PDA

View Full Version : Evil PCs



RamrodTheWizard
2007-09-11, 06:19 PM
Hey, am I alone in the the fact that I disallow evil PCs. This has recently come under contention with one of my friends and I need a more articulate argument then I can provide over aim. I believe that they mess up campaigns and that deep down the idea just doesn't click with me. I'm not looking for you to fight my battles, I'm just looking for points that i can look into to educate myself.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-09-11, 06:23 PM
I disallow evil PCs as a matter of course. What exactly is your friend's argument?

RamrodTheWizard
2007-09-11, 06:29 PM
He just doesn't think the point is rational. He says that evil PCs are workable in normal party, which he considers a nonhero. Claiming that the PC can work with the group to support their own interest. I understand his points, but it doesn't click with me. The feel of it doesn't fit with my views, but this isn't a huge deal, just a point of contention.

Tengu
2007-09-11, 06:31 PM
Most evil characters act in a way that any good character (and most neutral ones) roleplayed with at least a tiny amount of credibility wouldn't associate with them, but made their best to see the evil character in question killed or jailed. Those evil characters who can work in a team with an otherwise good/neutral group usually have the evil part of their alignment questioned (see how many people say that Jayne from Firefly would be CN).

Green Bean
2007-09-11, 06:35 PM
Evil PCs only really work for campaigns where the whole party's evil. Even then, it's a pain to DM. And in a party of good/neutrals, it becomes even harder. Not only are you going to have to deal with backstabbing (on both sides; obviously evil people don't tend to last long in good parties), but you'll need to figure out how to motivate the evil guy to actually go along with the party. It can end up being twice as much work.

Jannex
2007-09-11, 06:49 PM
There are thematic considerations as well. If, as the DM, you're going for a more "heroic" feel to your campaign, then an evil character won't fit in with that.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-11, 06:50 PM
Evil PCs only really work for campaigns where the whole party's evil. Even then, it's a pain to DM. And in a party of good/neutrals, it becomes even harder. Not only are you going to have to deal with backstabbing (on both sides; obviously evil people don't tend to last long in good parties), but you'll need to figure out how to motivate the evil guy to actually go along with the party. It can end up being twice as much work.

Sorry, but that's crap.

No, you don't have to deal with backstabbing. You deal with backstabbing from backstabbing characters, not from evil ones; someone can be Evil but still be loyal to his friends. Chaotic Neutral characters, for example, are just as likely to backstab.

Evil just means that a character is willing to harm others to benefit himselof, not vice-versa. It doesn't have to be *all* others; he could be kind to his dear old mum and give her half the money he makes so that she can buy medicines for her painful illness. He could consider the party his best friends.


To the OP: "Evil PCs" are a broad category; "evil" covers a potentially infinite number of characters. I think that if you think it over, you'll find what you really mean is that you don't want characters acting in certain game-disrupting ways that you associate with the Evil alignment (I'll note here that Paladins, who are Lawful Good, are about as game-disrupting as evil characters when both are done wrong).

Identify what those actions are. For example, "I don't want any party infighting. You should be loyal to and/or trust the party. I don't want you murdering random NPCs. I don't want to have to figure out an extra reason on top of the basic for you to stay with the party, go on the quests, et cetera."
Those are reasonable things. If the player can make a Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Evil character who can follow those campaign rules, then why does his alignment matter? You can tell him as much. "Don't do X, Y, and Z; if you can make an evil character who follows the rules, go ahead. The point is that all the characters, evil or not, have to follow the rules."

Some players treat evil alignments like an excuse to do whatever they want, disregarding the plot, the party, and everyone else's fun.
Some players treat chaotic alignments that way, too.
Not all of them do. Ban disruptive behavior, not alignments.

asqwasqw
2007-09-11, 06:51 PM
How evil is his character? Is he the slaughter everyone in sight kind of person or the rational, I don't care who gets in my way, I will get what I want type of person?

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-11, 06:53 PM
If he thinks he can pull it off, I'd say give it a try. There are ways to play an evil character in a group of non-evils - after all, all good bad guys need a few stooges, and just because someone is greedy and puts himself first doesn't mean he can't be part of a team.

But it can be a terrible experience that can split or even destroy a group if not played correctly.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-11, 06:57 PM
In general, no, I've not had evil party members in good groups. Oddly enough, no one seems to care about having Chaotic members in Lawful groups, or vice versa.

