Evil PCs: To Do and Not To Do

[Nagog]

So I've had a desire lately to play evil PCs. Naturally, this has caused some alarm among the DMs I've brought it up with, as the general consensus is "My character is evil so I do what I want." and therefore have "in character reason" to be a murderhobo.
This isn't what I typically go for with Evil PCs, but the stigma is there for very good reason.
My homerule for a PC wanting to be anywhere on the Evil end of the Alignment Chart is that the character has to have a goal or asperation that they are actively working towards. Are they greedy? Power-hungry? War-mongering? etc. With that information in mind, I'm typically capable of reigning them in.

What are some of your ways of managing Evil PCs?

[OldTrees1]

By agreeing to bring a PC to a group you are agreeing that the PC will work as part of the group. Their goals will align with the group succeeding. Their methods will not fracture the group.

Tada!

That is literally all there is to it.

I have played a Necromancer that believed they needed to cut the world population by orders of magnitude in order to get it back to the correct population count. They frequently used a torturous touch that simultaneously damaged and healed. And all I needed to do was have their goals align with the group succeeding and have them avoid methods that would fracture the group.

Bonus points:
Want to know how to play a Good PC? The EXACT same rules.
Lawful? The EXACT same rules.
Chaotic? Same rules but in reverse order (because chaos).

Players can misbehave as any alignment. So the way to avoid misbehaving is alignment agnostic.

Sidenote: I do also like PCs to have active goals.

[micahaphone]

I mostly deal with alignments by forgetting they exist. There's an alignment chart that fills in all 9 squares with Batman. Because many things can be perceived or justified through many lenses. Write up some ideals, bonds, flaws, or skip even that and come up with a character who has a reason to adventure and wants to work with others.

For example, let's say I play as a noble who is 8th in line for the local throne. He wants to sit on that seat and damn the consequences. If he has to murder some siblings and cousins, so be it. But he's smart, and knows that the commonfolk are with the current regime, and just sweeping in and taking over in a bloody coup will end in his swift demise. So he has to adventure, appear to be a friend of the people, buy drinks in the tavern, get enough loot to fund good mercenaries and connections to hold the various keys of power. And being the hero of the area certainly helps.

That character is incredibly evil - they would murder their family without a second thought if they could get away with it. But they have a strong reason to go out adventuring and work together well with a party.

Hell, with some twisting and narrative work, you could try to paint yourself in a tragic light and convince people that you've been unjustly removed from the castle, that you deserve to be there, and there's some malicious secret order controlling the capitol. Clearly, you're a NG or CG rebellious member of the family who wants to make things right in this country.

[firelistener]

I'm just gonna say +1 to what OldTrees1 posted. Player Characters should cooperate. The end.

[Misterwhisper]

We just toss out alignments.

We treat it like this:

Give one positive phrase for your character and a negative one.

That is your general basis and stick with it.

Ex.

I built a bard not long ago who was a true performer, a singing and musical storytelling type of bard. Not much of a fighter but extremely social and just a really nice guy.

His positive phrase:

“Everyone deserves a little entertainment in their lives.”

He just wants to spread stories and songs and write down his live in a great novel for when he is gone.

His negative phrase:

“I just can’t bring myself to hurt others.”

Even if walking into a throne room of a Lich, he would at least try to talk them down. Even in combat he would only use buffs debuffs or psychic damaging spells. Physical damage is just too cruel for him.

However, just because you are a pc in a group does not always mean that you have to all have the same end goal or even like each other.

My favorite character I played in 5e was a LE swashbuckler rogue whose most hated enemy was the barbarian in our group but we were kind of stuck together due to plot.

We undermined each other constantly, insulted each other all the time, and eventually after over a year of playing the characters, and I want to say 4 years of game time and 3 planes, multiple dead gods and the last straw being broken, we dueled to the death in a throne room with 100s of onlookers.

It was great and we both loved it.

