evil PCs with the evil outnumbering the good. In general the important thing to remember is the words 'acceptable targets'. I've never played with someone who minds if I eat or defile a goblin or bandit because they fall pretty neatly into the box labelled 'enemy.' Killing and desecrating a random peasant is generally harder, but jerkish NPCs are often considered acceptable to harm without anyone batting an eye even if they aren't actually hostile or even evil, simply because the players usually dislike them.

In any case, the motivation that keeps an evil PC from harming the party and it's allies can be as simple as 'I don't feel like it.' You don't really need any deeper motive or connection than that. If you do there's a number of good traditional ones.

Being related to a party member.
Being old friends with a party member.
Not having any friends/allies outside the party.
Divine mission that mandates you work with them.
Together you can achieve more than can be done by treachery.
The guy who wants to pay you to betray them has an annoying face.
You share a common enemy.
One of the party is vital to your future plans.
Your code of honour forbids being the first to betray an ally.

Why a good party would keep an evil member around is a harder question. There's only so much evil they can permit before their own alignment should really be called into question, arguably they can't permit any under most circumstances. The usual ideas are the relative/old friend* and the 'must save the world together' story. The party can also be ignorant of the evil character's nature, but that only works for so long. Sharing a common enemy also shouldn't work forever because there comes a time when the evil of the PC outweighs the benefits of their combat help.

*Generally I would say if your response to your brother/friend murdering someone and animating their corpse as a zombie is to wag your finger and scold them rather than try to talk them into redemption or fight them to end their evil then you're probably not good. Being buddies doesn't let you turn a blind eye to atrocities without taking an alignment hit.

[Koren]

Being buddies doesn't let you turn a blind eye to atrocities without taking an alignment hit.

This is really the biggest block for me tbh.

Justifying an evil character performing good deeds, even exclusively, isn't too hard depending on the overall story. It's explaining why a group of good guys would stick around with someone who is equally okay with burning the town down so long as it helps somehow.

I'm reminded of my first character, who was a Lawful Good paladin, he saw some really bad acts from Neutral members of his party (killing Innocents because they were sounding the alarm, for example) and if that hadn't happened literally just before he died I would have no idea how that could have ended without the party breaking up.
I think really I have to ignore my curiosity at playing an evil character without a setup to support it.

[scalyfreak]

This is really the biggest block for me tbh.

Justifying an evil character performing good deeds, even exclusively, isn't too hard depending on the overall story. It's explaining why a group of good guys would stick around with someone who is equally okay with burning the town down so long as it helps somehow.

Easy. They don't know that.

Ignorance promotes bliss.

[Koren]

Easy. They don't know that.

Ignorance promotes bliss.

Yeah but unless I am actually not doing anything evil (or even questionable), throwing the alignment into question, it will become a dilemma the party needs to face.

[Regulas]

This is really the biggest block for me tbh.

Justifying an evil character performing good deeds, even exclusively, isn't too hard depending on the overall story. It's explaining why a group of good guys would stick around with someone who is equally okay with burning the town down so long as it helps somehow.

I'm reminded of my first character, who was a Lawful Good paladin, he saw some really bad acts from Neutral members of his party (killing Innocents because they were sounding the alarm, for example) and if that hadn't happened literally just before he died I would have no idea how that could have ended without the party breaking up.
I think really I have to ignore my curiosity at playing an evil character without a setup to support it.

Understanding consequences extends to understanding how your allies perceive you and avoiding doing things that would be unconscionable. Why would good guys stay with someone who wants to burn down the town, because you don't actually do it (maybe just a few jokes about it) and then you're otherwise a good ally. Sure you have your dark moments but so long as you don't skin someone alive in front of them they shouldn't have difficulty putting up with that.

Odds are those guys probably were being overly excessive of course and without trying to justify or moralise it well enough. Albiet paladins always have to be carefull about being stupid good.

[scalyfreak]

Yeah but unless I am actually not doing anything evil (or even questionable), throwing the alignment into question, it will become a dilemma the party needs to face.

Whoa there.

Let's take a close look at the current definition of evil, and then both broaden it and scale it down. Playing an evil character does not mean you suddenly have to go full Ramsay Bolton on every NPC you meet.

Broadening it: Since when is the definition of "evil" limited to the act of killing innocents?

The fact that you not only are okay with burning down an entire village, but actively advocating doing it in order to achieve the group's goal, that is what makes you evil, compared to the rest of the group who probably are horrified that you're even suggesting it in the first place. They stay allied with you because they are able to make you see the errors of your ways and realize that it would be wrong to use the innocent villagers as a diversion to save your own skins, every time you make the suggestion. (Or so they think. You still believe using the villagers as a diversion was the smarter thing to do.)

Scaling it down: If we go along with the notion that to be evil is to be purely selfish, then every single situation you face every day gives you an opportunity to avoid doing good. And that is the key that so many players seem to be missing - you're not actively destructive, narcissistic, and you are most definitely not indiscriminate murder-hoboish against everyone you met. You're just not ever going to do something for someone else, unless there's something in it for you. You don't help the starving villagers against the goblin horde unless they can pay you. You don't risk your life for a stranger, and you do not take an arrow or fireball in defense of a friend.

In other words, instead of being Ramsay Bolton, be Jayne Cobb. :smallsmile:

[Afrodactyl]

Just remember that evil is subjective. What is abhorrent to one person is fair game to another and vice versa.

I must say that a 'greater good/evil' is the easiest way to run an evil character in an overall good party. Going back to my character; he's a thug and a bully, and beats/kills people/makes their lives miserable because they owe something to his employer or something, but the party is on a mission to stop a demon God from tearing the plane a new backside, so that Greater Evil overshadows his lesser evil.

