Evil alignment is ok to play

[Whit]

Playing an evil character in a group isn’t as bad as people think it is, but more on how a player who plays it wrong. Just because your evil doesn’t mean you don’t work with a team or have friends or associates, you just value yourself over everyone else in the end.
Lawful Evil
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
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 neutraI evil

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

Remember that lawful Neutral Chaotic are also used by good. So L,N,C are the same for each but how you morally used it.

an adventure group fights a battle and an enemy wants to surrender. Sure you might want to just kill it while it’s tired up, but each LE NE CE would rather torture it for information or hidden gold.
But the rest of party doesn’t want to torture it. So they use intimadtion or persuasion.

Afterwords, the LE may agree with group and let it live. NE might agree with group or not and may kill it or not after. CE would kill it afterwords.but not just before getting information. Your not stupid. You want hidden gold or information first.

Remember, just because your evil, your not stupid. There’s a time and place to be evil.
A guy in the tavern insulted me. Well I’m gonna kill him but should I do it in the open in front of others or follow him and kill him later.
Make him fight you and kill him if out in the open. Or do it secretly.

The DM can also ruin it if he decides to bribe you to betray the group which you would. DM don’t do it unless it has non lethal consequences

Party verbal conflict can be fun just like debating over politics just as long as neither side of the characters or DM pushed it to the characters fighting

Yiu might even save that healing spell for you but if your party loses the fight how will you get the treasure at the end.

Now some fun options can be , you see a group of goblins with a tied up gnome. Well the gnome is probably there to be saved and has info but since he’s not someone you were suppose to save for a mission yiu fireball all the goblins and him. You kill most goblins and unfortunately the gnome. The party Kills the rest and get upset at yiu. Yiu make your reason, and the dm if he’s clever will leave what the gnome has to say in a note to be found.

So. Don’t be stupid evil, don’t betray the group because you think it’s fun. Don’t push the party to a fight , Enjoy doing your evil acts smartly
Dm don’t force the evil guy to betray the group unless it won’t kill them. And don’t make it obvious so he can’t stay in the group.
Have fun

[KorvinStarmast]

The monthly thread on evil PC's and alignment is now in progress.
Y'all be good to one another, ya hear?

For the OP: what do you think in your post is something new or of interest? It looks like you did a mind dump. In response to my question, please list the top three things in your post that are of interest to the greater community of D&D 5e players.

PS: do you really think that you covered any new ground? If so, I am not seeing it.
PPS: evil alignment can be played well. In my experience, it's rare, but it is doable. The AL rules against evil alignment in public play were made for a reason. A very good reason, based on 40+ years of RPG experiences.

[Greywander]

Remember, just because your evil, your not stupid. There’s a time and place to be evil.
I think this is the crux of the matter. And I think the proper way to view an evil character within the context of a mixed-alignment party is as an opportunity. If the LG paladin is too righteous to torture the prisoner for the critical information you need, convince the paladin to take a walk and let the evil character go at it. In game, the paladin will be mad when he finds out, but out of character this was a tactic agreed upon by the players.

Also, an evil character doesn't have to be doing evil all the time. In fact, they can be quite friendly and affable. But when an opportunity comes along that benefits them and they can get away with it, they will pursue that opportunity ruthlessly. The DM might not even know you're an evil character until the right opportunity presents itself.

Due to the impulsive nature of chaotic character, a CE character is a bit trickier. Again, though, this is an opportunity. The CE character should restrain themselves until it is in the best interest of the party for them to act out. For example, if negotiations go south, the party might decide that the best course of action is to have the CE character stand up and say, "Bored now," and hurl a flask of acid into the leader's face. The key is that you don't let the CE character's violent impulses ruin the game, instead you use them to the party's advantage when they're most needed.


The DM can also ruin it if he decides to bribe you to betray the group which you would. DM don’t do it unless it has non lethal consequences
If you're part of the party, you should have a vested interest in the party. Betraying the party is detrimental to the party, and therefore detrimental to you. Some evil characters might betray their friends at the drop of a hat, but those characters shouldn't be in adventuring parties. This is, however, a fantastic way to counter-screw your DM by pretending to go along with the betrayal only to turn it around at the last second.


Now some fun options can be , you see a group of goblins with a tied up gnome. Well the gnome is probably there to be saved and has info but since he’s not someone you were suppose to save for a mission yiu fireball all the goblins and him. You kill most goblins and unfortunately the gnome. The party Kills the rest and get upset at yiu. Yiu make your reason, and the dm if he’s clever will leave what the gnome has to say in a note to be found.
"It's what my character would do," is a poor argument in a social game like D&D. If your character is going to ruin the game for everyone else, then roll a new character. Again, though, this can be an opportunity. Maybe the players (not the characters) don't actually want to rescue the gnome, and give you the go-ahead to nuke it. The characters (not the players) will be upset with you, but the players are enjoying themselves, which is what's important.


So. Don’t be stupid evil, don’t betray the group because you think it’s fun. Don’t push the party to a fight , Enjoy doing your evil acts smartly
Dm don’t force the evil guy to betray the group unless it won’t kill them. And don’t make it obvious so he can’t stay in the group.
Have fun
Well said. You're still working together as a party to accomplish your goals, you may just employ different methods.