[Laserlight]

Evil characters can be friendly, have friends, work with a team, and avoid doing things that have negative consequences. Granted, they may also be taking every opportunity to quietly murder priests of the sun god, and when they finally get the chance to summon eternal darkness, they may well sacrifice their friends (with or without a tear), but until that point, they can cooperate with the party. Ideally you want to pick a "and then I kill them all and offer their souls in exchange for devilish poiwer, bwa ha ha" condition which will be after the expected end of the campaign. If you're in a book which might run to L8-10, make your end game something which should happen around L16, not L6.

[Cheesegear]

So I've had a desire lately to play evil PCs. Naturally, this has caused some alarm among the DMs I've brought it up with, as the general consensus is "My character is evil so I do what I want." and therefore have "in character reason" to be a murderhobo.

Just keep asking 'Why?' until you get a satisfactory answer. You probably wont get a satisfactory answer and your player will end up changing.

"I hate everyone."
Why?
"Uhh...Bandits killed my parents."
So you hate Bandits?
"No, everyone."
But why though? Why everyone?
"Uhhh..."

Straight up, in the PH, look at the Backgrounds. Your background must consist of at least four things;
- Personality
- Ideal
- Bond
- Flaw
Saying 'My character is Evil', just isn't good enough. Full stop. Any DM who allows being Evil for Evil's sake, deserves their ****ty role-player.


What are some of your ways of managing Evil PCs?

If your character is incapable of working in a team, roll a new character.

Easy motivations for Evil characters:
- I'm manipulating the party to get what I want, which includes pretending to be their friend. In return, I get a piece of the Dragon's horde.
- Safety-in-Numbers. If I travel the Mere of Dead Men by myself, I will die. It's dangerous to go alone. Take friends rubes.
- If I don't help save the world, the world ends. The world includes me in it. (The 'Lex Luthor Gambit')

Being Evil, does not mean 'I'm an anti-social ***hole.'

[Jerrykhor]

Alignment is a sacred cow that should never been in 5e, at least for the PCs. It allows players to justify their actions with 'My character would do X because my alignment is Y'. Contrary to what you think, evil people don't do things for the sake of being evil. They might not even think they are evil.

Most people don't want to deal with Evil PCs because players think its a license to be a ****. They are not easy to play well without annoying your party members. Also, there's the thing about the word 'evil' that makes people think they should kill babies and step on kittens to be considered evil.

[Cheesegear]

[Alignment] allows players to justify their actions with 'My character would do X because my alignment is Y'.

No it doesn't. The DM is the one who allows that. Not the book.


They might not even think they are evil.

...And that's what makes the best Evil PCs.


They are not easy to play well without annoying your party members.

Yes they are! All's you have to do is follow two, two simple rules:
1. Don't attack your party members (unless you plan on handing your character sheet to the DM and rolling a new character), and
2. Don't steal from your party members (unless you plan to run off, hand your character sheet to the DM and roll a new character)

There are dozens and dozens of Evil actions you can make that don't involve directly screwing over other players at the table.

[Fable Wright]

No it doesn't. The DM is the one who allows that. Not the book.

The DM being allowed to veto players' actions because "why would you do that" sounds pretty close to playing the game wrong.

To the OP:

Evil is fine. They have goals. They move the plot forward. They've got some reason to be doing what they're doing and can give me plenty of opportunities to have the players' actions have meaningful consequences.

The answer to Chaotic PCs is "No". When there's no discernible pattern between their behavior and the environment around them, I can't run the game, and their actions are far more likely to disrupt the game.

I can run a party of Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, C-3PO, and Obi-wan Kenobi. When they collectively sort out what they're doing and why, they're going to be a fairly cohesive unit with interesting chemistry working towards a goal.

I cannot run for a party of Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, Darth Maul, and Princess Leia. Han and Leia fight and break up 20 minutes in, Lando betrays everyone for the first big prize offered, Darth Maul gets into PvP at the first chance, and no one ever establishes trust with each other. Regardless of what drew this barely-functional team together in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

Alignment is a sacred cow that should never been in 5e, at least for the PCs. It allows players to justify their actions with 'My character would do X because my alignment is Y'.

No, it does not. That's now how 5e alignment works. You don't do X because your alignment is Y, your alignment is Y because you do X. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Randomthom]

A lot of folks carry a very backwards mindset when considering evil characters because of a simple concept that folks forget.

