Playing an Evil Character

[WarKitty]

Ok, so there've been a couple threads/threadjacks (mostly threadjacks) lately on playing an evil character. I've had personal good and bad experiences with this.

Bad: Your classic chaotic evil psychopath. Sorcerer decided to fireball half the party mid-game, resulting in 3 players (myself included) quitting. Fortunately fairly easily resolved, it was a short campaign so we let them finish it out and resolved to discuss rules in the future.

Good: I actually had my NE druid play with a good-to-neutral party for an entire campaign. Now, mind, he wasn't Evil in the same sense of blow-everything-up. He was evil in the sense that he firmly believed that civilization was a perversion of the natural order that ought to be destroyed in order to restore balance. He also had enough sense to realize that keeping the meatshields/healers/buffers around was good for his health.

Anyways, I'm bored. Let the debates begin! Just play nice everyone...

[Comet]

In my opinion story comes first, characters second. That is, every PC should be there to advance the story, take it into cool new directions.
If the players agree that having one Evil guy in the party would make for some cool conflicts and they're all interested in exploring those themes, then roll on.

If, however, we've just agreed to play Knights & Priests Adventure to Save the World from Dragons, then having a random necromancer there just doesn't fit. It's a group effort, some communication is required.

[Umael]

I mentioned it in the other thread, but I think it bears repeating for this thread.

The trouble is that what constitutes "Good" and "Evil" is subjective. Even if the concepts are concrete and objective within the game*, the game itself is played in the framework of our subjective reality - hence, the concepts themselves become subjective.

In other words, what defines "Evil" changes, and while there is some common ground, there is no way to be sure that everything one person believes to be "Evil" will be considered "Evil" by a second person - and when one of those people is the DM and the other is a player, the trouble starts right then.

* - Note that I said "the game", not just "D&D". Even if the game doesn't use an alignment system, the concept of "Good" and "Evil" will exist in most any RPG you can mention.

Particular to D&D, the alignment system has people thinking "I am X alignment, so I must do Y behavior," rather than "But I do Y behavior, I am X alignment." The alignment system is supposed to be a guide to allow the behavior of a character to have a mechanical effect in game. Murder a bunch of blind orphans and even picking up a Holy Avenger falls into the category of "Best Not".

[gbprime]

Alignment is a clumsy framework for behavior. You want to be nasty, be nasty. You want to be principled and fair, do it. The letters under the alignment category are only a vague descriptor.

Being evil in a party is easy. You just need motive to help them out, have a common goal, etc. If you don't cause them constant headache or heartache, they'll have no real reason to kick you to the curb.

Let's take a sadistic pyromaniac, for example. Indulging in those things all the time is going to drive most parties to kick you out. But talking about them, expressing a love for them, and letting the players keep you from acting on them... that's good party dynamic and role playing. Then when that scene eventually comes up where the party decides that yes, they have to burn something down... another great character moment achieved.

[Mongoose87]

One of the biggest things to consider/remember is that evil people have friends and aren't automatically hostile to everyone they encounter. Just because you low ball the peasant selling a family heirloom to feed his kids doesn't mean stab him, too. Stabbed people stop providing opportunities. Even a Chaotic Evil character doesn't have to go out of his way to be evil beyond social conventions.

[Telonius]

There are varying degrees of evil. Not every evil person is a puppy-kicking psychopath. Unless you have a Paladin in the party, you'll probably be able to get along with others to some degree, even if you're Chaotic Evil. Alignment in general* is just about an outlook. If rules annoy you and you don't care if your actions result in people being hurt, you're probably chaotic evil. In fact, that sort of character would probably be drawn towards freelance mercenary work (aka "adventuring"). Outcome's the same as the good characters, but the motivation's different.

* - Determining whether a specific action is lawful/chaotic or good/evil is a separate question. A single action almost never determines a whole alignment, and is usually only an issue for classes with shutoff switches like Paladin, Cleric, and Druid.