[Caelic]

One thing to keep in mind is that an evil character, if not outright psychotic, is going to recognize the advantages to living in a society where people obey the law, where there's NOT rampant robbery and murder, and where you can trust your neighbors not to stab you in the back.

In short, he or she is likely going to want to live in a town where everyone ELSE is basically of good alignment--a wolf among sheep, as it were. And, if he or she chooses to indulge in less than savory activities, it will quite likely be cautiously, or far away from home, on the grounds that you don't poop where you live.

I can very easily see an evil character who presents a facade of benevolence to the world at large, while pursuing his or her goals through intermediaries with cold-blooded, ruthless efficiency behind the scenes.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry to say, OP, but I have to agree with KorvinStarmast. You don't seem to bring up anything new in your post.



One thing to keep in mind is that an evil character, if not outright psychotic, is going to recognize the advantages to living in a society where people obey the law, where there's NOT rampant robbery and murder, and where you can trust your neighbors not to stab you in the back.

In short, he or she is likely going to want to live in a town where everyone ELSE is basically of good alignment--a wolf among sheep, as it were. And, if he or she chooses to indulge in less than savory activities, it will quite likely be cautiously, or far away from home, on the grounds that you don't poop where you live.


Yeah, no. This is only one way for evil characters to behave, and it's not just "the sane ones act like that, the psychotic ones don't".

Plenty of evil characters believe in a wolf-eat-wolf world where they cheat, kill and oppress others because others would do the same if they were more powerful. Others fully believe that a cut-throat culture pushing for excellency in scheming and getting rid of what's in your way is the best way to live. Other still just know they're the dregs of a cruel world, and so lash out anytime they get the occasion.

Evil characters don't all want to live in a town where everyone else is good. They just want to live in a town where they are the best at living there.




I can very easily see an evil character who presents a facade of benevolence to the world at large, while pursuing his or her goals through intermediaries with cold-blooded, ruthless efficiency behind the scenes.

...yes? It's a classic evil type. Plenty of bad guys do that, even the protagonist ones.

[Whit]

The monthly thread on evil PC's and alignment is now in progress.
Y'all be good to one another, ya hear?

For the OP: what do you think in your post is something new or of interest? It looks like you did a mind dump. In response to my question, please list the top three things in your post that are of interest to the greater community of D&D 5e players.

PS: do you really think that you covered any new ground? If so, I am not seeing it.
PPS: evil alignment can be played well. In my experience, it's rare, but it is doable. The AL rules against evil alignment in public play were made for a reason. A very good reason, based on 40+ years of RPG experiences.

I’m sure there are plenty of topics repeating on this site, so what’s your real gripe? Did a gnome give you a wedgie?

Here is my response for all repeating posts

1. A person posts a topic a week ago or a month ago or longer. A new person comes along and doesn’t see the topic he wishes to post in the next 5 pages if he/she has the patience to look through 5 pages to post the same topic, unbeknownst to him that it has been posted before, probably 3 times already in the past year.

2. Now that this is posted other people who take an interest in it can see it read it and either take something from it or write against that view or add to it.

3. And I’ll finish with this. Yes it is of interest. Perhaps not to you but to others. Who are you to judge and why don’t you post links to Match up all the similar posts that are all over here if it Matters to you.

4.how can I cover new ground on a game that’s been around since the mid 70’s and people have been asking questions since then.

5. In my 38 years of playing all forms of alignment, it’s not rare and in fact adds some fun play into it. From early beginning of 4 people to highs school of 12 to collage of 9 to after collage of 10-15. And 1/2 have been the same since high school and college. I have played AL at participating stores and I see The reason AL doesn’t want evil players. 1. Usually a group of unknown people getting together (place I played at had 5 tables of 5 players plus a dm. No one really knew each other and as posted some people don’t ‘now how to play evil alignment correctly as a player and become disruptive tot he game thinking that’s the idea which is wrong.
So I’m explaining in a quick way how to play it in a group without ruining it

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m sure there are plenty of topics repeating on this site, so what’s your real gripe?
The lack of coherent prose didn't help the OP, hence my remark about "mind dump."
If you've been around that long, I'd offer that a more coherent prose style better presents your ideas and points.
High school teachers used to teach that back in the day.

Thank you for more succinctly putting your points forward.

As I said, and as we seem to agree, evil can be played well ... it's just rare in my experience.
Your point on your own AL experience rings very true and matches my own experiences in previous editions and for that matter in other RPG's.
Best wishes.

[Phoenix042]

I don't place an arbitrary restriction on the alignment of my Player's Characters.

I place a much more common sense arbitrary restriction: When you are creating your character, and at every critical point in the game thereafter, YOU are responsible for deciding why they care about the other party members, why they want to stay with the group and behave in a way that is consistent with the rest of the party, and why, ultimately, their character repeatedly decides to act in a way that the rest of the players find fun or entertaining and not annoying or frustrating.