Many people have a goal to "do good". Nobody really has a goal to "do evil".

Evil is the side-effect, not the objective, of pursuit of another goal. Sometimes, ironically, the goal to "do good" can have the side effect of "doing evil".

Evil also comes in many forms. Selfishness, which is at the heart of every person, is a form of evil that often breeds more evil.

When designing an "evil" character, it is probably easier to define a character's goals and just give them a very small-to-non-existent list of things they aren't willing to do to achieve that goal.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I am playing a LE cleric in a group with a CG and LG clerics(we also have a CE cleric that our characters babysit).

I play him as a law enforcer. He will burn you, torcher you and kill you in order to keep the law. He will choose a punishment and delivery it as his god gave him the authority.

He travel with his friends in order to help them improve the world, each in his own way.

He is also very polite. He told a sea hag he pot on fire in the middle of a fight "Lady, I recommend you to pot out this fire that burns your flash" as he stabs her with his spear.

We also do a theological arguments between the characters(the funniest thing is that the CG dwarf cleric and my human LE cleric are almost always agreeing about stuff when it is not about making stuff and people suffer).


Here is some reading material I like about LE
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

[da newt]

As has been brought up already - in the real world almost no one thinks they are evil, almost no one believes they are the bad guy. For example Hitler thought of himself as the hero. It's easier to play an evil PC well if you keep this ideal in mind - they have a goal they believe is RIGHT and they are going to do everything they can to achieve it, including working well with others as needed.

WRT the adventuring party - there needs to be a legit reason why the Evil PC wants to be part of the team, and why the rest of the TEAM wants them to be there and trusts them enough to go into battle together. If you can't swing that, then it's all contrived BS that the evil PC is tolerated. One of most adventuring party's primary tasks is killing evil guys - they do it all the time, why wouldn't they attempt to destroy the evil PC?

What sort of an idiot would trust a fallen assimar, oathbreaker paladin who worships Asmodeus join the party?

Lastly, there need to be consequences for actions - if the evil PC does something evil, betrays the team, or causes problems - those issues need to be recognized and addressed by the party (other PCs) and the society/world (DM).

Playing an Evil PC in a 'good' party is easy to mess up and can ruin a game, but done well it can be very interesting.

[Spiritchaser]

So I've had a desire lately to play evil PCs. Naturally, this has caused some alarm among the DMs I've brought it up with, as the general consensus is "My character is evil so I do what I want." and therefore have "in character reason" to be a murderhobo.
This isn't what I typically go for with Evil PCs, but the stigma is there for very good reason.
My homerule for a PC wanting to be anywhere on the Evil end of the Alignment Chart is that the character has to have a goal or asperation that they are actively working towards. Are they greedy? Power-hungry? War-mongering? etc. With that information in mind, I'm typically capable of reigning them in.

What are some of your ways of managing Evil PCs?

The first must-do is to get buy in from the DM and other players. All of them. Assume that every other player should have veto power over this, but once they’re in, they’re in.

If they’re ok with “one of those” campaigns then so be it.

Other than that? Try to come up with a character personality or goals that can result in the character wanting to work with the party.

Try and imagine why the party might be convinced that this character might be a reasonable companion and play to that (at least at first)

For bonus points take expertise in cooking tools and be sure to carry some fava beans in your pack

[Hail Tempus]

Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil characters can fit into a party just fine, and there's no need to be disruptive.

I'm currently playing a Neutral Evil Tiefling Warlock. She's interested in getting more powerful and wealthy. She doesn't really care about helping people or doing good, and hurting others doesn't bother her. The rest of the party is neutral and/or lawful, though none of them are good. We think of ourselves as a bunch of private military contractors doing dirty jobs for the people in power. We don't go around kicking puppies or murdering orphans, we're professionals hired to do jobs, not a bunch of random psychos. We don't automatically pick the evil choice, but we have no problem in doing so if that's the easiest and most efficient way to get a job done.