[Ruinix]

my opinion is players become before pcs, if the party is mature and agree with the idea of having an evil char then is ok.


i have like everyone a few bad experiences, the worst i can remember was an evil jerk who like to cast AOE spells all the time when the melees was on fight. cause "he like deliver pain to people" that wasn't end well, after a few stupid things he do and a heat argue we end for ever with that guy.


and i play an LE ranger who hunt people for money, :D the nice bounty hunter. anyway he loooove to toture people, and if they was of other race diferent to human he enjoy more even! haha but had a nice wis and int so he know where, when and with whom take his pleasures XDDD
a few times i manage my self for make some of my party incriminated for my doings XD hahaha was an hilarius time.

[hamishspence]

There are varying degrees of evil. Not every evil person is a puppy-kicking psychopath. Unless you have a Paladin in the party, you'll probably be able to get along with others to some degree, even if you're Chaotic Evil. Alignment in general* is just about an outlook. If rules annoy you and you don't care if your actions result in people being hurt, you're probably chaotic evil. In fact, that sort of character would probably be drawn towards freelance mercenary work (aka "adventuring"). Outcome's the same as the good characters, but the motivation's different.

* - Determining whether a specific action is lawful/chaotic or good/evil is a separate question. A single action almost never determines a whole alignment, and is usually only an issue for classes with shutoff switches like Paladin, Cleric, and Druid.

There's also the kind of character who would be a hero (kind, compassionate, brave, etc) if it wasn't for the fact that they behave badly toward certain beings.

in Faerun, the Eldath Veluthraa (Victorious Blade of rhe People) are an elf supremacist organization that tend to reserve their evil acts for humans and half elves- and believe that they are the good guys.

[Mauther]

As others have pointed out, its all about the story. You can have a character that's not working 100% with the party, as long as he's not dragging everything off plot. That's not a good/evil breakdown. The thief who insists upon cutting purses is no more distracting from the game than the paladin who insists that "the village is unclean, we won't save them till they repent" The character who steals from his team mates is not more disruptive than the cleric who refuses to heal a party member because their ethos is conflicting. Inter party conflict is fine as long as the conflict enhances the gameplay. Its usually good manners to at least make sure the conflict is acceptable to the party as a whole, out of character. Sometimes that means taking people aside and telling them what your planning, other times (if your really familiar with the group) that might mean just weighing the expectations of the group. As a general rule, I would never try a character like that with a group that I was not very familiar/comfortable with.

My problem with these discussions is so often the evil character is just a bad character. Why would your serial killer go adventuring in the first place? Why would your pyromaniac go jumping from town to town wasting his time on dungeon crawls when he can just teleport and burn villages? There's a wide variety of reasons why evil characters would be drawn towards adventuring as a life style, in fact there's a pretty strong arguement to be made that their moral flexibility makes them better suited. But its just astounding to me how many players discard the personal well being portion of evil. My knight of slaughter may love killing people, but he's going to at least make an attempt to stay on the cleric's good side so I can get some handy healing. Tommy the Rogue may really enjoy stealing gems, but he's more likely to get his hands on treasure if he's got that Neutral ranger and CG druid backing him up.

Best evil character I had in a campaign I was running, guy went 14 levels (5th-19th) never really committing an evil act, certainly nothing visible to the party - maybe the random NPC pick pocket and I think their was a potential prisoner throat slitting to keep the party moving. So was he actually good or neutral? Heck no, it was a save the world campaign, he lived in the world, so he was looking out for #1. We reviewed his actions after the campaign (and after he abandoned the team to die in the final battle - world was already saved so he was done) and he pointed out he never really took an action that wasn't at least nominally in his self interest. Even the few acts that others thought were charitable were done with the intention of improving the party's survivability and therefor his own. His character was abolutely evil, just not stupid.

[AmusingSN]

I play in a silly 4th Edition evil game.

We're all goblinoids and we're devoted to the traditional goblin culture (which in this setting includes such elements as living underground, trapping our homes, eating sentient beings, and lucha libre).