I'd allow an Evil character in a good group if we can establish a good pecking order. If the good characters can keep the evil character under control (mostly), then the situation will work. If the evil character would end up walking all over the good party and hindering the party's short and long term efforts, then it's not a great idea to have him along.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-11, 06:58 PM
It really depends where you draw the 'evil' line.

It seems obvious to me that a character who would just as cheerfully plunder towns as dungeons is evil, even if they are deterred from doing so by threat of retaliation and by the demands of allies who they are unwilling to break with (for whatever reason). Such a character is perfectly viable in a heroic-good type game, provided that either that character always has some (good) selfish reason available for what the party does, or the character has some leash keeping them with the party line when they do completely altruistic things.

Some people seem to classify that character as neutral, and require that an evil character not simply be unconcerned with the lives of others but rather be actively inimical to them. If you don't consider someone evil until they're a rampaging sadist, pyromaniac, mass poisoner, or eater of live babies, you'll have some trouble fitting evil characters into almost any party. Or justifying why they haven't been hung yet, for that matter.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-11, 06:59 PM
In general, no, I've not had evil party members in good groups. Oddly enough, no one seems to care about having Chaotic members in Lawful groups, or vice versa.

I'd allow an Evil character in a good group if we can establish a good pecking order. If the good characters can keep the evil character under control (mostly), then the situation will work. If the evil character would end up walking all over the good party and hindering the party's short and long term efforts, then it's not a great idea to have him along.

Presumably, the evil character--like *any* character--has a reason he's with the party. Given that, hindering the party's efforts isn't evil, it's just stupid and suicidal.

The Glyphstone
2007-09-11, 07:00 PM
See also: Belkar. He's a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who functions as part of a Good-aligned group.

WrathOfLife
2007-09-11, 07:04 PM
Well, in a game I'm in right now most of the party 3/5 are evil. The balance is found.... with some give and take. Mostly, the weaker evils (the kobold and the necro) give in to the stronger evil (troll rogue). Although the Kobold (myself) and the troll plot to kill each other, neither of them can really act to openly because the good characters might pick sides or they might be badly wounded or killed (a growing threat to the troll as my kobold caster nears his first save or die).

The plot continues and is, if anything speed along by the evil acts of the 3. They don't go around killing random people or being jerky (well execpt for the troll), they instead choose moments where bending the moral norm will provide them with better or faster awnsers, for example torturing for information. Naturally being evil doesn't mean stupid, so the evil characters did the job away from the good characters, and when the poor fellow escaped, they either made disguise checks or left town.


In general I find that most evil partys or characters work best if they make moves to hide there evil side. There's a reason that the BBEG always has a party of do-gooders after him.

However I'v also encountered the no evil in a party games, and I enjoy these as they tend to reduce the encounters with the old 'I pick-pocket all the loot from the fighter' kind of players.

Its really up to how you want to run your game, if the players don't like it, well... there are always more players than DMs.

Danin
2007-09-11, 07:08 PM
I've had a number of evil PCs in my campaigns with varried success. I simply explained the rules ahead of time to them and they managed to follow them. Some seem more neutral than evil, others seem entirely evil without disrupting the party ("The Tempest" is a good example of this, a Chaotic Evil Cleric of Talos). I allow it but if it disrupts game play I'll axe em off.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-11, 07:10 PM
There's no reason to ban Evil characters; if a player wants to ruin a campaign, they'll do it just as quickly as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good.

BlackStaticWolf
2007-09-11, 07:16 PM
When I'm running a campaign with an overarching plot that requires it, I not only ban evil... I ban neutral. It's all about the kind of campaign I want to run, and I'm very up front with my players... I tell them exactly what I want.

What restrictions I place depends entirely on what kind of campaign I want to run. Sometimes I've placed no restrictions at all, other times I've actually required specific class make-ups.

Lemur
2007-09-11, 07:19 PM
As usual, there are different perceptions on what "evil" as an alignment entails. The other difficulty is that disruptive characters or players can really have any alignment.

Paladins, even non-Miko types, are infamous for conflicting with the rest of the party due to being too good for practical adventuring. Likewise, chaotic characters might take a lot of leeway on screwing with how things go, and a CG or CN character could potentially "mess up" the campaign without committing an evil act. Thematic concerns are valid, however. Evil characters don't usually fit in when high heroism is expected (likewise, paladins don't fit in well with grim n' gritty settings)

Ramrod, look at it this way. There's one way to check your views on the matter: let the player make an evil character. What's the worst that could happen? If it really becomes disruptive, you're justified in taking the character away and enforcing a "no evil characters" policy. If it turns out not to be a problem, everything's cool, and there's no need to sweat it any more. Keep in mind that you have to be fair, and not vindictively work against a player just because he's evil. If the NPCs are metagaming against the evil PC, there's going to be problems.