[Naanomi]

Just remember that evil is subjective. What is abhorrent to one person is fair game to another and vice versa.
Well... in DnD cosmology Evil is Objective actually but... it is a good point. A character who is 'evil' in the objective sense probably doesn't think of themselves that way, and may even have a good (Good?) reputation... the shining knight, peasant hero, loved by all... who is cruel towards those who 'deserve vengeance', has no qualms torturing 'orcish scum' for information, sees honor in brutal tactics on the battlefield... easily an Evil character with all the trappings of a good one

[hamishspence]

A character who is 'evil' in the objective sense probably doesn't think of themselves that way, and may even have a good (Good?) reputation... the shining knight, peasant hero, loved by all... who is cruel towards those who 'deserve vengeance', has no qualms torturing 'orcish scum' for information, sees honor in brutal tactics on the battlefield... easily an Evil character with all the trappings of a good one

Eberron in particular offers this option for Evil characters:


http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/


Going by Champions of Ruin, Faerun Evil characters can be like this as well.

[Unoriginal]

Well... in DnD cosmology Evil is Objective actually but... it is a good point. A character who is 'evil' in the objective sense probably doesn't think of themselves that way

Not "probably". Most evil people in D&D are perfectly aware they're evil jerks and are content with it. An orc raider isn't going to go "from my point of view, YOU are the evil one" to the Paladin who's defending a village, because he's aware he's a sadistic brute who kills people for fun and profit, and that his fellow orc raiders would kill if they thought it was worth it (as he would do if the situation was reversed).

Though it's true there are people who are deluded into thinking they're the good guys when they're not.

[Tanarii]

Whoa there.

Let's take a close look at the current definition of evil, and then both broaden it and scale it down. Playing an evil character does not mean you suddenly have to go full Ramsay Bolton on every NPC you meet.Seriously. I understand why everyone wants to go all Psychopathic / Sociopathic Movie Villian Stupid Evil as soon as the write down the word evil on their character sheet. We've all been programmed to think that's evil by years of Hollywood and other media.

This also explains why people are constantly trying to avoid writing evil in their character sheet, when they've clearly got an evil character described. Either they or their DM is trying to avoid being tainted with the brush of Big Evil.


In other words, instead of being Ramsay Bolton, be Jayne Cobb. :smallsmile:Thats a perfect example of a Neutral Evil party member done well! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

Not "probably". Most evil people in D&D are perfectly aware they're evil jerks and are content with it. An orc raider isn't going to go "from my point of view, YOU are the evil one".

A reasonable portion, maybe, but not necessarily "most". Some Evil cultures in D&D do portray their enemies as evil and themselves as good. Drow, for example, portray surface elves, and deep gnomes, as evil, in their propaganda to young drow.

[Naanomi]

A reasonable portion, maybe, but not necessarily "most". Some Evil cultures in D&D do portray their enemies as evil and themselves as good. Drow, for example, portray surface elves, and deep gnomes, as evil, in their propaganda to young drow.
And whether or not they see themselves as Evil, they still see themselves as *right* and their enemies as *wrong*... only Fiends, some Gods, and their most dedicated servants really identify with Evil as a label (as in only they support 'team Evil')

[Koren]

Not "probably". Most evil people in D&D are perfectly aware they're evil jerks and are content with it. An orc raider isn't going to go "from my point of view, YOU are the evil one" to the Paladin who's defending a village, because he's aware he's a sadistic brute who kills people for fun and profit, and that his fellow orc raiders would kill if they thought it was worth it (as he would do if the situation was reversed).

Though it's true there are people who are deluded into thinking they're the good guys when they're not.

I feel like this definitely would vary from character to character. Realistically a person would justify their evil in their head until it is ok, games like DnD have leeway on realism though.


Seriously. I understand why everyone wants to go all Psychopathic / Sociopathic Movie Villian Stupid Evil as soon as the write down the word evil on their character sheet. We've all been programmed to think that's evil by years of Hollywood and other media.

From all the comments like this I feel I should clarify, Sociopathy simply means a person who lacks a conscience. Often displayed as someone who cannot empathize.

Basically I'm not thinking Joker from Batman (who would be more Psychopath than Sociopath), I'm thinking Dexter from, well, Dexter.

As a character he would be able to recognize what should not be done and where to hold back, but more out of self preservation than good nature. He would probably circumstantially kill an innocent without a problem if he can get away with it. When faced with a quest he wouldn't think about what it does to help the town or the group, he would be the one asking "what do I get for this?" And without incentive would probably only continue to maintain standing with the party.

[scalyfreak]

This thread is now going in a direction that reminds me of the Way of the Closed Fist (http://jadeempire.wikia.com/wiki/Way_of_the_Closed_Fist) from Jade Empire. (Plot spoilers behind link)


The Way of the Closed Fist is the "Low path" or the path of discord and aggression. This path isn't necessarily evil, though its followers may use it to justify their own evil actions. Those who follow the Closed Fist believe that strength is power and that power allows them to impose their will. They are generally quicker to resort to violence, allowing strength to decide the best course, and will do whatever it takes to advance their station.

The followers of this way don't see themselves as evil, but their actions seem that way to those who disagree with their philosophy.

[Tanarii]

From all the comments like this I feel I should clarify, Sociopathy simply means a person who lacks a conscience. Often displayed as someone who cannot empathize.

Basically I'm not thinking Joker from Batman (who would be more Psychopath than Sociopath), I'm thinking Dexter from, well, Dexter.

You're just proving my point further. Dexter is a prime example of Sociopathic Movie TV Villain Stupid Cartoonishly Evil. (Edit: to be clear, as I posted earlier I think Cartoonishly evil is awesome in D&D. For the DMs Villians. Not for PCs.)

Compare and contrast with Jayne Cobb from Firefly. He's in it for the money, not disturbed at all by killing, has seriously unethical methods, stays bought exactly until he's bought by more money that he thinks will really come through, and even betrays the party once and has to be seriously smacked down by the (very Good) party leader. His one saving grace as a party member is he obeys the party leader. (Well, that and he has a clear character development arc related to slowly becoming less evil.)