That's the crux of it: As a player, your job is to faithfully roleplay your character, but to first make sure that you're playing a character who will be fun for everyone else at the table to play with.


If your evil character can do that, I have no problems with it.

[StorytellerHero]

Having an evil character in the party is only a bad thing when there's a lack of direction.

Without a tangible objective to pursue, a reason to cooperate with the others, the gameplay of an evil PC can devolve into a mad typhoon of ill will and disruptive shenanigans.

If the player is not the most mature of people to begin with, then the situation can potentially double down on behavior that makes the game unbearable for the others at the table.

When evil PCs are on the table, it's especially important to initiate a decent session zero, during which the DM can discuss with the players what is to be expected of gameplay, and everyone cooperates in tweaking their characters' backstories so that they won't be likely to be at each others' throats when they join as a party.

[ad_hoc]

At our table we have a rule of no evil characters because that is the sort of game we want to play.

It's possible for evil characters to work, it just depends on what sort of game the table wants to play.

[Chugger]

In AL lawful evil characters stay under control because pvp is not allowed and most direct player-character-hurting acts are forbidden. Also even LE characters want to win and get exp and get a shot at the magic item and some gold (and dt and r), so they generally behave and are far more "lawful" than "evil."

In fact LE characters in AL are mostly, so far as I've seen, at best "token evil."

And OP I think you're saying that "token evil" is okay, that "token evil" can be made to work somehow for a party, even long term. I'm afraid you have no idea what "true evil" is - at least true evil as I understand it. I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad - please don't take it that way. I'm just saying that if you have to say something like "evil but" - evil doesn't like that "but" added to it - doesn't put up with it - just am not sure what the point of token evil or "evil lite" is. Imho an evil campaign is supposed to be fubar/mayhem on steroids and difficult - because it is in fact "evil".

You can't tell a truly evil person "don't betray the group just because it's fun" - spend some time in RL trying to work with a narcissist/sociopath/pscyhopath - someone with no genuine sense of empathy and at best a theoretical sense of right and wrong - i.e. no real conscience. Do that and tell me you can work with evil. I have - I've had to work with such people - and they are arguably "evil" - and they can't be part of a lasting, workable party - they are hell to deal with - short term they can control it if they have a reason to, but they're just setting you or someone else up - tricking you. Long term they almost always can't control it - I've yet to meet one who can. Tell me about your RL experiences with such people (narcissists/sociopaths) - and then please re-explain how an evil party can work - without taking narcissism/sociopathy out of evil - because from where I sit they're inseparable. If you do separate them, what you have is no longer evil. at least to me.

[Whit]

I’m Glad Garven finally gets the idea on my response even though it’s nothing different from my initial post.

Sorry that it may not be eloquent enough for you but some people in life had a different upbringing. Your profession may compare to a in Intelligence oriented Spellcast who needs...to...speak...slowly...for... everyone...less... intelligent in grammar. My career is more of a fighter to keep people safe.

Once again, I’m sorry my education level is beneath you.

[Donpoohbear]

i played a lawful evil warlock who was a loanshark . i litterally did nothing without a signed contract .

[Waazraath]

Yes, it can be done well. But if not, it can lead to bickering, party conflict spilling over to player conflict, or some random badly thought through evil act can lead to disruption of the campaign or a TPK. So as a DM, I don't allow it, disregarding the occasional all evil characters campaign. It's just not worth it, imo, even though it can be done.

[War_lord]

Agree with Chugger. You can play a character whose sheet says evil easily. But that's not really an evil character, truly evil characters can't be effectively played for anything bigger then a one shot, because a truly evil character isn't going to "just not be evil". An evil character sticking to their alignment can't just stop being a psychopath when it suits them.

[Greywander]

Wouldn't the stereotypical murder-hobos be Evil-leaning-Neutral? Not omnicidal Evil, but certainly Evil enough to kill without pity or remorse at the drop of a hat if there's something to be gained (like treasure).

Many players are detached enough from the game and the world it takes place in that they can recognize when the pragmatic course of action isn't necessarily the most righteous one. This is what I meant when I said Evil characters were an opportunity; it gives the players an excuse to let one of their own commit an immoral act that benefits the party.

There are many different shades of every alignment. And it's not just Evil, there are shades of the other alignments that wouldn't work well in a party. Everyone already knows the loony CN bard that's almost as disruptive as the psychopathic CE character. Then there's the Lawful Stupid paladin.

Any alignment can be disruptive. Chaotic characters can ignore the rules and get into trouble. Lawful characters can punish their party members when they break the rules. Good characters can be intolerable of morally gray acts, or throw their party under the bus "for the greater good". Evil character can obviously be traitorous and violent.

Every character in an adventuring party needs to be Lawful enough that they'll cooperate with the party, Chaotic enough that they're willing to bend the rules, Evil enough that they don't sacrifice at their party's expense, and Good enough that they can maintain loyalty to the party and behave themselves in society. Most importantly, the party needs to be able to act as a team.

[Chugger]

Evil enough that they don't sacrifice at their party's expense,


So ... we make other people pay for the human sacrifices?