It's just a game, after all. Have fun and try new stuff out.

slexlollar89
2007-09-11, 07:22 PM
If the man wants to be evil, you should consider it, but tell the peron that he/she is not to disrupt the game or you will no allow the same type of character again. If he insist on being disruptive, dont allow him to play the campaign, but don't penalize a viable role-playing option.

Dausuul
2007-09-11, 07:30 PM
See also: Belkar. He's a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who functions as part of a Good-aligned group.

...badly. Actually, if I were going to ban evil characters, Belkar would be a textbook case of why.

Better example: Raistlin Majere.

Saph
2007-09-11, 07:44 PM
Evil characters can work fine with a good/neutral party, as long as the player of the evil PC is mature and reasonably intelligent. They have to know when to back down, and to avoid doing things that they know will seriously annoy the rest of the group (and if they get found out, they have to know what to expect).

That said, there are two big problems with evil characters, neither of which make it impossible to play an evil character, but which are likely to cause issues.

1) Evil characters tend not to play well with others, especially Chaotic Evil ones. An evil character is much more likely to put himself above everyone else, and this can cause problems given the generally team-based nature of D&D. It can also be hard to justify why your Good-aligned characters are putting up with an evil companion in the first place - most of the members of the OotS are ambivalent about having Belkar around, and for good reason, given that he's openly talked about killing party members for fun and XP.

2) There's a certain set of players out there who tend to play characters with evil alignments. These are the guys who kill shopkeepers in the middle of a town filled with high-level clerics and paladins, then when retribution arrives run to the rest of the party and expect to be protected. These are also the guys who think tabletop RPGs are great places to act out violent sexual fantasies, and who think everyone else at the table will be really impressed by listening to detailed descriptions of the novel torture techniques they've come up with. Now, most players who play evil PCs aren't like these guys, but there are enough of them out there that most DMs are justifiably wary of being told "I want to play an evil character."

- Saph

freeze43
2007-09-11, 07:49 PM
Evil =/= Uncontrollable rage-ahol backstabbing villains o' doom.

No. Evil can mean that you are greedy, have a penchant for stealing and can ignore what is 'right' in order to get what you need. Hell, some of the nastiest Lawful Evil people have maxims to not hurt the innocent. Belkar alone shows that an evil character can work just fine.

Saph
2007-09-11, 07:56 PM
No. Evil can mean that you are greedy, have a penchant for stealing and can ignore what is 'right' in order to get what you need. Hell, some of the nastiest Lawful Evil people have maxims to not hurt the innocent. Belkar alone shows that an evil character can work just fine.

Belkar is a perfect example of why many players do not want evil PCs in their party. He's tried to kill one party member for XP and is so keen on getting to kill others that he spent his question to the Oracle finding out about it. If I had a character like Belkar in my party, I'd either get rid of the PC or get rid of the player. I have enough to worry about fighting monsters without having to deal with a PC putting a dagger in my back too.

- Saph

Freshmeat
2007-09-11, 08:02 PM
Some players treat evil alignments like an excuse to do whatever they want, disregarding the plot, the party, and everyone else's fun.
Some players treat chaotic alignments that way, too.
Not all of them do. Ban disruptive behavior, not alignments.

QFT. Exactly what I was thinking when I read the first post.

For the DM evil does offer more risks though. One can roleplay a good character either in a horrible or a fantastic manner, and in neither case wil they be disruptive. Evil characters on the other hand, if roleplayed badly, will have an adverse effect. But there's nothing wrong with evil on itself.

If you trust your players to play their evil characters in a mature manner, they can be a great boon to a roleplaying session. If you're dealing with the kind that only thinks of 'kill everyone! lol!' when trying to 'roleplay' an evil character, the problem lies with that player, not the alignment.

If you ask me, it's just because of the prevalent clichés that exist. Just like rogues have to be greedy and paladins have to be preachy and holier-than-thou, so too must evil characters apparently try to kill everyone 'just because'. And then people say clichés are clichés 'because they work'. Ugh.

You know what? I advise you to ditch alignments altogether. People will act in a more logical, natural way and it takes away the entire Morality 101 issue where people that don't ping on detect evil are trustworthy, chivalrous and honorable, whereas people that do are nothing but lying, greedy monsters that have undoubtedly murdered hundreds of innocents already.