[scalyfreak]

His one saving grace as a party member is he obeys the party leader. (Well, that and he has a clear character development arc related to slowly becoming less evil.)

And he genuinely likes and to some extent care about Kaylee. Let's not forget that part. :smallwink:

[Unoriginal]

A reasonable portion, maybe, but not necessarily "most". Some Evil cultures in D&D do portray their enemies as evil and themselves as good. Drow, for example, portray surface elves, and deep gnomes, as evil, in their propaganda to young drow.

Not really. They portray themselves as they are: power-hungry jerks under the heel of a cruel deity. They just say that it is the correct way to be.

Drow couldn't demonize the surface elves if they tried, because for them it's a good thing to be cruel/ruthless/doing horrible things to others. They just say that the surface elves won in a way that wasn't meant to be.


And whether or not they see themselves as Evil, they still see themselves as *right* and their enemies as *wrong*... only Fiends, some Gods, and their most dedicated servants really identify with Evil as a label (as in only they support 'team Evil')

Yes and no. They won't claim belonging to "team Evil", but they generally do identify themselves as having evil traits and don't feel any reason to deny it.

Like, ask a Drow torturer if they like to cause pain and suffering, and their answer will usually be "yes". Ask an orc raider if they enjoy imposing their will on those weaker than them and killing defenseless people, and they'd generally say "yes".

And they would not feel bad about it in any way, because as you said, they see this way of life as *right*




I feel like this definitely would vary from character to character. Realistically a person would justify their evil in their head until it is ok, games like DnD have leeway on realism though.

A LE knight could feel perfectly justified killing peasants who didn't pay their taxes because they were robbed before they could, but it doesn't mean they'd have problem admitting they like terrorizing peasants. A NE courtier could feel perfectly justified to defend a law he knows is unjust but that bring them great profit, but that doesn't mean they would deny that they just don't care about others suffering as long as they can fill their pockets. A CE army commander could feel perfectly justified ordering the slaughter of civilians to force the opposing army to spend ressource defending their non-fighting population, but that doesn't mean they'd have troubles seeing that they have chosen this course of action due to their arbitrary hatred of the enemy lord.

[hamishspence]

Reformed drow like Drizzt and Liriel Baenre generally made a big deal out of the evilness of deep gnomes (Drizzt) and surface elves (Liriel) shortly before their turn to Good.

[Unoriginal]

Reformed drow like Drizzt and Liriel Baenre generally made a big deal out of the evilness of deep gnomes (Drizzt) and surface elves (Liriel) shortly before their turn to Good.

I'd blame that on either changes between editions or authors not thinking things through.

"I've heard the surface elves were horrible monsters who tortured all their prisoners non-stop for months."
"Uh. Wonder how they do it, our master torturer can maybe make a prisoner last a month. Maybe two if a priestess do us the honor of participating."
"Yeah, I think we should send some spies to capture one and make them reveal their methods. Maybe have them take a few kids as well, Priestess Xotan precised she wanted one for her next demon summoning. And by "precised" I meant she ripped the balls off of the last slavemaster who brought her a teen instead."
"I know, it's how I got my last promotion. Poor old Drunow, he did not have the balls for the job, or the stomach for resisting judgement-affecting poisons. Or so I heard."

[Koren]

You're just proving my point further. Dexter is a prime example of Sociopathic Movie TV Villain Stupid Cartoonishly Evil. (Edit: to be clear, as I posted earlier I think Cartoonishly evil is awesome in D&D. For the DMs Villians. Not for PCs.)

Compare and contrast with Jayne Cobb from Firefly. He's in it for the money, not disturbed at all by killing, has seriously unethical methods, stays bought exactly until he's bought by more money that he thinks will really come through, and even betrays the party once and has to be seriously smacked down by the (very Good) party leader. His one saving grace as a party member is he obeys the party leader. (Well, that and he has a clear character development arc related to slowly becoming less evil.)

I wouldn't call Dexter cartoons personally but I definitely see your point.

[Safety Sword]

The only successful campaign of mine that had evil PCs was when all of the PCs were evil. Every one. Without exception.

It was super fun to DM, because I got to be the good guys! I had an order of paladins tracking the party. Wizards (who had recently been the victims of a rather suspicious fire in their main tower) casting divination spells to find the party who were basically an evil syndicate of scammers and cut throats (literally).

Of course the party were united by their goals of bringing down the monarchy, so everything they did was to draw out the agents of the king so they could be traced and studied.

It was great to see my players actually play evil without it being "burn everything" (OK, there was that one tower...).

I recommend it. But make sure all of your players are on board. Mixing evil and good PCs is never going to work if they both play it right.

[smcmike]

The only successful campaign of mine that had evil PCs was when all of the PCs were evil. Every one. Without exception.

It was super fun to DM, because I got to be the good guys! I had an order of paladins tracking the party. Wizards (who had recently been the victims of a rather suspicious fire in their main tower) casting divination spells to find the party who were basically an evil syndicate of scammers and cut throats (literally).

Of course the party were united by their goals of bringing down the monarchy, so everything they did was to draw out the agents of the king so they could be traced and studied.

It was great to see my players actually play evil without it being "burn everything" (OK, there was that one tower...).

I recommend it. But make sure all of your players are on board. Mixing evil and good PCs is never going to work if they both play it right.

You seem to be assuming that evil characters are necessarily the villains. They aren't.

I'm not saying that a villain campaign is a bad idea - it sounds like fun. But evil and good characters can coexist just fine, so long as the evil characters don't do anything truly dastardly (with the party's knowledge), and the good characters don't demand too much self-sacrifice. They just need a common goal to unite them, like, for instance, bringing down the monarchy.

[Safety Sword]

You seem to be assuming that evil characters are necessarily the villains. They aren't.