:smallbiggrin:

[Greywander]

So ... we make other people pay for the human sacrifices?








:smallbiggrin:
When you send the cleric shopping for healing potions and he comes back with sacrificial slaves.

No but seriously, at least when the rogue grabs all the loot and doesn't share with the party, he's being honest about his reasons. When the paladin donates all the party's loot to the temple, and then accuses the party of being miserly and uncharitable when they confront him, that's when you start planning for the paladin to have an "accident".

[Whit]

Good views chugger, but let’s start with being more Lawful than evil. Lawful is a different part from evil. That’s why it’s listed as lawful neutral or chaotic. By definition chaotic good elves would not function as a governed society because they are chaotic but would socialize with people and have friends because they ar3 good but woul$ be more nomadic with no centralized governmental structure

Every form of government is lawful thus obeying laws. From Rome to Ghengis khan to hitler to Putin to all of them. So as it would be in D&d land. Even a tribe of orcs have rules. It’s the good,neutral,evil aspect that come into play. Good- I will obey laws that are not morally bad, but legally challenge bad ones, to neutral - I obey laws but will choose to circumvent the ones I choose evil- I will obey 5he laws but will bend them to my favor no matter who gets hurt.
A barbarism horde that pillages and kills is somewhat chaotic but they have laws in their own horde that they follow. It could be that someone can challenge another for leadership , but that’s a rule. If someone assassinates the leader to take over, he will expect people to follow his rules.

A chaotic good person in a group vs a chaotic evil person 8n a group chaotic good Don’t obe6 laws but will work with a group out of friendship etc.
chaotic evil don’t obey laws but will work with a group out of getting more power for himself without consequence of laws

In fact lawful neutral, neutral and chaotic neutral all have a view point of doing something evil or something good dependin* on how they see it.

In fact if it was such a concern any alignment without good in it could be problematic since neutral can switch from Good to evil.

So once again it’s a matter of how a player uses it. Disruptive to a game which would be wrong to using it smartly which doesn’t hinder the adventure.


But I understand the concerns that’s why I posted this. To give players who want to play evil in a group if allowed, to play a non disruptive evil character to th3 group

[Whit]

Wouldn't the stereotypical murder-hobos be Evil-leaning-Neutral? Not omnicidal Evil, but certainly Evil enough to kill without pity or remorse at the drop of a hat if there's something to be gained (like treasure).

Many players are detached enough from the game and the world it takes place in that they can recognize when the pragmatic course of action isn't necessarily the most righteous one. This is what I meant when I said Evil characters were an opportunity; it gives the players an excuse to let one of their own commit an immoral act that benefits the party.

There are many different shades of every alignment. And it's not just Evil, there are shades of the other alignments that wouldn't work well in a party. Everyone already knows the loony CN bard that's almost as disruptive as the psychopathic CE character. Then there's the Lawful Stupid paladin.

Any alignment can be disruptive. Chaotic characters can ignore the rules and get into trouble. Lawful characters can punish their party members when they break the rules. Good characters can be intolerable of morally gray acts, or throw their party under the bus "for the greater good". Evil character can obviously be traitorous and violent.

Every character in an adventuring party needs to be Lawful enough that they'll cooperate with the party, Chaotic enough that they're willing to bend the rules, Evil enough that they don't sacrifice at their party's expense, and Good enough that they can maintain loyalty to the party and behave themselves in society. Most importantly, the party needs to be able to act as a team.

Absolutely correct

[Unoriginal]

You can be evil without being a psychopath/sociopath/mentally unstable person.

Yes, being evil means doing awful thing to others for your benefit (ranging from large-scale plans to momentary pleasure), but hell, "normal" people can do this.

[Theoboldi]

Well, yeah, evil characters can be non-disruptive. They can work in a party of mostly good characters if everyone agrees on it beforehand. However, let me quote someone who has explained my problems on this particular topic far more succinctly than I ever will.



My issue with evil characters is that a lot of people will make one who does things like this, then say "but I won't do it to the other PCs!" and expect that to be problem solved.

I still don't want to travel around with Hannibal Lector, helping him to gain more power in the process, unless I'm playing an evil character myself.

And a lot of commonly suggested workarounds are basically forms of "the non-evil characters get to be chumps", like the evil character being smarter/stealthier than anyone else and doing this all unseen, or "there is a greater evil so you have to work with torture dude." No thanks.

Now, this line of reasoning is selfish, as it revolves entirely around telling another person what kind of character they can't play because of my own wishes. I acknowledge that. However, all that means is that I won't join games that contain evil characters in otherwise good or neutral parties, unless that somehow was explicitly decided upon as part of a premise that I do like overall.

A lot of it ultimately comes down not to whether any given character is disruptive, but rather what individual players are comfortable with. If a person at the table has their evening ruined because the evil character decided that torturing the prisoners was a good way of information, then it's no use pointing out that their character was not hit by it, or that it helped the party accomplish its goal. Similarly, someone who came to the table wanting fantasy heroics is likely going to be put off if the game turns into fantasy shady military operations, and may have their fun ruined by it just as much.