Xuincherguixe
2007-09-11, 08:06 PM
Evil characters being allowed is generally the exception to the rule.

It can be pretty hard for evil and good types to get along. Be prepared for conflict. Hopefully it ends up being mostly just in character yelling. Or no characters are eliminated that anyone is particularly attached too.

I like evil characters, but the books themselves don't just not allow evil characters, they seem to not even act as if they're something that is in the range of possibility. Sort of like how no one thought of portable music players before the invention of the wheel (okay, not completely impossible. But let's just pretend that it was outside of the range of things cavemen could think of)


If you do allow it (and I'm not saying you should), make sure that the guy isn't going to backstab and betray the other PCs. NPCs in my mind are always fair game, but if you don't feel that it's alright for after the princesses usefulness is at an end that she gets sold into slavery when the other characters can't find out about it then really there's no good reason to allow evil PCs. I know I for one would get pretty sick and tired of not being able to maim or destroy anyones lives fast while playing an evil dude.


Really, I would say that Evil PCs fall into the category of house rules.

DiscipleofBob
2007-09-11, 08:09 PM
I don't disallow evil PC's, but I do frown upon them in my games. Basically it comes down to whether or not said PC will act rational in his evil and still be beneficial to the party, or whether he'll just go around torching villages and killing helpless NPCs. The latter is disallowed.

drunkmonk
2007-09-11, 08:25 PM
There is a thread about happy endings, buy I think that this might be a better place to talk about the right time to play an evil character.

First, let me say that I don’t agree with backstabbing, stealing, or otherwise jamming up other PCs. In fact, that would not happen in our group, because we are all friends who know each other really well. I have thrown a lazy boy recliner on our DM for being a jerk in the game. If one of us killed a fellow PC in the game, I don’t think he would make it out of the room without getting his ass handed to him.

However, If we as a group are told that we are going to start a new game that is going to have a very dark theme, I think an evil PC is perfectly workable. IF the ideas covered are war, betrayal, and general delving into humanoid inhumanity, then I think that I would rather play an anti-hero. Somebody who might not be as “likeable” as some of the characters I have run over the years, but maybe more appropriate to the theme of the game. This is PARTICULARLY true when the DM does not allow raise dead or any of its fellows. Also, if a dark PC gets killed at the last fight taking even greater evil down with him – then it might feel like all is right in a weird way.

DM

Runolfr
2007-09-11, 08:30 PM
Those evil characters who can work in a team with an otherwise good/neutral group usually have the evil part of their alignment questioned (see how many people say that Jayne from Firefly would be CN).

Not me. I think Jayne's evil.

LongVin
2007-09-11, 08:59 PM
Taking an example from literature look at Artemis Entreri from R.A. Salvatore books. He is evil but he is in control, he doesn't randomly go and kill innocents. He works well in a group because it is mutually beneficial as seen with him and Jarlaxle.

Stephen_E
2007-09-11, 09:11 PM
For party disruptive behaviour I've seen Lawful PCs be used as disruptive/hijacking tools as much or more than Chaos/Evil. "I have my rules/code and everyone must follow them" types.

Note the term "tools". Disruptive behaviour is a player activity, not a PC activity. Confusing the two is what often causes difficulty in debates.

If you can't beleive that a evil PC can play in a party without been disruptive think about this. The odds are that a reasonable amount of the people you play with, work with, or otherwise hang around with are "evil" by DnD standards. I don't mean "EVIL" as in trying for world domination, I mean "evil" as in the bend/ignore the rules to suit themselves, look after themselves 1st, screw others who get in their way, are greedy and/or manipulative.

I can think of a friend of mine in particular who has done much of this and who I consider "evil" (and I'm not alone in my view). Yet I like the person and they are quite capable of teamwork. Indeed is quite good at it. They will tend to try and arrane things so that they end up with a slightly bigger share of the pie than anyone else, but they also work hard to make sure that everyone in the party gets the biggest share possible from everyone outside the party. The problem with this person is if he considers himself in competition with others. Then his evil side really shows.

Summing up.
Is the player a disruptive player? If so you're likely to have problems regardless. As a "evil" PC he's likely to be more open about it, but by the same token you can be more open in shutting him down.

Is your party a co-operative party or a competitive party. In the latter "evil" is likely to have more internal impact on the party.

If you insist that the PC's backstory makes him/her a part of the group, and that they aren't a psycho-villian, there is no particular reason they can't be a productive member of the party.