I'm not saying that a villain campaign is a bad idea - it sounds like fun. But evil and good characters can coexist just fine, so long as the evil characters don't do anything truly dastardly (with the party's knowledge), and the good characters don't demand too much self-sacrifice. They just need a common goal to unite them, like, for instance, bringing down the monarchy.

I didn't assume the evil characters were villains at all. Just that they were willing to use evil means to achieve their goals. I actually didn't give the characters the goal of bringing down the monarchy, they decided that all on their own.

The place where it falls down for me is where you say "with the party's knowledge". You create a trust deficit between the players (as opposed to the characters).

If your evil character is constantly going off on evil side missions it not only slows down the play of the majority of players at the table (who are, I assume, not involved in said evil acts) but it also eventually will lead to internal party fighting. How many truly evil friends do you keep in your life? If you found out that your best friend was a murder hobo would you still trust them? Of course not. So I insist that either everyone in the party has a *similar* (or socially acceptable) moral outlook.

Good and evil characters in the same party is the one sure way to burning your campaign notes and starting fresh.

[smcmike]

I didn't assume the evil characters were villains at all. Just that they were willing to use evil means to achieve their goals. I actually didn't give the characters the goal of bringing down the monarchy, they decided that all on their own.

The place where it falls down for me is where you say "with the party's knowledge". You create a trust deficit between the players (as opposed to the characters).

If your evil character is constantly going off on evil side missions it not only slows down the play of the majority of players at the table (who are, I assume, not involved in said evil acts) but it also eventually will lead to internal party fighting. How many truly evil friends do you keep in your life? If you found out that your best friend was a murder hobo would you still trust them? Of course not. So I insist that either everyone in the party has a *similar* (or socially acceptable) moral outlook.

Good and evil characters in the same party is the one sure way to burning your campaign notes and starting fresh.

Not every evil person is a murder hobo. You're right that "evil side missions" are a bad idea, but an evil backstory doesn't necessarily cause the same problems, nor does periodically offering morally dubious ideas for the rest of the party to reject. As for trust, that's what the common goals are for. The good guys want to save the kingdom, their evil comrade wants to get paid.

[Safety Sword]

Not every evil person is a murder hobo. You're right that "evil side missions" are a bad idea, but an evil backstory doesn't necessarily cause the same problems, nor does periodically offering morally dubious ideas for the rest of the party to reject. As for trust, that's what the common goals are for. The good guys want to save the kingdom, their evil comrade wants to get paid.

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I think of alignment more as a descriptor for the actions you have taken, not just a backstory relevant curiosity. And if you just assume all of your evil ideas are going to be rejected then there isn't any choice there for the players to consider.

I'm going to explain this a different way: If you're the good character in this scenario and you have dedicated your life to always upholding that ideal, how are you going to deal with evil sleeping in the next bedroll? If you don't DO something about it then you cannot continue to be considered good. This might be an interesting role playing conundrum for a little while... but then it will have to be resolved.

And again, most of the time, the resolution will lead to party conflict. Seen it, lived it, trying not to again.

I hope that clarifies what I'm trying to get across.

[SaurOps]

Play an ambitious character and/or one who believes that the ends justify the means. You will probably end up inflicting enough pain for the greater good to nonetheless qualify as evil under D&D's... peculiar description of morality.

[Kane0]

I have a suggestion.
https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11120/111209888/5216945-futurama__s_bender_by_muscleduck.jpg
That is all.

[Malifice]

The Mad paladin (this is from a book character I think actually). You're a Paladin who was turned evil, but the process made him insane. You still believe yourself to be an agent of good and constantly profess as much, but your actions don't match your words, brutality, murder, torture are all in the cards when needed and when the party confronts you over it you seem entirely oblivious. So think a normal paladin who occasionally has brief psychotic episodes.

Plently of real life examples of people who profess to belong to religions that expressly repudiate violence, yet find justification to commit the most henious acts, and are not 'insane'.

Look at a brutal inquisitor burning people at the stake (after torturing them) for 'heresy'.

Nothing wrong at all of playing a NE cleric of a LG Deity who 'isnt afraid to get his hands dirty in the service to his god' all for 'the greater good'.

[Malifice]

I have a suggestion.
https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11120/111209888/5216945-futurama__s_bender_by_muscleduck.jpg
That is all.

Probably more CN.

When not trying to 'kill all humans' of course!

[Lord Vukodlak]

In one campaign I was in the party was trapped in a pocket dimension on this island. I was an Evil Cleric to a god of tyranny. His goal along with the rest of the party was to find away home,(normal magic couldn't be used to planeshift out). If he had to save the island or destroy the island to get home he'd do it.



I'm going to explain this a different way: If you're the good character in this scenario and you have dedicated your life to always upholding that ideal, how are you going to deal with evil sleeping in the next bedroll? If you don't DO something about it then you cannot continue to be considered good. This might be an interesting role playing conundrum for a little while... but then it will have to be resolved.

And again, most of the time, the resolution will lead to party conflict. Seen it, lived it, trying not to again.

What really matters is the party's goals align. You can compromise on methods a little easier then you can on goals. You don't need to be on opposite sides of the good/evil spectrum to have alignment conflicts. A Lawful Good character might be more irritated by the chaotic good character's methods then he his by the lawful evil one's.


If you're the lawful character in this scenario and you have dedicated your life to always upholding that ideal, how are you going to deal with chaos sleeping in the next bedroll? If you don't DO something about it then you cannot continue to be considered lawful. This might be an interesting role playing conundrum for a little while... but then it will have to be resolved.
Does you're argument really change if I switch the axis from good vs evil to law vs chaos?

[thereaper]

You should all be ashamed for not bringing up post-character-development Belkar. That case with the slavers summed it up nicely. He did the same thing he always did, but because it was to the "bad guys", it was fine.