Are these behaviours exclusive to evil aligned characters? Of course not. But the mindset of an evil character encourages them, and they're frequently given as examples of things that only playing an evil character gives the opportunity to do. And because they have such a high chance of ruining the game for someone, I vastly prefer to not allow evil in my games and not to play in groups with evil characters unless there have been extensive talks about it before the game.

[ZorroGames]

The monthly thread on evil PC's and alignment is now in progress.
Y'all be good to one another, ya hear?

For the OP: what do you think in your post is something new or of interest? It looks like you did a mind dump. In response to my question, please list the top three things in your post that are of interest to the greater community of D&D 5e players.

PS: do you really think that you covered any new ground? If so, I am not seeing it.
PPS: evil alignment can be played well. In my experience, it's rare, but it is doable. The AL rules against evil alignment in public play were made for a reason. A very good reason, based on 40+ years of RPG experiences.

Exactly. I find most “evil” characters in AL take liberal advantage of the no PvP part of AL but push until there is a player revolt or the DM intervenes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Exactly. I find most “evil” characters in AL take liberal advantage of the no PvP part of AL but push until there is a player revolt or the DM intervenes. Gee, wny am I not surprised? :smallcool: Thanks for the experiential data point, love your show. :smallwink:

I both agree with, and slightly disagree with, Greywander

There are many different shades of every alignment. And it's not just Evil, there are shades of the other alignments that wouldn't work well in a party. Everyone already knows the loony CN bard that's almost as disruptive as the psychopathic CE character. Then there's the Lawful Stupid paladin. The issue at hand is a player making choices, not necessarily that the character has a particular alignment. Granted, a group of four CN/CE thieve rogues can ally with an LG Paladin for a one shot, given them all having the same goal, but for an entire campaign it makes little sense unless someone in that group is going to eventually go through an alignment change.

Any alignment can be disruptive. I agree and somewhat disagree.
It's all about the player choosing to be disruptive or not. See Rich's article on making tough decisions. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) It's very well presented.


Chaotic characters can ignore the rules and get into trouble.
Lawful characters can punish their party members when they break the rules. Good characters can be intolerable of morally gray acts, or throw their party under the bus "for the greater good". Evil character can obviously be traitorous and violent.Yes, but it doesn't need to happen every time we have a gaming session.


Most importantly, the party needs to be able to act as a team.
Bingo. The party members need to be able to resolve any conflicts that arise, which means that the players need to be interested in role playing their characters through such challenges1. When a number of the players are selfish and self centered, see ZorroGames post, the likelihood that this will take place is small, though it is not zero. (Reference to My Guy Syndrome now made as a PSA).

We had the same problem with toxic players as far back as (from my memory) 1976, which in one case resulted in a player (who was a friend to some of us) being invited not to participate. Even way back then, before the RPG landscape expanded and a lot of lessons got learned, it was a player issue, not a character/alignment issue. Ran into a similar situation in college. I doubt human beings have changed that much in the last 40+ years.

--------------------------------

1 One of my favorite illustrations of this is the difference between Roy and Haley (GiTP) in dealing with Belkar. Roy is LG and doesn't just dump Belkar the CE. Haley, the CG, when she is in charge gets fed up and gets rid of him during the Thieves Guild battle mini arc. This somewhat stands on its head the assumptions about what alignment infers for judgment and interparty relationships.

[Dudewithknives]

I have never understood why people seem to interpret "evil" to mean counterproductive.

As far as working with a group and being productive I will take a LE character over the CN I just do whatever I find funny character.

NE and CE are definately harder to justify but LE is very easy. You have a code, you have guidelines but you will do wherever else it takes to get what you want.

It is no more disruptive than if someone is playing the theme of the lawful stupid paladin, or the CN hey guys check this out character.

Evil does not have to mean you are a counterproductive tool, nor does it mean you are a cold blooded killer.

A greedy businessman who works through loopholes and manipulating the system can easily be LE and never hurts the party at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dudewithknives, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that every player who makes that alignment choice understands what you just wrote... or even cares. :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

As far as working with a group and being productive I will take a LE character over the CN I just do whatever I find funny character. I've played with LE characters I'd rather run with in an adventuring party, in terms of added effectiveness and less disruption to the party as a whole's goals, than CG characters. Especially when I was playing in 5e AL.

[Whit]

the main point is either a person playing an evil character can or can’t play it effectively without destroying the game.
I’m sure other alignments can be an issue to but definitely not as much as an evil alignment. Although Chaotic Neutral is a runner up

[Whit]

And to add more confusion, how many people actually play the alignment they chose.

[Coffee_Dragon]

At our table we have a rule of no evil characters because that is the sort of game we want to play.

It's possible for evil characters to work, it just depends on what sort of game the table wants to play.

Yes. Playing an evil character is as OK as playing a psionic character, an orc, a character using firearms, or a space marine. It's a thing worth checking against the group's expectations and preferences. It's not badwrong to want to play a game where the group is held together by professional respect and mutual mercenary interests at worst.