As for your personal distaste of the idea of an "evil" PC. Make a list of exactly why you don't like the idea of "evil" PCs. What exactly do you think they do that is so objectionable. Show this list to the player who wishes to paly a evil PC and see what they say. If they say "but that's the point of playing evil" then you're probably right to say no. If they say "but that's nothing to do with my concept" or "Hmmm, yeah, I can work with that" then you should let them go ahead. The inbetween situation is if they go "fine" on most of the points, but say "that's silly" on a few. Then you should sit down and have a discussion and see if their is a compromisable posistion.

Stephen

Winterwind
2007-09-11, 09:12 PM
I'll just quote what I wrote in an older thread on that matter.


I believe there are two reasons for, or rather two ways of playing evil characters, one I consider good and one I consider bad.

The good one is playing the evil character in order to explore his psychology - presumably, in the moment the character realises the evil of her/his ways. What will follow? Redemption? Desperation? Or satisfaction? Social commentary is also possible - is the world bad enough to fully accept and, possibly, even reward being evil, or are there still some borders left?

The bad one is simply playing the evil character for the sake of being evil. I think there are two causes for this, which have to come together in order for this to happen. The first one is, as Tengu said (who I absolutely agree with), the players thinking evil is badass. This is, it seems to me, partially caused by the evil guys in movies/books/whatever so often being much more interesting personalities than the heroes (for a good reason - the villain is often the active force in the conflict, the hero only counteracting), and partially by an immature spirit of being a rebel ("look, we're breaking the rules!"). The second one is the players not thinking far enough. They go "yay, my minions will conquer that kingdom!", but don't stop a second to picture the wounded woman, who is hiding in the straw and is going to survive the battle, who is watching, tears streaming, as her children are raped and slaughtered. If the players went as far as to imagine that scene and think about what must be going on in said woman's heart, I wonder whether they would still claim evil was "cool" somehow...

In short, I think evil characters should be allowed under the right circumstances, and the right reasons for playing them provided. An initially evil character who is meant to reach redemption is promising an interesting story and should be allowed. A character who is meant to arbitrarily slaughter NPCs "because it's cool" would disturb me greatly, and hence would be disallowed (as anything disturbing any player would be).

PS: The thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2853484#post2853484) the above quote comes from had a similar theme, so perhaps you can find the arguments you are looking for therein.

Lord Tataraus
2007-09-11, 09:42 PM
As a DM I do not give an evil restriction up front, though I do mention the tone of the game. If a PC then wanted to play an evil character, they tell me why and I say yes or no. My PCs usually play non-good groups anyway for more dynamic moral questions. I have an evil character that I will be running in a future game who is LE but in a good party. However, he never shows any indication of his evil tendencies to the rest of the party. He uses the party as protection and as a way to gain knowledge. His backstory is full of betrayal, starting with his race betraying him because he has "tainted" blood (i.e. fiendish). Because of the unfairness of it, he began to hate and readily betray. He learn from a master shadowcaster (that's his class by the way) and killed him after his master told him "I have taught you all I know, now it is time for you to go out into the world and learn its secrets." He then went in search of a adventuring party to travel with, slaying them in their sleep after the became suspicious and he had glean everything he could from them. After two more such incidents, he has joined the current party. He worships Levistus and believes in the consumption of sentient beings as a way to send their souls to his master and for him to gain power. This type of character, one who stays with the party until he can gain nothing more, is fine with me.

tobian
2007-09-11, 09:57 PM
I actually have had the urge twice now to play an Evil character. Neither came to anything due to me already having a character I really liked, though I think it would provide insight if I was to play an evil character. Basically, as had been stated, there are two ways to play an evil character.

The Good Way (oh, the irony)
The Bad Way

If I had created him, I would be sure I was doing it The Good Way. Meaning, no mindless slaughter (unless the encounter was made for that) and I should not be asinine out-of-character. Really, the second one is whats most important imo -if you can play an evil character without being asinine out of character to the other players at the table, then go for it!

I think the problem is when a player takes playing an evil character too far and carries it out to the table to where it interferes with the enjoyment of the others present. Though it is a tight rope to walk-you have to be evil and yet still help to progress the campaign; balancing that can be difficult, and where most problems tend to stem from.

TGWG
2007-09-11, 11:04 PM
I see playing an evil character as a priviledge. after a few campains with the DM, and a few dungeons you talk to the DM to see if your rdy. if he says yes you have to share everything about the character with him, his backstory, his persona, what he intends to do, to avoid being destructive to the party, and if - dispite all of this you're still distructive than the priviledge can be taken away.