Now imagine someone more clever who knew that all along, and became an adventurer specifically so that they could indulge their passion for murder without having to worry about having guards and adventurers after them. After all, it's not like they care who they kill, so long as they get to kill.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

The seventh season version of Arya Stark comes to mind.

You could also play something similar to Dexter. You know you have this deep need to kill things but you were raised by someone Lawful who taught you to sate your blood lust by destroying other evil. So you join up with a bunch of good guys to get face to face with the BBEG.

[Talderas]

I have a couple of principles that I follow when playing evil characters and some principles regarding alignment in general. I will use my Halfling barbarian pirate as an example in some of these cases.

1. I never write an alignment on my character sheet. Since 5e has done away with alignment based restrictions it is mostly fluff. I tell my DMs, "I will play my character as I see fit within his motivations. If something that cares about alignment targets my character I leave it to you to adjudicate his alignment based on what you've seen."

2. When playing an evil character, I do not target the party with my evil acts or commit evil acts that will greatly impede the party. This is common freaking sense. If you're constantly getting in the way of the party they would be well within their rights to disassociate from you. Further, you need someone to be able to witness your evil schemes when they come to fruition. Reward the party because they helped you get there.

3. When playing an evil character, I bring a pad of paper with me to pass notes to the GM regarding actions I take with the intention of not being noticed or out of sight of the party. I've done this to make a deal with Umberlee in order to convince the villagers to start offering her more tribute. During the same quest I hid in some tall grass with a dead harpy and made Umberlee's mark on the harpy's breast before conducting a mastectomy to return to the village with proof of the harpy kill as well as "proof" that Umberlee had sent the harpies.

4. When playing an evil character, I will let him get a little more savage in combat to satiate any potential sociopathic tendencies. During rages I will occasionally "accidentally" kill someone who surrendered. I nearly took a human and was about to start bashing his head against the ground for the audacity at trying to mug the party. He also has a habit of collecting an ear from each of his non-racial character kills he participates in. These behaviors are all fronts to misdirect the party away from his real goals.

5. When playing an evil character, you need to have a goal. My pirate has a goal where he's attempting to secure a city as a pirate safehaven in order to setup his captain as a Pirate King. His party received a quest to deal with a criminal organization. This pirate plans on taking over the organization rather than dismantling it. Future plans involve potentially helping trigger a war between humans and dwarves in order to allow the pirates to offer to protect a city in exchange for safe haven.

[ZorroGames]

My DM has so far been against characters who are Evil, usually in any range. As I understand it, this is because most evil characters seem to be against working with a group by nature, and so any efforts he tries to push the party towards working together end up in murder. Now I would love to have a short term game where it is one evil character undermining a bunch of good ones, but I've heard a lot that this is a terrible idea so I'm moving on to my other idea:

I want to try having an Evil character working alongside good characters, willingly, no intent to sabotage or kill them. How would something like this come about? Whether it be a backstory thing (he grew up with a Good-aligned party member and while they don't agree, they still are able to work together) or a character quirk (they get to feel good about himself, he gets to kill things and take stuff. It all works out.)

Conversely, what would be a reason the Good-aligned party actually keeps him around?

Even a Lawful/Neutral might have problems with an evil character that, without warning, cuts the throat of an NPC prisoner first thing, that alive is worth a bounty, just to intimidate a second prisoner into talking. Not professional or profitable. Other options may be preferable to try first. :smallwink:

[Naanomi]

1. I never write an alignment on my character sheet. Since 5e has done away with alignment based restrictions it is mostly fluff.
Mostly but not entirely...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516989-When-Alignment-Matters-Mechanically

[Koren]

I have a suggestion.
https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11120/111209888/5216945-futurama__s_bender_by_muscleduck.jpg
That is all.

Hahaha yes! I love this idea! This would fit into the "close friends with part of the party" idea. Translating it to DnD it's also interesting to note that the rest of the crew (party) keep him around for his function but in general don't like him.


You should all be ashamed for not bringing up post-character-development Belkar. That case with the slavers summed it up nicely. He did the same thing he always did, but because it was to the "bad guys", it was fine.

Now imagine someone more clever who knew that all along, and became an adventurer specifically so that they could indulge their passion for murder without having to worry about having guards and adventurers after them. After all, it's not like they care who they kill, so long as they get to kill.

I've just recently started reading Order of the Stick (can't believe I haven't read it before!) And honestly Belkar has been a great reference point for an evil character cooperating with good characters. He doesn't outright betray or fight the party, he stretches his rope as far as he can. Keeping him together with the order is Roy acting responsible for him, recognizing the party as a whole probably keeps him less dangerous.

It's a character that has to be written alongside another to work best but it's still nice.

[greenstone]

OP, I just have one question.

How do you plan of making your character evil?

I mean, what actions are you ok to have your character do regularly to be qualified one of the evil alignments?

Same question here. Almost all of the posts in this forum are what I would describe as "neutral" alignment.

[Kane0]

Hahaha yes! I love this idea! This would fit into the "close friends with part of the party" idea. Translating it to DnD it's also interesting to note that the rest of the crew (party) keep him around for his function but in general don't like him.


I would have also suggested HK-47 but that would have been obvious as soon as you start to play it out.

[Tanarii]

1. I never write an alignment on my character sheet. Since 5e has done away with alignment based restrictions it is mostly fluff. I tell my DMs, "I will play my character as I see fit within his motivations. If something that cares about alignment targets my character I leave it to you to adjudicate his alignment based on what you've seen."I ban evil characters. I had a player try something like this to get around it. Claim they didn't need to write down alignment, because backstory. Totally ignoring that 5e Alignment is a single sentence motivation, ie a better RP tool than any amount of backstory. So I told them to write me a single sentence describing what the typical behavior resulting from their social and moral attitudes would be, based on their backstory. Their motivation. It didn't need to be the same as the 5e Alignment behaviors. They couldn't come up with one that wasn't clearly Neutral Evil.