Our characters are alternatively devoted to wracking up the most murders, eating human infants, and killing adventurers.

There is conflict among the PCs, largely based around my chaotic evil goblin druid (his luchador name is El Chupacabra) who wants to eat all the PCs.

How we handle it is we assume they have fended me off enough that I can't be successful unless they let their guard down. And that I am somewhat lax in my pursuit of eating the other party members due to the fact that hanging around them gives me much opportunity to eat adventurers and children!

We don't actually play out any of the party-conflict stuff, we just narrate it to an amusing effect.

That being said. A serious evil game would probably be disturbing. I've had neutral/unaligned characters do some pretty morally questionable things in normal D&D games. I'd shudder to think what might happen if the party was EVIL.

[Nero24200]

I don't have a problem with evil characters, it's just that evil PC's are more likely to break one of my "PC rules". I have two...

1: Make a character that will work with the party - This one is fairly simplistic. If someone makes a character who wouldn't reasonably work with others well, it's not allowed. So the over-the-top-paladin who smites someone for even thinking of doing something mildly chaotic or the assassin who backstabs and kills party members isn't allowed.

2: Make a character that fits - So if I say "Okay guys, pirate-esc campaign where your characters are likely to spend most of their time on a boat or desert islands" I'd rather not hear "Great, I have this Samurai-Robot idea I've been wanting to try for a while". Fortunately, I rather have issues with players breaking this particular rule.

However, I'm always reluctant with evil PC's, since they can very easily break rule 1. In some really bad cases, I've seen players only play evil characters purely so they can break rule 1 and use "It's IC" as an excuse.

[Ruinix]

the best 2 images of pure evil party i had in my memory. both from LotR 2.

the discusion between the uruks and the goblins about eat the hobbits. how end? party fight!!! arrrrrr

discusion about who take the loot ? "that shiny shirt" again uruks of morgul and orcs of mordor. how it end? party vs party fight!!! arrrrrrr

[TheEmerged]

Most of my 3.x playtime was as a Lawful Evil kobold psion/telepath. Of course, it was an evil\monsters campaign, so it probably wasn't the problem it would be if you were the lone black-hat...

[Yukitsu]

Two cardinal rules, and one caveat.

1: Never against the party.
2: Not against people the party relies upon or trusts.

Caveat: Unless you cannot be caught.

So long as people play evil like that in the group I'm with, they do fine. People who avoid following those simple rules, often get killed by the rest of the party, because why would the party ever trust a stupid man who is out to get them?

[gallagher]

when i play evil characters, i like to have one of the three following themes, normally, and sometimes more than one.

A) very sadistic, will capture people and interrogate them, then heal them, then interrogate, and all in the most tormenting fashion possible. i once made a halfling shopkeeper who owned the store whose cellar had the doorway to the enemy stronghold break his own hand in order to let his family survive

B) i like to have a theme where i want to eradicate the world of one race. while most see this as being goblins or some type of evil, i like to go for Aasimars, or some other sort of characteristicly goody-goody race, as long as a teammate isnt playing one of them.

C) i like to burn towns down. i once had a party of good teammates and i had a ring of true neutrality, and i went into the town where we were headed who was housing a powerful enemy while the party slept. i burned the whole town down (it was more of a village, but the guy felt well protected as it was small, obscure and out of the way).

totally levelled up for that town though

[Machiavellian]

I like to play the guy who is a sadistic bastard, but is willing to make sacrifices to achieve a goal. I once played a LE Yuan-Ti Wizard who's sole plan was to take Vecna's empty seat (being as how Vecna is now a god, our Undying Council is missing a Lich) and is willing to work with the PCs because "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

[Umael]

One of my personal favorite concepts that I haven't had the chance to explore is a good/evil "romance". There are several variations on this:

• Both love each other but don't realize that the other is in love with them and so don't trust the other.

• Both love each other but are constantly thwarted by the other's morals and ethics.