Other than that, I think the only people who are allowed to make evil PC are people who do it because they want to "create a character." And I'm not just talking about character sheets. I'm talking about backstory, dislikes, reactions, flaws, virtues, ect. (let's face it some DnD players out there are only doing it because of the dice, not that that's a bad thing BTW). But the people who create evil PCs are also obligated to change there character around so that it won't disrupt the fun of the other party members.

Person_Man
2007-09-11, 11:33 PM
I've successfully been in and DM'd for parties of all Good, all Neutral, and all Evil PCs, as well as mixed parties. We've even had a Lawful Good Knight and a Chaotic Evil Rogue in the same party. How does it work?

Maturity. Players have to accept some ground rules before they play in a party together. No one can attack or steal from another party member. No one can blatantly act against the party's collective judgment. No one can do something "because that's what my alignment would do," you actually have to think your decisions through and have a reasonable motivation, chance of success, and understanding of the possible consequences. And everyone has to think through a reasonable premise for everyone to be together.

In this case, the two PCs grew up together, were close friends, and had saved each others lives countless times. And although they disagreed about everything, they felt that they were better off watching each others backs. If there was a disagreement (there were lots) they'd have a rational discussion, and try to convince the other party members to go along with their view. If after lengthy discussion they still couldn't agree, then they had to go along with majority rule, or at least sit on the sidelines and not thwart what most players wanted to do.

A Chaotic Evil Rogue has no respect for the law or for life. But he doesn't just walk around stealing and killing people. He needs a reason for doing so. Although immature players can choose to play a character that's psychotic, a reasonable Rogue doesn't need to kill peasants just to watch them die. He can break the law by setting up a protection racket or pulling off a big heist, and he can show his contempt for life by torturing and drinking the blood of his enemies, of which there are many (this is D&D after all). And perhaps he can be convinced by his friends to hold off on stealing or putting bamboo shoots up the fingernails of his enemies, if they can show him that he has more to gain from some other course of action.

A Lawful Good Knight respects the law and protects the innocent. But he's not a three laws safe robot. Although an immature players can choose to play a Knight who does everything "because my god commands it" (whatever that means - we made up your god last week, don't you remember?), a reasonable Knight understands that sometimes you have to make compromises to accomplish a greater good. And even the most accomplished Good Knights are capable of sin - Lancelot, for example. And perhaps the Knight can be convinced to turn a blind eye to some thievery. The noble is corrupt after all, and we really need the money to buy some better gear to defeat that Lich planning the genocide of everything everywhere.

So to recap - alignment is just a guideline. Good does not always equal hero. Evil does not always equal sociopath. Game on.

The Professor
2007-09-12, 12:26 AM
I played an evil character in a mixed alignment group. Heck, he ended up being the leader. He was a Lawful Evil Wizard, and with a powerful intellect, wisdom, and charisma, was able to execute what few plans he had to enact throughout the campaign perfectly.

The CG Bard hated him, and the wizard hated the bard right back. The wizard, however, made sure to show the bard that he was more powerful, and to contradict him on large scales would be incredibly poor in judgment. The CN- later CE rogue loved him to death because he was powerful and wise, but the wizard hated him for being unpredictable and for having an unrelenting passion for theft and murder "just because he could do it".

Before the campaign ended, he planned to murder both the bard and the rogue. Nobody needs folks sporting anarchy. Just causes problems. :smallsmile:

Interestingly enough, he got along the best with the LG Favored Soul of Illmater. They disagreed with eachother on very few things. In fact, she was the only one he actually liked. Because of his respect for her passions and undying devotion, he eventually fell in love with her as well.

The Evil things he was responsible for, were his complete apathy towards other beings' lives, and his utter lack of restraint for butchering anything resembling orcs.

There's not often a problem with Evil alignments. There's a few things Good and Evil PCs won't agree on, but in my experience, if everyone is mature about it, the Lawful folks are going to hate Chaotic ones before the Good hates the Evil.

Khanderas
2007-09-12, 01:24 AM
Much of the D&D is "kill stuff and loot them". Sounds evil to me :smallbiggrin:
But it seems to me there are two kinds of evil played.
Stupid evil: where you do attack the city guards, eat babies in front of their mothers and generally go over the top. This guy, in a Good / Neutral part wont work. Might not work in an evil group either, unless you are all happily backstabbing eachother a la' munchkin.
Believable evil: You want something (power, money, advance your god's agenda and so on) and you don't care how that goal is accomplished. If you get money or power by aiding and helping out vanquish evil that threaten the civilization... no problem. Good people don't want to kill other Good people, but Evil people don't have to have a problem killing Evil people.