Obviously this wouldn't be an issue in a campaign in which Neutral evil characters are fine. But it still makes the point pretty clear that 5e Alignment is a motivation, and thus to anyone interested in playing their character according to their motivations, potentially a useful tool. Unless you don't care about typical behavior resulting from your social and moral attitudes, of course. Which is fair. There's plenty of other kinds of motivation to go around.

[Safety Sword]

I ban evil characters. I had a player try something like this to get around it. Claim they didn't need to write down alignment, because backstory. Totally ignoring that 5e Alignment is a single sentence motivation, ie a better RP tool than any amount of backstory. So I told them to write me a single sentence describing what the typical behavior resulting from their social and moral attitudes would be, based on their backstory. Their motivation. It didn't need to be the same as the 5e Alignment behaviors. They couldn't come up with one that wasn't clearly Neutral Evil.

Obviously this wouldn't be an issue in a campaign in which Neutral evil characters are fine. But it still makes the point pretty clear that 5e Alignment is a motivation, and thus to anyone interested in playing their character according to their motivations, potentially a useful tool. Unless you don't care about typical behavior resulting from your social and moral attitudes, of course. Which is fair. There's plenty of other kinds of motivation to go around.

This is my approach: If everyone (including the DM) is fine with having evil party members then sure, go be evil. But in my experience it inevitably causes conflict in the party. So we don't do that anymore.

So, we have the option of an all evil PC party. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with one character disrupting the rest of the party trying to be good heroes.

[ZorroGames]

This is my approach: If everyone (including the DM) is fine with having evil party members then sure, go be evil. But in my experience it inevitably causes conflict in the party. So we don't do that anymore.

So, we have the option of an all evil PC party. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with one character disrupting the rest of the party trying to be good heroes.

Yet the AL DM cannot really do that. "Lord's Alliance" and "Zhentarim" are both "Get out of Jail Free" cards. Had two in the Party of five last week, "Throat Slitter" and "NPC poisoner"
- the latter was part of the Adventure plot.

[Safety Sword]

Yet the AL DM cannot really do that. "Lord's Alliance" and "Zhentarim" are both "Get out of Jail Free" cards. Had two in the Party of five last week, "Throat Slitter" and "NPC poisoner"
- the latter was part of the Adventure plot.

And now you know why I play with friends exclusively and never by rules upon the rules (which is how I view AL)

[ZorroGames]

And now you know why I play with friends exclusively and never by rules upon the rules (which is how I view AL)

Not an option for me. :smallfrown:

[Koren]

Same question here. Almost all of the posts in this forum are what I would describe as "neutral" alignment.

I've already said a couple times, I didn't really have an actual character in mind, I was just looking for stories and ideas.

If these are all too "neutral", how would you play an Evil character?

[Tanarii]

Yet the AL DM cannot really do that. "Lord's Alliance" and "Zhentarim" are both "Get out of Jail Free" cards. Had two in the Party of five last week, "Throat Slitter" and "NPC poisoner"
- the latter was part of the Adventure plot.
AL is definitely a haven for people that don't understand the difference between selfish evil (the LE and NE alignment behaviors), prone to violence evil (CE), and DM-appropriate evil that you fight (Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Slaughterers of Children, and monologuing Villians.)

Honestly though, there are two things I always expect from an evil PC, even the Lawful ones. I don't consider them abnormal. And many so-called Neutral PCs will do it too.
1) they will torture captured enemies if needed.
2) they will kill surrendered enemies out of hand after interrogating them.

I understand the why on the second though. What are you going to do, tie them up? Let them go to alert their buddies, or kill other people? Turn them over to the legal authorities?

[ZorroGames]

AL is definitely a haven for people that don't understand the difference between selfish evil (the LE and NE alignment behaviors), prone to violence evil (CE), and DM-appropriate evil that you fight (Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Slaughterers of Children, and monologuing Villians.)

Honestly though, there are two things I always expect from an evil PC, even the Lawful ones. I don't consider them abnormal. And many so-called Neutral PCs will do it too.
1) they will torture captured enemies if needed.
2) they will kill surrendered enemies out of hand after interrogating them.

I understand the why on the second though. What are you going to do, tie them up? Let them go to alert their buddies, or kill other people? Turn them over to the legal authorities?

Haven for those who think being a hero is more than just not being as bad as the plot BBEG.

I just prefer playing the L-N-C/G characters. As for your two "expectations" it is that kind if behavior that diminishes the experience for me. I prefer my fantasy to not Feature Fantasy Torture Porn.

[Naanomi]

I understand the why on the second though. What are you going to do, tie them up? Let them go to alert their buddies, or kill other people? Turn them over to the legal authorities?Depends on your flavor of Evil... for some, a subdued foes are just more loot if you have access to a slave market... or a great sacrifice to a God of your choice

[Tanarii]

Haven for those who think being a hero is more than just not being as bad as the plot BBEG.Never made the claim that 'not BBEG evil' being the best way to play an evil PC made them a hero. Or at least, they're certainly not willingly heroic heroes. Reluctant and dark anti-heroes is more appropriate, although that's a quick path to being an edgelord. but at least if your open and honest about it, you'll actually call your edgelord character Neutral Evil.

My point was that for some reason extreme psychopath evil seems to be all too common in AL. As I've said several times, IMO that should be the territory of the DM.


I just prefer playing the L-N-C/G characters.I like running games for people playing those characters more too. It's easier to motivate them to adventure.


As for your two "expectations" it is that kind if behavior that diminishes the experience for me. I prefer my fantasy to not Feature Fantasy Torture Porn.You missed my point then. IMX the vast majority of players that do this aren't doing it because it's getting them all hot and bothered. They're doing it because it's the most expedient way to achieve their goals: get required information, and not have a liability afterwards.

