Evil campaign characters [3.5]

[Scarey Nerd]

In the next month or so I am going to be playing in an Evil campaign, and I've made 3 characters, all of which I like, all of which I can play, but I can't decide which to use and which to have as backup characters.

They are:

Spoiler

Show

Pox, the CE Changeling Rogue, a master of disguise and has a penchant for the dramatic, as well as skill with a blade.

Ootiliktik, the CN Darfellan Barbarian, the last survivor of a Sahuagin attack on his small community, armed with a spear and is brutal with it.

Icehaunt, the CN Uldra Ranger, an outcast from Uldran society (Not sure why, working on it), spent years in the Frozen Wastes living on his back and surviving in the cruel tundra.

In your opinion, which of these 3 characters should I play first? Comments on the characters themselves are welcome (And yes, I know that there is more neutral than evil, but I always tend to lean towards CN in my character creations )

[hamishspence]

Evil works best when played as pragmatic anyway- cooperating with the rest of the party because a group has a better chance of achieving power than one guy on his own.

[Scarey Nerd]

Evil works best when played as pragmatic anyway- cooperating with the rest of the party because a group has a better chance of achieving power than one guy on his own.

Very true, Evil is as Evil does, but when working together, it can accomplish greater things.

[WarKitty]

I sort of like the first one. He seems the type that would like to keep allies around to witness how great he it.

[Yorrin]

I've played characters similar to all three in evil campaigns before.

The changeling was a lot of fun, but I constantly felt he was lagging behind the rest of the party. If you play with optimizers you better have some tricks up your sleeve. Otherwise I'd say this is my favorite, conceptually.

It's hard to screw up a Barbarian. This simple fact has gotten the class a lot of playtime at my table. You smash things. You charge and things. You rage at things. So barbarians are rarely a bad idea. Racial enemies make this much fun.

The ranger- sounds like you haven't really thought through yet. Don't show up to a table with a half-baked character. This gets my lowest vote.

What does the rest of your party look like? (do you know yet?) After all, if you're with a Crusader, and Knight, and a Cleric (or something equally tank-ish) go with the Rogue. If you've got a crit-fishing fighter warblade, a blaster-sorcerer, and a ninja swordsage you'll be better off with the Barbarian. Maybe.

[Scarey Nerd]

I've played characters similar to all three in evil campaigns before.

The changeling was a lot of fun, but I constantly felt he was lagging behind the rest of the party. If you play with optimizers you better have some tricks up your sleeve. Otherwise I'd say this is my favorite, conceptually.

It's hard to screw up a Barbarian. This simple fact has gotten the class a lot of playtime at my table. You smash things. You charge and things. You rage at things. So barbarians are rarely a bad idea. Racial enemies make this much fun.

The ranger- sounds like you haven't really thought through yet. Don't show up to a table with a half-baked character. This gets my lowest vote.

What does the rest of your party look like? (do you know yet?) After all, if you're with a Crusader, and Knight, and a Cleric (or something equally tank-ish) go with the Rogue. If you've got a crit-fishing fighter warblade, a blaster-sorcerer, and a ninja swordsage you'll be better off with the Barbarian. Maybe.

I'm going to answer things one at a time:

1. I'm not playing with optimisers in the slightest, we tend not to optimise simply because making the strongest build isn't that fun for us, though I can understand that it would be fun for others

2. Darfellan has a racial hatred of Sahuagin, as I assume you know from your comment, and I can envision myself raging when I see one and having (From level 4) +13 attack and +9 damage with my teeth

3. As to the Uldra, I have thought it through and I have the character almost complete in my mind, its just that I have quite a few ideas for the exile and haven't settled on one.

4. As far as I'm aware, our party consists of a Draconic Human Cleric of Tiamat, a Kobold Bard, a Human Fighter, a Human Sorcerer and me.

[hamishspence]

The Darfellan guy can be "evilified" through what he's willing to do to sahaugin. If he attacks law-abiding sahaugin who live peacefully with their neighbours, and tortures any noncombatant sahaugin that fall into his hands, or takes prisoner some combatant sahaugin to torture them-

then, by Champions of Ruin, he's evil even if he has other good traits, like a willingness to make sacrifices to help the innocent.

[Scarey Nerd]

The Darfellan guy can be "evilified" through what he's willing to do to sahaugin. If he attacks law-abiding sahaugin who live peacefully with their neighbours, and tortures any noncombatant sahaugin that fall into his hands, or takes prisoner some combatant sahaugin to torture them-

then, by Champions of Ruin, he's evil even if he has other good traits, like a willingness to make sacrifices to help the innocent.

I like the ruthless idea, killing Sahuagin indiscriminately.

What is Champions of Ruin?

[hamishspence]

It's a Faerun book- basically a sequel to Book of Vile Darkness. The first chapter, discussing various archtypes of evil character, is pretty applicable to any setting though.

It discusses evil characters who believe the ends justify the means, but are dedicated to fairly "good" goals, ones who are raised by evil societies (and thus more likely to change if exposed to a good viewpoint) ones who actually find Good abhorrent and love to do Evil deeds, ones who are "driven to evil to keep a worse evil at bay" and so on.

As well as stating that very few evil characters see themselves as evil.

Later, it lists the BOVD list of typically Evil acts, and mentions that "While neutral and even good characters may be driven to these from time to time, the repeated, deliberate use of many of these is the mark of an evil character"

It's my favorite source for evidence that evil characters can be more complex than typified by the PHB.

An evil character doesn't have to follow the "either have no compassion, or actively hurt people for fun or in the service of an evil deity" principle in the PHB, they can have many Good personality traits, and be evil more through their deeds.

[Accersitus]

Always remember to have/make a plan for how your character ends up on top when the group achieves their main goals.

[Scarey Nerd]

Always remember to have/make a plan for how your character ends up on top when the group achieves their main goals.

Hmm, I would do that for the Changeling and possibly the Uldra, but not for the Darfellan methinks, simply because he strikes me as more of a team-player.

[Yorrin]

Based on your party I think the Darfellan has more to offer, mostly due to lack of flanking partners for the Changeling beyond the fighter. Unless the Cleric is melee spec'd (which is entirely possible for a follower of Tiamat). But neither is a terrible option.