Edit: You best have the player define the evil characters goal to you as DM. Then it is up to him to let the other PCs know, just as long as the goal is not "kill the other PC".

earlblue
2007-09-12, 01:31 AM
AS a DM, my rule for players when they create their character is usually this: they have a choice on what they want to play, within the rules as stated in books I allow.

This mean that they do have a choice as to what alignment they want their characters to be. I usually allow discussion as to what they are creating, so that if they want to, they can have a distribution of roles and have a mix of classes.

I will admit that there is a form of 'metagaming' going on here, cause technically, there is no real way someone's character can know exactly (as stated on character sheets) what the rest of the group is.

Yeah, a guy might dress in armor, wield a big sword, but there is no real way to tell that he is a LG paladin, CG warrior or TN cleric/fighter/thief.

AS with alignment, unless you have someone actively casting some sort of detect alignment spells, and the rest failing saves, again, there is no real way of knowing what the character's alignment is.

Now, as to group behaviour dynamics, alignment of character don't usually come into play often. Simply because most players I come across don't stick to alignment. They stick to their own behaviour pattern. It is the rare player that undergo a complete personality change when they 'role-play'. Good align character that work well with evil align character probably does so because the players get along well.

MY advice on alignment? It is a guideline. There is no real need to bash someone with it. Unless a guy is acting grossly out of alignment, penalize him/her only when there is a class restriction on alignment.

I usually warn players when they create an evil character first time. My warning is this: For every action, there is an equal reaction. For players who backstab people (regardless of alignment), be prepared to be backstabbed by your fellow players, especially at a critical moment for you. For those who burn towns, be prepared to be hunted down by people who will burn you. Evil actions, have their price. You might get away with it your whole life, but you have to spent it fearing that someone will come after you.

That's life. That is logical. That is what that can happen in a role playing game.

OBeQuiet UWannaBe

I often play evil characters. First of all, I admit that there is this little evil creature within me, that it exist, that it is part of me. I will be in denial if I say that I am so holy that there is no evil within me.

But that does not mean that I am evil, or a bad person.

I am in control.:smallcool:

In games, I am often NE. In real life I am probably TN, with some good tendencies and a lot of evil hobbits, *ahem* habbits.:smalleek:

Kurtulmak
2007-09-12, 02:55 AM
I've played an evil character in a good-aligned party before to no ill effect. All it takes is to have the player in question understand that just because they're 'evil' doesn't mean they don't have to work well with the group, and they can't go about disrupting the campaign just for giggles. That's more psychotic, really.

Trik was a Neutral Evil Kobold bard. His reasons for joining the campaign were simple: the world was in danger of being destroyed, and he didn't want to die, so he joined a ragtag team of heroes in an attempt to help prevent this.
Trik was a slimy, selfish jerk, who nevertheless managed to make himself look regal and important at all times. I don't think there was any doubt as to his alignment by anyone in the campaign. When he was alone, he tended to use sneaky, underhanded methods whenever he could get away with them, and employ powerful Diplomacy skills whenever he couldn't. All in all, he would've made a good villain, the sort that turns villagers against the PCs and you can never quite reach without being tried for murder.

The only catch here being that he wanted to HELP the PCs, not hinder them. So there was no stealing, no mucking with their reputation, no manipulation or blackmail of any kind. Because, quite frankly, he wanted a working relationship with these people and doing bad things to them would be really, really contrary to that end. Instead he used his influential skills to get the party through difficult locations, provided backup healing, made knowledge checks for the benefit of the team, and other such bardy services. Eventually he left the party not for personal gain, but so that he could help convince another nation to join the party's homeland in the fight against the evil otherworldly outsiders who wanted to destroy the world. He even succeeded (after the PCs had managed to beat the BBEG and avert a disaster, of course), thus lending great help to the cleaning up of all the remaining evil otherworldly types and going down in history as a uniter of nations. All this despite being a pompous, selfish jerk who was ultimately only out for himself.

So, yeah. Evil characters can still do heroic things. They can save the world, help the party, and generally manage to do everything a good-aligned character can do. The only requirement is that you make sure the player knows the difference between "evil" and "I do whatever I want because I feel like it".

Dervag
2007-09-12, 03:37 AM
I played an evil character in a mixed alignment group. Heck, he ended up being the leader. He was a Lawful Evil Wizard, and with a powerful intellect, wisdom, and charisma, was able to execute what few plans he had to enact throughout the campaign perfectly.Ah, the "Skylark DuQuesne" style of evil character.