Often DMs don't introduce any significant consequences for offing captured prisoners after scaring or beating info out of them. Often DMs DO introduce significant consequences for failing to off captured prisoners. There's not much motivation not to do it. Especially when it's just a game and you're already playing Edgy 'definitely-not-evil-see-my-character-sheet-says-Neutral' McEdgelord, instead of Heroic Bob.

Also, I understand why its so common. That doesn't mean I really think it's a good thing.

edit:

Depends on your flavor of Evil... for some, a subdued foes are just more loot if you have access to a slave market... or a great sacrifice to a God of your choice
Your ideas are intriguing, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Grim Portent]

Certain flavours of evil would also prefer to drag enemies back to civilization alive to execute them in a public display to intimidate people into obeying laws or encourage them to trust their rulers can protect them from external threats.

A bandit rotting to death in a cage by the main road is a pretty decent warning not to indulge in banditry if you lean towards the LE side of things.

[smcmike]

You missed my point then. IMX the vast majority of players that do this aren't doing it because it's getting them all hot and bothered. They're doing it because it's the most expedient way to achieve their goals: get required information, and not have a liability afterwards.

Often DMs don't introduce any significant consequences for offing captured prisoners after scaring or beating info out of them. Often DMs DO introduce significant consequences for failing to off captured prisoners. There's not much motivation not to do it. Especially when it's just a game and you're already playing Edgy 'definitely-not-evil-see-my-character-sheet-says-Neutral' McEdgelord, instead of Heroic Bob.

Also, I understand why its so common. That doesn't mean I really think it's a good thing.


This makes sense.

To a large degree, this is a problem that the DM should be responsible for solving. Violent heroes get to stay heroes because the plot consistently justifies their violence. Watch any action movie. The captured hostage ALWAYS goes for a knife. Problem solved.

[SaurOps]

Certain flavours of evil would also prefer to drag enemies back to civilization alive to execute them in a public display to intimidate people into obeying laws or encourage them to trust their rulers can protect them from external threats.

A bandit rotting to death in a cage by the main road is a pretty decent warning not to indulge in banditry if you lean towards the LE side of things.

Not that it stops people, of course, but you get to look like you're a big, tough person. (^VVVVVV^)

[Talderas]

I like running games for people playing those characters more too. It's easier to motivate them to adventure.

I disagree. The only type of motivation that should natively be difficult to get an evil character to agree to are altruistic motivations and that is going to only be due to the fact that the altruistic motivation provides zero benefit to the evil character's schemes. There's very few adventures where the motivation is solely altruism, meaning that there's no element of necessity, that aren't otherwise tied to a party member's personal storyline. The latter provides a benefit to an evil character by indebting his party member for future favors.

Your statement really only makes sense if I assume that all evil characters a blood thirsty murder machines which are pretty one-dimensional and quite bland. That's not even getting into the topic of why would the party be travelling with that individual instead of just turning them into the closest constabulary.

[Tanarii]

I disagree. Fine. I modify my statement:
In my experience, it's almost always been the case that people playing Hero characters are easier to motivate to adventure than any other kind of character.

Psychological analsysis of the motivations evil not withstanding, this has been my experience. It's entirely possible it's just because I'm better at coming up with motivations that appeal to the heroic mindset.

[Ravinsild]

Here's a fun question about "adventurers".

If anyone has seen "Black Sails" what do you imagine Captain Flint to be? What about John Silver?

In the same vein, what alignment do you imagine Roland from the Dark Tower to be?

At the end of the day, Flint and Roland will make /any/ sacrifice, no matter how big, or small, to see their quests accomplished. They always press on and do not suffer set backs. They've done some bad things, but done some good things. What do you think they are?

[ZorroGames]

snip

You missed my point then. IMX the vast majority of players that do this aren't doing it because it's getting them all hot and bothered. They're doing it because it's the most expedient way to achieve their goals: get required information, and not have a liability afterwards.

Often DMs don't introduce any significant consequences for offing captured prisoners after scaring or beating info out of them. Often DMs DO introduce significant consequences for failing to off captured prisoners. There's not much motivation not to do it. Especially when it's just a game and you're already playing Edgy 'definitely-not-evil-see-my-character-sheet-says-Neutral' McEdgelord, instead of Heroic Bob.

snip


I got your point. Call it a "cultural or personal ethical/moral line in the sand" for me.

AL is the current only option for me and this White Box Era player struggles with the DM not reflecting currently any negative consequences for such acts. If it continues I will have a crossroads moment about playing. I can't really DM AL as it is currently practiced at the FLGS and I am not experienced enough to try and DM a non-AL 5e campaign even if I had the time.

In the current Tier 2 game where the incidents occurred my L/N character has decided to support the party goals but not actively support the two evil act committing characters to the same extent as the non-evil characters.

At this point not actively PvP but not necessarily going out if my way to assist the evil players if a non-evil player also needs assistance. "Yes, I saw the two Ogres pounding on you, Sorcerer, but the Wizard needed help fighting the lone Kobold. You lived, what's your problem? I can only save one squishy at a time."

[Talderas]

Fine. I modify my statement:
In my experience, it's almost always been the case that people playing Hero characters are easier to motivate to adventure than any other kind of character.

Psychological analsysis of the motivations evil not withstanding, this has been my experience. It's entirely possible it's just because I'm better at coming up with motivations that appeal to the heroic mindset.

It is a question of motivations for the character. My DM has a far easier time motivating my evil character than he does with the neutral rogue because the motivation for the rogue is avarice while my character has specific goals in mind. As long as the DM provides an adventure that at all appears like it could serve those goals he'll get my character's buy in. All motivation for the rogue can be described as [Payout / Time] and whichever one has the highest ratio is going to be what the rogue wants to do.