Another party I've been in had a Lawful Evil rogue mixed in with a generally good party. He was a guy with a personal code and sense of loyalty to his friends, but he also didn't have a problem with dangling a prisoner over a pit full of zombies in order to get her to talk. He didn't have to do evil acts, because being in a diverse party gave him access to other options, but he also didn't shy away from getting his hands dirty.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is the idea that an evil character will always choose to do something dramatically evil for the Lulz. Most evil people, even in real life, tend to go about their days without murdering homeless people or burning down orphanages. They're just willing to do bad things to get what they want.

[Reevh]

So I've had a desire lately to play evil PCs. Naturally, this has caused some alarm among the DMs I've brought it up with, as the general consensus is "My character is evil so I do what I want." and therefore have "in character reason" to be a murderhobo.
This isn't what I typically go for with Evil PCs, but the stigma is there for very good reason.
My homerule for a PC wanting to be anywhere on the Evil end of the Alignment Chart is that the character has to have a goal or asperation that they are actively working towards. Are they greedy? Power-hungry? War-mongering? etc. With that information in mind, I'm typically capable of reigning them in.

What are some of your ways of managing Evil PCs?

My current PC is a Githyanki Conquest Paladin. He's definitely culturally on the evil side of things, but he's on the Prime Material Plane with a mission to accomplish, and he's identified the members of his party as important to be able to accomplish his mission. Moreover, he knows that he isn't currently with a Githyanki raiding party who might ordinarily just take whatever they want and kill any who stand in their way, because he's alone on the Prime Material Plane, with a bunch of Good aligned companions, so he behaves himself mostly, except when it's convenient to let his evil side come to the fore (intimidation, for example). He's really fun to play because he doesn't really understand the other character's "good" motivations, but mostly plays along anyway for the sake of the team. He's just a weird alien in a strange land that doesn't culturally fit.

Also, he loves coffee (a warrior's drink!)

[TrollCapAmerica]

The longest running PC ive had in 5E has been my LE Tiefling Fiend pact TomeLock. The real twist I put on the stock character was giving him the Noble background and making him the bastard son of a decadent CE nobleman. He idolizes the strength and order that his lE Fiendish patron has shown him against the self-indulgent degenerate society that weak men like his father create. He has sought power with an adventuring party that he leads thanks to his charisma and tactical skill and has kept his people alive through more battles than they could count

I was indisposable to the party and we had the same goals despite different motivations. They want to help save a town because its the right thing to do I want to do it so I can build my reputation as a hero. They want to head into this tomb and clear it of evil and gather treasure I want the same thing. They want to prevent the BBEG from getting the holy McGuffin and conquering the world/becoming a god/whatever and I think the BBEG is a pathetic degenerate consorting with demons and utterly unworthy of the McGuffin and I will stop him first and care about if I can use it second. The key to making it work is to not cause party conflict that can derail a game

When it comes to actually being evil I looked at examples of how it has been done well in fiction. Dr.Doom is evil but always keeps his word and doesnt lower himself to petty actions that are beneath his dignity. David Xanathos is a magnificent bastard thats still falls in love has a family and is a well rounded character. In this comic at the time they were doing the story of Elans dad and I thought that was a very well done evil team of people. My character always kept his word built a reputation as a ruthless but honest man and never did anything that didnt have some kind of tangible gain. I was often not even thought of as evil until I explained my reasoning for some of the things I did or PCs saw how far into the future I was planning. it was great

[Tawmis]

So I think - as others have said - it depends on how one defines "evil."
There is evil - where they simply murder innocent people for the sake of murdering innocent people. So Evil_01 strolls into town, lures someone into an alleyway and guts them for a few coins. Goes into the tavern and spends the blood money on a drink, not even bothering to wipe off the blood from the coin.

There is evil, where they believe they're justified. So Evil_02 walks into town, and for generations his people, Elves have been slaves to humans. He sees a human, purposely provokes him to start a fight and kills him. The human he provoked had nothing to do with the slavery, but Evil_02 doesn't care. All humans "are evil" in his eyes.

Then there's those, with the longer goal. So Evil_03 is currently working with a party of folks, who range in alignment. He's their big tank, but his end goal is to use this group to reach his own goals - to return Tiamat back to the world. So he's not actively killing anyone for "fun" or "revenge" - he's playing the long game.

This kind of "evil" character that Evil_03 represents, I'd allow into the game, because they will still be able to work with the rest of the party and not cause havoc for havoc's sake.