The Evil things he was responsible for, were his complete apathy towards other beings' lives, and his utter lack of restraint for butchering anything resembling orcs.

There's not often a problem with Evil alignments. There's a few things Good and Evil PCs won't agree on, but in my experience, if everyone is mature about it, the Lawful folks are going to hate Chaotic ones before the Good hates the Evil.You sound like your experiences are with mature roleplayers who can reliably play convincing characters without deliberately doing stupid things to antagonize other players.

That solves most possible problems right there.

As for your comment on who ends up hating who, it's simple.

Good merely finds Evil repulsive.

Lawful finds Chaotic annoying. And irritation is often a much more powerful force than righteous indignation.

Tengu
2007-09-12, 11:30 AM
Not me. I think Jayne's evil.

So do I. However, I've seen many people arguing on the contrary.


Much of the D&D is "kill stuff and loot them". Sounds evil to me :smallbiggrin:


Except that parties usually have a reason to kill stuff. "If they try to kill you, you kill them back!" is not an evil rule.

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

Having never played DND, I do not use alignments and instead want my players to describe the personality of their characters. Therefore, I do not have to guess does a PC's NE character means "I killzor everything that movexorz and eatzor babies lolx I'm so ebil!!1one1eleven!1" or "a disgruntled mercenary that has no compassion for others and will work for anyone for a right sum of money, but does not actively perform evil deeds".

Morty
2007-09-12, 11:47 AM
Evil characters can be realistic and credible, it's just that they're so rare. Most players use "evil" as an excuse to do anything they want. There're also players who aren't evil, they just metagame to an extreme.
I'm actually playing with NE elf rogue in group and it's not really bad. The player's RPing evilness in realistic, non-murderous way.
It's not really about banning evil characters, but rather making sure players roleplay evilness in a good way. It's the same thing as banning non-human characters.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-12, 12:15 PM
The real problem with an evil character is that people don't know how to differentiate the alignments and actions. Mebbe a quick reap of the three evils in the world helps:

Lawful evil: Ruthless, knowledgeable, would like to follow or create militaristic regimes, since he/she enjoys being in a position of power from which he/she can't be brought down. In short, the kind of guy who wouldn't twist D&D rules ("Weapon supremacy allows for +10000 damage and AB!"), but who would powergame his way to victory ("I use shocktrooper, trip, or some other combo!/ since they don't have HD limits, I bring a 100000 Hd tarrasque to bring you down!"). Would likely stablish a pecking order in the party, and will follow the boss, even grudgingly, if it'll farther his/her schemes.

Chaotic evil: Likely the hardest evil char to integrate. If we check the description of a CN guy, while he/she's more likely to cross a bridge than jump from it, he/she might do it if he/she feels tempted or has a reason. A CE party member might even go around doin' wanton killings, but he/she will cover his/her tracks, because facing the party would be the dumbest idea since substituting direct democracy for a representative democracy. Is least likely to follow the party, and will likely need some big threats to be kept on the line.

Neutral evil: Likely the easiest char to integrate, since he/she has a gigantic conviction to his/her own ideas, and is likely to grin and bear things if it'll bring some benefit with it. Since his/her own welfare is the most important thing to this character, simply trading benefits will suffice. Will also be likely to do a lot of good for the party without complaining (BTW, I'm the kind of guy who houserules paladins and monks as possibly NG, NE, or N, since even Gary Gygax stated that he thought N something was the purest form of an alignment, and to be honest, being ready to do anything for greater good shows an incredible commitment. Lawful only, my ass.)


Usually, knowing what someone from a certain alignment will do will make sure good party members know how to make a friend of the evil char, or at least keep him under control.

PS: Also, good, particularly chaotic, can be very bad at times. Just look at Red mask, from ToB, swordsage. He'll attack the saviors of the universe, or even a saint if he sees it as more beneficial to people, even when it mightn't be the case.

Chaos Bringer
2007-09-12, 12:54 PM
I've been very put off of mixed alignment parties since my very first game. My poor paladin always trying to be a good person next to a CE cleric (played by a CE player). My foolish paladin kept trying to find the good side to him, and kept getting knocked unconscious for his effort. The cleric kept healing him back up cuz he just thought the whole situation was funny. Then I learned as a player it was perfectly fine to slay evil. 2 criticals later i was a much happier paladin. anyway, more on topic, i try not to do mixed parties anymore because the group of friends i play with tends to kill each other at any provocation, mixed alignments really dont help.