• (The one I want to do most) The one who is evil loves the one who is good, but hides both the alignment and the fact that s/he is in love with the other.

I kinda imagine a scene where they have captured one of the enemy soldiers who is refusing to talk. In annoyance, the good PC steps outside for a moment to cool down. The evil PC waits for a moment, then turns to the enemy and says,

"You don't understand, do you? She? She's pure and good and sweet and wonderful. All the things I will never be. See, I know what I am. I'm a monster. But sometimes, you need a monster to get the job done. She? Will never do what has to be done sometimes. Me? I will. So now I'm going to torture you, and it's going to hurt, and then I will kill you. All to get the information she needs. Because if she doesn't get this information, bad things will happen. She doesn't want those bad things to happen, and that's good enough for me. But... enough pleasantries. Tell me, do you have any last words before I make you start screaming?"

[Kaiyanwang]

I have a player enjoying Ce PCs.

Luckily, he played them accordingly to the campaign: in a silly, messed up (and really fun) game, he was a friendly-fire-friendly chaotic evil cleric of Khorne.

In a "devil are the enemies" epic planar campaign, was a CE demon-worshipping sorcerer, well played (even if subsequently has been redeemed).

[Samurai Jill]

...he pointed out he never really took an action that wasn't at least nominally in his self interest. Even the few acts that others thought were charitable were done with the intention of improving the party's survivability and therefor his own. His character was abolutely evil, just not stupid.

Problem is, that largely describes the behaviour of at least 50% of regular human beings. The kind of evil that treats hostile external groups badly but cooperates well with those it knows (and to some degree trusts or can rely upon) is pretty damn similar to how 'neutral' characters would behave. Or, hell, depending on how widely you define the 'tribal group', a lot of 'good' characters.

A character who serves his/her interest more-or-less exclusively but somehow manages not to actively harm others who weren't threatening him/her (or the people s/he cares about) effectively isn't evil. S/he's neutral.

Being an evil character requires, at minimum-
(A) failing to help others in need when doing so would be trivial,
(B) actively harming others solely for the sake of personal enrichment or sport (as opposed to survival/self-defence.)

Even these can be a very grey area, depending on how broadly you allow scope for 'pre-emptive attack' in the name of security, or exactly what degree of inconvenience you'd consider 'trivial'.

One of the most terrifying aspects of the Exorcist (not mentioned explicitly, but touched on in some deleted scenes and in the DVD commentary,) is the idea that there is no real motivation behind the demon's possession. The idea that true Evil has to be in some sense gratuitous. That the demon has chosen to possess a hapless girl precisely because she has no significance- in the sense of political power or outstanding gifts. An ulterior motive might mitigate the malevolence- make it less pure.

[oxybe]

a "good" Evil character is one who's goals are similar enough to the party's that they are willing to work together and help each other out.

i played a warlock who did the slow decline into evil thing and wound up saving the world from destruction. not because "it was the right thing to do" but because "all his favorite stuff was there and the other planes suck". he was a bit of a sociopath and highly violent towards his enemies, kinda like belkar in that respect, but unlike the sexy shoeless god of war, he made no effort in hiding his true self. he openly made deals with liches and devils/demons with the party present and reveled in the fact that the title "Adventurer" allowed him access to large groups of squishies to vent his frustration and test new incantations on, usually in a very violent manner. while cackling. maniacally.

only one PC had a "problem" with my character (or at least showed it), and the guy was my roommate and was due to events that happened in game... but neither character let their own feelings tear apart the group or stop our goals. the swash/rogue stayed to try and keep an eye on me (and kill me if needed) while my PC didn't really care much about the rogue's intent as he was sure of his power... his biggest "threat" was the group's wizard who he couldn't really figure out.

if it weren't for the rogue missing out on one session, i probably would have had to roll up a new PC since his was against mine being revived (and i had no issue with that personally since it was entirely in character and trying a new pc could be interesting).

in short, evil characters need only play nice with party, not with others. evil characters can have friends, care for others and whatnot, but aren't above being a jerk about it or using others to further their goals.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I had a lawful evil cleric whose basic motto was "The ends justify the means"
He got along with the party first off by he wasn't in your face about being evil. If being a sadistic SOB didn't help accomplish his goals he was quite personable.
We had a severely brain damaged guide who my cleric

Umael, you bring up an interesting scenario however typically when the EVIL SOB falls in love with the pure of heart hero. It usually results in a heel face turn of the villain converting to good. He'll still maybe rather ruthless, compared to the other characters but becomes a better person.