Apparently there's a difference in philosophy here and some people think the reach of the social contract ends at the point a player is not being actively disruptive. For them, "my character is evil and that's none of your business until... I mean as long as I'm not stabbing you in the back" is on about the same level as "my guy uses a warhammer and why would you think you get to say anything about that".

[Tanarii]

Yes. Playing an evil character is as OK as playing a psionic character, an orc, a character using firearms, or a space marine. It's a thing worth checking against the group's expectations and preferences. It's not badwrong to want to play a game where the group is held together by professional respect and mutual mercenary interests at worst.In fact, if I was participating in an actual Mercenary campaign, I'd want mostly LE characters, with a smattering of LN, N and NE characters. Definitely no Chaotic or Good characters. The guy who writes our contracts for the customers to sign should be LN to a lawyerly degree. :smallamused:

[jas61292]

As far as working with a group and being productive I will take a LE character over the CN I just do whatever I find funny character.

Oh, definitely. People often try and use alignment as an excuse to act in certain ways. This is true of all alignments, and almost all the famous examples of unfun characters such as the holier than thou paladin, the rogue who can't keep his hands out of other's pockets, or the evil jerk that turns on his allies, are almost always examples of people doing things because "I'm evil" or I'm chaotic" or "I'm Lawful-Good." And all of these are bad.

That being said, when it comes to having a functional party, those who take lawful evil to the extreme are often far more enjoyable to actually play with, as at least have some sort of restrictions on themselves, and are not as likely to try and police other character's behaviors as their good counterparts. People who take Chaotic Good too far, on the other hand, tend to be far more annoying as they will not care at all about the team, and just do whatever they think is "right" regardless of anything else.

And don't even get me started on Chaotic Neutral. Or, as I call it, "player speak for Neutral Evil." Like any alignment it can be played well. But in my experience, it is by far the most likely to be played poorly, because it is the default that players seem to go to when they don't want to pick an alignment. And then it is often used as a "I do whatever I want" alignment. I could go on and on about this for a long time, but let me just suffice it to say that I find characters that players are willing to outright say are evil are often less evil, and far more manageable, than those that are clearly evil but, have their players claim otherwise.

[Tanarii]

And then it is often used as a "I do whatever I want" alignment.
I've sometimes seen Neutral as this too. As in an actual balance of doing whatever good or evil or lawful or chaotic things you want. Especially in Dragonlance, where they actually had a chart to track the sum total of good and evil from actions.

Of course, I'll add my mandatory comment that 5e alignments aren't about specific actions, but rather about typical behavior. If you put together an appropriate Ideal (probably Lawful) with the LE typical alignment behavior, add a solid Bond, you can easily end up with a LE character that's not a complete pain in the neck.

I wouldn't want to try that with CE. Although for a not too morally encumbered murderhobo party, someone with a penchant for arbitrary violence might be temporarily useful, if it can be directed at the enemy consistently.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Shouldn't people who complain about chaotic neutral be even more critical of chaotic good? After all their chaos is dictated by their conscience so they have to go off on random disruptive do-goodery, while chaotic neutrals can stick to their anarchic guns mostly when personally affected.

[2D8HP]

A player with "Evil" written on their PC's character record sheet may be perfectly acceptable in play, so may a PC with "Lawful Cranky", "Chaotic Inebriated", "Sorry", and "Wolf", I can personally attest to each of these, as the DM didn't say anything.

Now in 5e a PC's "Alignment" is chiefly useful for deciding on a PC's "Personality Traits", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" and I had no trouble when I wrote "Lookin' for Ale, Gold, and Wenches" on each of those, but when I asked for "Inspiration", the DM wouldn't and said:
"It doesn't matter that it's "classic"!'

So I said "Fine", and I changed the PC's "Personality Trait", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" to "Lookin' for Wine, Gems, and fit strapping youths", but I still couldn't get an inspiration bonus!

Nor when I had my PC's "Personality Trait", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" be "Gettin' with pointy eared hotties", or "Makin' half-Gnomes"!

The DM then said that 'Burrowaphilia is not "totally a thing"'

*sigh*

He did say that can have a human Ranger PC with an Elvish name, but then he told me that G't'b'nt'y'u'bearded'fatso is not an Elvish translation of "Summer Rainshower"!

:annoyed:

It's my character, why can't I just play it?
:confused:

[Theoboldi]

Apparently there's a difference in philosophy here and some people think the reach of the social contract ends at the point a player is not being actively disruptive. For them, "my character is evil and that's none of your business until... I mean as long as I'm not stabbing you in the back" is on about the same level as "my guy uses a warhammer and why would you think you get to say anything about that".

Okay, now I just feel bad for taking so long to explain my point. You did it much quicker. :smallredface:

Overall, I do think that there exists something of a misconception that evil characters are only disliked because they may be disruptive. Or at the very least, it seems to almost always be the only point these threads argue against, which may give the wrong impression to people who want to play evil characters or who are ambivalent about it and who happen to read them.

I dunno.



The DM then said that 'Burrowaphilia is not "totally a thing"'


Of course not, that'd be cuniculumphilia.