[Doug Lampert]

By agreeing to bring a PC to a group you are agreeing that the PC will work as part of the group. Their goals will align with the group succeeding. Their methods will not fracture the group.

Tada!

That is literally all there is to it.

I have played a Necromancer that believed they needed to cut the world population by orders of magnitude in order to get it back to the correct population count. They frequently used a torturous touch that simultaneously damaged and healed. And all I needed to do was have their goals align with the group succeeding and have them avoid methods that would fracture the group.

Bonus points:
Want to know how to play a Good PC? The EXACT same rules.
Lawful? The EXACT same rules.
Chaotic? Same rules but in reverse order (because chaos).

Players can misbehave as any alignment. So the way to avoid misbehaving is alignment agnostic.

Sidenote: I do also like PCs to have active goals.

This. I've run plenty of games with evil characters.

The first step is realizing that murder-hobos are almost always evil. (Lethal home invasions to take people's stuff with minimal if any concern for whether they deserve it beyond their racial group, it really doesn't get much more clearly evil.)

The seconds step is realizing that parties of murder-hobos work fine in most games.

The third step is realizing that you don't really need a third step, just play an ordinary murder-hobo such as about 80% of the PCs who write "Good" down on their character sheet, and you have an evil PC. Evil characters work the same as non-evil, only with less concern for helping and protecting people outside their little group.

[stoutstien]

As long as any agreements between the players are upheld who cares what you wrote In your alignments line.

Some tables like conflicting character personalities and goals and some avoid it.

[Agent-KI7KO]

Evil is selfish, murderers are Chaotic.
Common sense belongs to all alignments.

So choose your alignment, any at all.
Feel free to be Chaotic, and even Evil.

If you murder, steal, assault, or torture.
There might not be witnesses, but people have brains.

And when you get caught, and put behind bars.
Your party isn’t obligated to save you at all.

The lesson here is not to abstain.
From being an extreme murderhobo.

But rather to communicate.
And conspire together.

[sithlordnergal]

As a DM, I just lay down the two ground rules:

The first is "No PVP unless there is some very, very, VERY special circumstances going on...and by "special circumstances" I mean "you are now mind controlled, and are essentially an NPC under my control now. Cast Fireball on the party with the highest spell slot you have".

You have to work with the party, you're a team.


As for being a, evil PC, I tend to play Lawful Evil characters if I'm going to be evil. My general rule of thumb with them is to follow the above rules. I have one Lawful Evil Wizard in particular that I do like. He follows the law, he doesn't commit murder against "normal" people like Humans, Elves, ect., nor does he steal things. However, if you stick him in an area with Goblinoids, he will personally go out of his way to hunt down and kill every single Goblinoid in the area, be they enemy or not. This actually happened in Sunless Citadel. He helped to convince the party to kill all the kobolds and goblins in that adventure. Then, after they finished wiping out the combatants, he discovered the room with the unarmed, goblin women and children were, entered the room, locked the door, and cast a 2nd level Burning Hands to kill them all.

He's certainly not good after an action like that, but he's also not chaotic evil because he does follow the letter of the law, if not the spirit. He does keep his own lawful code. And while he may be racist against non-humans, he doesn't try to kill them as a chaotic evil being would.

Another character I have in mind is similar to Kiritsugu, from the Fate series. For those who don't know, he's an assassin that mercilessly kills others...but he tries to only target those who would do harm to others. In his mind, he's trying to save the world and is willing to do whatever evil deed is required to do so. If he has to kidnap, torture, and eventually kill someone's loved one to get at them in order to save the majority, the sacrifice of those two people he's harming is worth it.

[Cheesegear]

The first is "No PVP unless there is some very, very, VERY special circumstances going on...and by "special circumstances" I mean "you are now mind controlled, and are essentially an NPC under my control now. Cast Fireball on the party with the highest spell slot you have".

Nah.

I've once had a session where the party's Druid was like "Actually, you know what? ...The Green Dragon has convinced me. I side with the Green Dragon..." and then proceeded to attack the party.
No mind control. Just 'doing what their character would do'.