The Buffy/Spike relationship is probably a good TV example. Spike can't be a monster anymore due to the chip in his head and he can't be a man because he's still a soulless vampire. So he goes on a quest to regain his soul.

[Umael]

Umael, you bring up an interesting scenario however typically when the EVIL SOB falls in love with the pure of heart hero. It usually results in a heel face turn of the villain converting to good. He'll still maybe rather ruthless, compared to the other characters but becomes a better person.

The Buffy/Spike relationship is probably a good TV example. Spike can't be a monster anymore due to the chip in his head and he can't be a man because he's still a soulless vampire. So he goes on a quest to regain his soul.

It is interesting that you bring up Buffy/Spike, because Joss Whelon also came up with the Operative, who did not "convert" but acknowledged, even passionately, that he was a monster and when his work was finished, there would be no place left for people such as himself. For another interesting take, in Babylon 5 you have Lennier who was tormented by his unrequited love for Delenn. While Lennier was not Evil, his unrequited love caused him to ultimately betray his friends.

While yes, it is traditional for the evil person to do an about-face, it is not necessarily going to happen. Sometimes the story might cause for tragic instead (with or without a redemption).

[0Megabyte]

Hmm. Assuming a "generic" campaign, full of hack and slash, how about this:

Kharos listened to the proposition the adventurers gave him. They needed another to join their party, and here he was, a PC and all in the same bar as them. He took a sip of his beer, thinking. Finally, he set the beer down, and grinned.

"Are you telling me that our mission is to go out into the wilderness, kill a whole bunch of people different than us, take all their stuff... and then we'll get rewarded like heroes when we come back into town?"

He leaned forward, looking the party leader, a goody-goody seeming paladin, in the eyes.

"Now that seems like fun. I am totally in."

[Shademan]

I played a evil cleric of Hextor once, he acted alot like magneto. was quite fun. to bad that the campaign died.

[WarKitty]

Problem is, that largely describes the behaviour of at least 50% of regular human beings. The kind of evil that treats hostile external groups badly but cooperates well with those it knows (and to some degree trusts or can rely upon) is pretty damn similar to how 'neutral' characters would behave. Or, hell, depending on how widely you define the 'tribal group', a lot of 'good' characters.

A character who serves his/her interest more-or-less exclusively but somehow manages not to actively harm others who weren't threatening him/her (or the people s/he cares about) effectively isn't evil. S/he's neutral.

Being an evil character requires, at minimum-
(A) failing to help others in need when doing so would be trivial,
(B) actively harming others solely for the sake of personal enrichment or sport (as opposed to survival/self-defence.)

Even these can be a very grey area, depending on how broadly you allow scope for 'pre-emptive attack' in the name of security, or exactly what degree of inconvenience you'd consider 'trivial'.

One of the most terrifying aspects of the Exorcist (not mentioned explicitly, but touched on in some deleted scenes and in the DVD commentary,) is the idea that there is no real motivation behind the demon's possession. The idea that true Evil has to be in some sense gratuitous. That the demon has chosen to possess a hapless girl precisely because she has no significance- in the sense of political power or outstanding gifts. An ulterior motive might mitigate the malevolence- make it less pure.

Personally, I'd argue that the scarier evil powers are often those that do have a motivation. Possibly even a "good" motivation that was taken too far. Perhaps not scary in the same way, but I personally find the religious fanatic far scarier...