Even when I am playing a heroic character I will still refuse adventures despite being heroic. The risk being too great, or the opposite where the problem is well beneath the skill of my adventurer. I'm not the only one and we're not the only party. If the consequences of what I'm being asked to do are in fact worse than leaving the problem be I will also refuse a quest. The only motivation that has a 100% success rate with my heroic characters are motivations of necessity which strangely, also have 100% success rate with my evil characters. I never play a purely altruistic character because it's unrealistic and stupid which is the same reason as to why I don't play a bloody thirsty murder machine. It's equally unrealistic that such a character would exist and a party would tolerate its presence.

The presence of those bloody thirst murder machines is more an indication to me that the player is more likely just interested in playing a dungeon crawl game and accumulating loot rather than playing a game with a role playing element.

[90sMusic]

I honestly don't know where people get the idea that evil people can't work together.

Essentially every evil empire in fiction has been made up of evil individuals that all work together. BBEGs always have tons of minions that cooperate and work together. If everyone just murdered their own allies in their sleep constantly, evil empires would never be able to exist because their numbers would diminish far faster than they grow, but this is never the case.

It is very easy to be an evil character in a group of good characters, you just need a reason to want to be with them and work with them. If their goals align with your own for example. The reasoning and motivation for undergoing a certain quest will vary, but there can be plenty of reasons for an evil individual to want to kill off some tyrannical villain just as much as the good guys do. He could've just wronged or slighted him, he could be wanting to replace him and sees him as too strong of a rival to deal with alone, he might just want access to his magical items or treasure hoard.

I play evil characters now and then and i've never found it difficult to stay on friendly terms with the party of good heroes. You just don't let them know you are evil. They have no way of knowing or detecting that. Anytime you want to do something evil or that they would find questionable, do it behind their back so they don't know about it. It is beneficial to be part of a powerful group of adventurers because they are willing and able to topple major threats, typically grow in power and wealth rapidly, and go to all the sorts of places you might want to visit to learn more about the world.

DM's are just worried that you will murder everyone you see or pick fights with party members and stupid, disruptive things like that. They are too paranoid of that to even risk someone playing evil the majority of the time. Honestly, I see far more disruptive play from people who are acting as barbarians. One of the last games I played in had this barbarian who essentially dictated everything the party would do because of "his code". He wouldn't let the rogue sneak into places to scout them or to steal things we needed because he felt stealing was dishonorable. He wouldn't setup ambushes for enemies because he felt hiding and attacking from the shadows was cowardly. And yet, in social interactions he would lose his temper and fly off the handle and attack people if they insulted him. He threatened to attack and kill our own partymembers if they ever attempted to do anything he was opposed to like stealing, sneaking, lying, whatever.

The go-to excuse for these kinds of people is "its what my character would do", but the reality is when you play an ******* like that who won't allow anyone in your party to do anything except follow his lead, it kills the fun for everyone. Those folks are more common and more disruptive than those who want to play evil characters.

It's one thing to say that you would never steal, you would never lie, etc. But it's an entirely different matter if you're threatening violence against your own party when they do it. And it's kind of hard to do it in secret when you goto a place for a thing, then you end up having the thing overnight while the barbarian was asleep or otherwise occupied. He knows you stole the thing.

But anyway, evil can be fun to play. Just don't be an asshat that disrupts the party. Some of my evil shenanigans created new quests and plot elements that weren't intended and the other players had no idea it was because of something I did when they weren't looking, they thought it was just stuff the DM had setup. I remember one time we spent two sessions trying to figure out who murdered some noble (spoiler alert, I did) and I ended up having to frame some commoner for the crime so the party would have resolution and move on. They enjoyed the whole thing and felt accomplished for having figured out what happened, who did it, etc but it was all a sham. From that time onward, I always made sure to have a reliable scapegoat in case they stumbled upon something naughty I was doing. When that campaign ended and we were going to start a new one, the players wanted me to be the same character again hah. She was a succubus though and deception, manipulation, and working behind the scenes were what she was all about. Party didn't find out about her until waaay late in the campaign, and when they did find out she was secretly a fiend the entire time, she convinced them that she was good and was no threat to them because they had so much experience working together up to that point and I coughed up some fake backstory about why I wanted to redeem myself and so on. They bought it and then we moved on.

[scalyfreak]

I honestly don't know where people get the idea that evil people can't work together.

What is even more baffling is the idea that evil people can't work together with someone who isn't also evil. As the rest of your post illustrates, it can be done.

It's like no one believes (or remembers) Belkar is of an evil alignment.

[Tanarii]

The problem isn't evil working with good. It's making sure they have enough motivation to stick together for more than the immediate circumstances. Assuming that's necessary.

Okay, that's the second problem. The first is the player of the evil character not regularly acting like a jackass. But that's necessary for any character.

[scalyfreak]

The problem isn't evil working with good. It's making sure they have enough motivation to stick together for more than the immediate circumstances. Assuming that's necessary.

Okay, that's the second problem. The first is the player of the evil character not regularly acting like a jackass. But that's necessary for any character.

And to turn that argument around, if the player is the problem, it doesn't matter which alignment they play. They are still going to find a way to ruin the fun for everyone else, and trying to blame that on "I'm just roleplaying my evil character" is nothing short of annoying. Especially for those of us who like playing intelligent and non-disruptive kinds of evil characters.

[oxybe]

One of the last groups I dropped out of it wasn't "His Sorcerer was evil" that was the problem.

It was "OK, I'm rolling a 2nd character, going to assume it's an in-character issue as to why we're not meshing" then "Dude, stop being a complete Richard to my guys... the frick would I want to keep adventuring with you?" and he kept being a Richard and said them magic lines "It's what my character would do".

So I thanked the GM for a seat at his table and along with my character, I left.

~Fin

Being a Richard is not alignment specific: it's a player issue. Some do tend to lean towards the evil and chaos, but the paladin using the space between his bum cheeks as 10ft pole suppository repository to the detriment of the table's fun is a cliche for a reason.