[Whit]

We could legitimately focus on all alignments and how it could be used to the extreme by a player that can ruin the game.

The main purpose here is evil alignments.
AL has a limit of LE, and some player groups might have a limit of no Evil alignment which usually gets someone in the group going CN. I’ve played campaigns where it’s been any Good alignment only.

But the purpose here is if a campaign has any alignment choice and a person picks LE, NE or CE, let us provide play suggestions for that person so he does not Ruin the campaign but rather add some interesting game play to it

[Theoboldi]

But the purpose here is if a campaign has any alignment choice and a person picks LE, NE or CE, let us provide play suggestions for that person so he does not Ruin the campaign but rather add some interesting game play to it

Well, one thing I often see is people who play a secretly evil character. For those, I would first of all suggest the player make sure with the GM and the other players that such things are on the table. And then, more importantly, they actually work with the GM to drop hints about the actual intentions of the secretly evil character. Clues for the other players to pick up, and bluff checks the other players may oppose. It's more fun if you had a chance to figure things out in advance and failed than if its suddenly pulled out of your butt at the end of the campaign.

Also, it's important to make sure what levels of evil the other players are okay with. Evil =/= evil, and while some might be happy to genocide the elves and enslave the world, they might get uncomfortable if you describe explicit torture, and vice-versa. Not to mention the even darker levels of evil that exist. Nothing ruins the mood faster than if everyone wants to play Dastardly Whiplash and you show up as Frank Underwood.

[Beelzebubba]

You know, I'm completely convinced I've worked with Chaotic Evil people before.

I wouldn't call any of them 'good friends', but I definitely kept friendly and amiable with them. Because they acted in my interests sometimes, made strong contributions to our overall goals, and it was better and easeri to keep them as a potential ally than to be all super moral and call them on everything.

I can see all sorts of reasons for a Good player to hang with an Evil one and make it not violent between them.

[DarthPenance]

I know a lot of people think that having evil aligment is not issue, however from a roleplay perspective, why would the LG Paladin be in a party with a evil character if they know they're evil? In previous edition paladins even lost their powers if this happened. Like was said before, the evil character has to play it smart, however if it gets out of hand, a party of most good (or neutral if the evil is ruining their reputation or something) would not tolerate the evil behavior and would arrest or (if they're friends) try to make the evil guy change his ways, or just say that they can't be travelling with someone of such behavior.
Besides, ooc, there are people that are not ok with some evil behavior like genocide, rape or deals that involve the other party members to do evil stuff, and when the evil character does it it's possible they would feel bad about it and it would create tension ooc, which may even get someone to leave the group or ruin a friendship.
What I mean is that DnD is a team game, and evil behavior is fine, it's a RP game, but it has limits, both in character and out of character it could ruin someone's experience, as such there should be restrictions.
(Sorry if it had been said before, didn't have time to read the whole post, but wanted to express my opinion)

[Tanarii]

You know, I'm completely convinced I've worked with Chaotic Evil people before.
Not of fan of using D&D Alignments for real life, but I spent a few years hanging out with quite a lot of people who's typical behavior fell in line with a small variation of the 5e CE typical behavior description: arbritrarily violent based on greed, hyper-macho culture, and/or having temper control issuese. It wasn't a good part of my life.

But everyone knows Lawyers are LE and Mechanics are NE, and yet we all still do business with them. :smallamused:

[Chugger]

DnD is not a reality emulator, so if you want - go on - pretend your ____ evil character who cooperates with the party and talks about doing human sacrifices (or other really bad things with big consequences) but never does is something other than, in actuality, a "token evil" character. You can do that. And if you believe hard enough, it will be evil. To you.

But not to me. I hope you've never met or been forced to work with a truly evil person. I have. It sucks - and unless you're strong and very much on your game, they will hurt you - at the very least they'll humiliate you - or if they want they'll mount a campaign of lies to get you fired - or they'll steal from you - and sometimes worse.

It's estimated that about 1 in 20 people are "sociopathic", meaning they have no real conscience or sense of empathy. These are people who are "bad seeds" - maybe not all of them - some of them can control this - many can't.

Like much of DnD this is subjective - and I'm not saying you're wrong - and maybe I'm the one who has to get over his issues and pain from having had bad run-ins with real life truly evil people. But at some point, even if DnD is not a reality emulator, I still need at least x lvl of "real sauce" for me to believe in something in game. Like if I'm told non-magical horses can teleport ... yeah right. And if I'm told that token, zero-significance acts of "evil" are real evil and not just play-evil ... I'll try to be nice about it if I'm at your table, but I'm not buying it in my mind. This is how a lot of DnD goes. We need to tolerate others who think they're accomplishing or pulling off x at some high level, when we see them as not pulling it off at all. Yeah, we're being polite.