However, in other sessions, I've also made it clear that if you ever PvP for any reason, you have to roll a new character, because the character that just attacked - and maybe killed - another character, is no longer compatible with that party. Full stop.

The Druid's player knew that, and handed me the character sheet after the combat was over. "I understand that if I PvP, I have to roll a new character. That being said, I PvP."

[sithlordnergal]

Nah.

I've once had a session where the party's Druid was like "Actually, you know what? ...The Green Dragon has convinced me. I side with the Green Dragon..." and then proceeded to attack the party.
No mind control. Just 'doing what their character would do'.

However, in other sessions, I've also made it clear that if you ever PvP for any reason, you have to roll a new character, because the character that just attacked - and maybe killed - another character, is no longer compatible with that party. Full stop.

The Druid's player knew that, and handed me the character sheet after the combat was over. "I understand that if I PvP, I have to roll a new character. That being said, I PvP."

See...I used to have that rule, but I had to change it after a player discovered a way to get past the AL rules against PvP by casting Summon Greater Demon and dropping concentration over and over in an effort to force a TPK in the middle of combat. They had even bought spell scrolls to get more demons.

EDIT: It happened during a Tomb of Annihilation story line, so character deaths would have been permanent.

[Cheesegear]

See...I used to have that rule, but I had to change it after a player discovered a way to get past the AL rules against PvP by casting Summon Greater Demon and dropping concentration over and over in an effort to force a TPK in the middle of combat. They had even bought spell scrolls to get more demons.

...I would've banned that player from my table.

[sithlordnergal]

...I would've banned that player from my table.

Oh I talked to him, and basically said if he did it again he would be banned. Thankfully, he has fixed himself up. Turns out he and one other player were angry at each other outside of the game, and was taking his anger out on the party in an effort to kill the other player. I was able to talk to both of them and they made an...uneasy truce so as not to ruin it for the others.

[qube]

If I may use an evil character I once made as example: a yuan-ti researcher warlock. Solomon Luxford.

Solomon Luxford, like all yuan-ti purebloods, aspires to become more serpentine, whatever the cost (he's evil after all). But he's also trying to game the system. He's not going to go for the typical hard way of doing so - he's going to search for shortcuts. (likewise, notice how he didn't spend his time learning spells like a good little wizard, but took a shortcut and made a deal with the devil)


(1) have a reason to adventure.

Solomon Luxford is searching for blood rituals, which have lead him to Barrovia (yup, this was a Curse Of Stradt campaign)

(2) have a reason to be with the party.

Solomon Luxford needs the party. he's a spellcaster and has a brain. He needs a locksmith, a tank to protect him, a healer, etc ...
Likewise, he doesn't want his partymembers to die. a dead locksmith doesn't open many doors, and a dead tank doesn't draw much fire.

Dispite being selfish has heck, he's gonna protect HIS minions partymembers

(3) have a reason to be against the bad guy.

Solomon Luxford wants knowledge ... but he's no dummy. Even if Stradt offers it, he knows the count will most likely ask or get something bigger as return value. No no no ... Solomon Luxford is going to get that knowledge, and he's going to take it.

(4) have a reason to stay the party.

Once Solomon Luxford has visited the library, but the rest of the party wnats to go and kill Stradt ... he's nog going to go off alone into Bariovia, and go on his next quest for knowldge on his own ! Sure, he'll help out his minions partymembers with their little quest, so once their done distracted with their illusion of free will, they once again can help with his goals ...

(5) talk to the DM.

The cohesion of the party lies more in the hands of the DM then with an all-good party.

Unlike a 'good' character, Solomon Luxford doesn't have that last-ditch-reasoning of "oh, but I would never betray my friends" to keep the party together.

Quite a few times, I've seen DMs who keep dangling and dangling temptations over the party's head ... and then end supprized when the party eventually turns into fighting eachother, because a PC in-game can only take so much. it's important to note that evil characters typically easier succumb to temptation. The DM can easily Make Solomon Luxford betray the party, by for example giving him the ritual he's questing for.

While you can work on point 1 to 4, a DM who doesn't want in-fighting should not actively trying to break those reasons down. (this sound logical, but, sadly, it not always is)