[Angrist]

my group is in Eberron, one player is an Elan psychic assassin who is obsessed with killing Quari. He's an asset as long as you don't make him choose between saving you or killing an inspired, because then your on your own.

[SilverClawShift]

It's a group effort, some communication is required.

This from here to eternity.

In my group, our single strength, the thing that keeps us all working as a cohesive unit when getting the story onto the table (aside from a DM who's really, really good at thinking on his toes), is the fact that we stop to communicate with one another about what is happening, and what will happen from here.

We talk about what setting we're interested in playing for our next game, what the tone of the game should be, what the scope should be... sometimes you don't get exactly your way, but at least you know what you're getting into.

And playing an evil character is ultimately no different from playing a good one. What your individual actions are may differ, but the overhead goals of "Finish the Quest" and "Make sure your teammates do the same" remain regardless of whether you're slitting throats while the enemy sleeps or bribing the ogre king with a chocolate bar.

The game is what matters. Your character is a part OF that game.

[Samb]

The trouble most players have with evil PCs is that they don't have a realistic picture of evil. They can only think of Nazis and serial killers, but they never think that Enron executives or the geniuses at Ford who made the Pinto as evil.

On the subject of serial killers, many of the famous ones came across as very well balanced, even charming. This is called the "mask of sanity". They have no shame, no remorse, no conscience and that is often taken as cool confidence. This state of mind is (thankfully) alien to most gamers and hence most can't fathom how to "act evil" and hence act "stupid evil".

Evil could also mean pure ruthlessness. Anything to get the job done ethics be damned. In many ways this is how most evil people get by in the world. This is how the slimy used car salesman can sell a lemon to a mother of 3 and still not disturb the peace.

My personal look at D&D ethics is more on a psychodynamic level. Id, ego and superego.
Id says: "I want to kill"
Ego asks: "Can I kill and get away with it?", "Cost-benefit of killing?"
Superego asks: "Should I kill?" "Is it right to kill?"

Id behavior is generally only acceptable in children. Adult behavior and ethics is based on the interaction between the ego and the superego. In general, I think of evil as "superego deficient". Everything is about meeting the needs of the Id with least harm to self. A good PC with a dominant superego will not allow his own needs compromise their values or the greater good.

[742]

well here are some ways it can work really well

the ones who genuinely enjoy living and dont want the world to be destroyed; they dont care about the other people in it unless theyre useful for stopping that whole world ending thing. theyre not going to burn down an orphanage because its fun-its not, its work and mess, maybe a good distraction-but if someone might get in the way like that innocent villager who spotted you sneaking into the evil castle they will be dealt with before you can say "just a sec let me find my scroll of erase memor- oh."

maybe you reeeealy want the macguffin of evilness the other PCs are trying to snag from the antagonist and dispose of in the blah blah blah and thats the campaign's finale-well, they dont need to know that you intend to USE it when you find it, and they do seem to be the most capable opposition

the poisonous friend(or family member, or love interest) or just a flat out vengeful anti-hero, since the other people in the group want the antagonist dead too theyre all for cooperation. maybe theyre recruiting the criminal "oh, so your going to forge invitations figure out convincing costumes that will hide our identities and pick the lock on the villians safe for the magical evil temple entry macguffin, then disarm all the traps when we get there? i didnt think so. now help me hide the damn body before the gaurds get here and figure out what was going on. if any of the stuff is missing your costume is getting a red shirt and a full-head mask!"
WARNING: TVTROPES.ORG LINKS

Spoiler

Show

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoisonousFriend
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ingTheCriminal
those were the only ones i thought obscure enough for links to explainations

[Ravens_cry]

If your going to be evil, especially Chaotic Evil, make sure you have damn good reason not to simply go all stab happy on the party. And follow it. Maybe they are your friends, as the Giant suggested maybe you acknowledge, ala Belkar that together they could reduce you to a fine mist, so it is your interests to at least nominally work together. Maybe you are on the run from something and you know you need their protection.
Just make sure you have a good reason to stay with the party.