[Tanarii]

DnD is not a reality emulator, so if you want - go on - pretend your ____ evil character who cooperates with the party and talks about doing human sacrifices (or other really bad things with big consequences) but never does is something other than, in actuality, a "token evil" character. You can do that. And if you believe hard enough, it will be evil. To you.5e definitions of Evil alignment typical behaviors don't require human sacrifices or other really bad things with big consequences. You may feel they are "token", but they are very much in line with what I would think of as every day pretty bad people, the kind I wouldn't be interested in being their friends or working with or hanging out with, provided I've got my head straight. In other words, gang members, prostitutes, hard drug users, petty criminals ... probably hard bitten mercenaries. Bad, but not villains.

But a murderhero who is violent against his enemies, and mostly against bad guy Villian enemies, and also out for loot and magical treasure ... might put up with someone like that, if they're that good and not that big a problem and willing to fight the same enemies.

[Morty]

It's okay to play a selfish, cruel, greedy or conniving character. As long as everyone's okay with it and it doesn't disrupt gameplay. That's true for most systems. The problem with it in D&D, specifically, is that writing "Evil" on your character sheet feels way more condemning than simply playing someone who's a bad person. "Evil" implies being a villain, darkness, evil for evil's sake and such.

[Tanarii]

It's okay to play a selfish, cruel, greedy or conniving character. As long as everyone's okay with it and it doesn't disrupt gameplay. That's true for most systems. The problem with it in D&D, specifically, is that writing "Evil" on your character sheet feels way more condemning than simply playing someone who's a bad person. "Evil" implies being a villain, darkness, evil for evil's sake and such.
That's a perception problem on their part then. Anyone that feels that way, direct them to the PHB typically associated behaviors and let them see for themselves that 5e Evil Alignments are totally inclusive of selfish, cruel, greedy or conniving characters who are not necessarily so far gone as Villian, darkness, and evil for evil's sake. For added reinforcement, direct them to check out the (Evil) Ideals under each Background. And note that Evil characters may not even have those (Evil) Ideals, but rather a (Lawful), (Chaotic) or (Any) Ideal instead.

Edit: that said, it's a common enough perception, as the DM it's simpler to just ban Evil characters as PCs. And understand the difference between Evil-aligned NPCs and Villian-level-Evil NPC for your own.

[2D8HP]

FWLIW, I've found that usually DM's who announce they're going to run an "evil PC's campaigns" do it because their games are b-o-r-i-n-g and their desperate for "players" to show off their World-building to.

Starting at high levels, and with magic items are also red flags.

[Whit]

I’ve never been a group campaign that was all evil. Although, we had a great campaign in college where our group was good and another dm and his group was invited for the end campaign where both sides start d on one side of a map and had to reach the center top tower. The other dm ran his group who made all evil characters and the final battle was the other group in the tower.
Amazing adventure

[Unoriginal]

Chugger, sociopaths aren't "bad seeds" or villains vbx default in real life, and in D&D not all villains are sociopaths.

The Lizardfolk literally have no feeling of empathy, and they're neutral most of the time.


I think people are too influenced by previous editions' alignment expectation.

Even looking at the Tomb of Annihilation campaign, there are several evil NPCs you can work with without them betraying you, mistreating you, or the like. They will not hesitate to have you killed if things go sour, but they won't otherwise.

[Contrast]

DnD is not a reality emulator, so if you want - go on - pretend your ____ evil character who cooperates with the party and talks about doing human sacrifices (or other really bad things with big consequences) but never does is something other than, in actuality, a "token evil" character. You can do that. And if you believe hard enough, it will be evil. To you.

This is part of the problem with the alignment chart. There's just an on/off switch - either you're evil or you're not.

You're not leaving any room between 'petty thug' and 'serial killer' on the morality spectrum. You're seeing each character as an exemplar of their alignment, while I see the alignment as the closest approximation to where they lie on a spectrum.

So if we put evil your evil character at 0, a neutral character at 50 and a good character at 100 - you're saying anyone not 0 isn't really evil while I'd say that while someone at 20 isn't really evil they are still more evil than they are neutral so that is what would get written on their character sheet.

Edit - Maybe it would help if we didn't use such an emotive word as 'evil'? Would you agree its possible for someone to play a reasonably immoral character and a completely immoral character in different ways?

[Whit]

Exactly. Like the movie 50 shades of grey(j/k) there are 50 shades of evil as well as good.
I bet everyone here can agree that their character has done something that doesn’t follow the strict alignment they picked.

How many times has the group slay an orc or other X that was described by the dm as extremely hurt or wavering and instead of taking prisoner by persuasion intimidation or knock out , just slay it. Oh and let’s not forget about looting the dead bodies or tossing their house for hidden loot. We killed it now let’s steal from it’s dead corpse that’s VERY Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good.

[Tanarii]

How many times has the group slay an orc or other X that was described by the dm as extremely hurt or wavering and instead of taking prisoner by persuasion intimidation or knock out , just slay it. Oh and let’s not forget about looting the dead bodies or tossing their house for hidden loot. We killed it now let’s steal from it’s dead corpse that’s VERY Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good.
Yeah actually it is. They're CE orcs. You're doing society and individuals in it a favor by eradicating them. That's the entire point of Alignment.

Unless you DM is disregarding what Alignment means and what Orcs are lore-wise, and running a hpuse ruled game of "morally gray D&D", of course.