Roleplaying evil characters: your preferences

[Grim Portent]

As a mostly evil roleplayer I find myself wondering how other people like to play the darker side of morality. So please, share examples and preferences of how you play evil, be it the cuthroat pirate, the dark wizard or the evil overlord.

I personally tend towards scheming intrigue based evil. A gradual and obscure path to power which should go unnoticed until the last possible moment, though I have had fun playing more brutish and forthright PCs, savage warrior types can be remarkably relaxing to play whether you're splitting skulls in a skirmish or knocking people through windows in a tavern brawl.

To my mind my best evil PC is one I'm still playing. Iago the Warpsmith, a heretek in a Black Crusade game. Utterly sociopathic, no empathy or concern for other creatures, all he is interested in is the acquisition of knowledge and control. Dedicated to forbidden science and rituals he wants to combine the technology of aliens, the eternal powers of daemons and the strength of mankinds space marines into unstoppable abominations of war and domination.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I prefer otherwise good or neutral characters with loose morals. Mercenaries who are more than willing to kill somebody unrelated to their job, a swordsman who doesn't mind torturing for information, stuff like that.

[Dwy]

I prefer to keep it simple, playing characters that are a little too selfish and greedy, characters who will go too far, killing already defeated enemies etc. Characters who won't take major risks without personal gain or strong motivation (hatred, lust, being forced to etc). These characters can co-exist in parties with good guys, or at least neutral guys, unless they lose it, at the same time, these characters will most often not be irredeemably evil. Having your evil-doer go soft (not Good with a capital G, but better) can be a lot of fun.

[valadil]

I'm with Dwy. I don't want to play a monster, but a person. To me it's much more interesting to play someone who thinks he's good and either screws up or takes a few steps too far than to play someone who was irredeemable right from the start.

[hamishspence]

Yup- it's the difference between playing Vader and playing Palpatine.

[Grim Portent]

I find redeemable evil only works in some settings, in Black Crusade it's basically impossible due to the way morality is considered in the setting (Black vs Black) whereas in most settings of D&D for example evil is something few would actively choose.

[Acatalepsy]

If you're going Evil, go all in. While there's something for "I'm pragmatic and selfish" or "I'm doing what has to be done", cheerful arrogant psychopathy is where the real fun is.

[TheCountAlucard]

As I'm more frequently a DM/GM/ST/Friend Computer than a player, I rarely have the opportunity for "evil" PCs, but those times when I do, I try and paint them with more than just black; my priority is to make them believable people first. For that matter, if it's intended to be anything more than a cardboard cutout NPC, I do this when GMing as well.

If I'm playing an evil PC (or one who I intend to fall to villainy), I clear it with my GM, and the other players as well. Not just that he's evil, but how and why as well. This goes double in an evil campaign.

Example:

Spoiler

Show

One of my STs announced his intent to run an Abyssal game. I explained my concept, a Hundred Kingdoms warrior-poet who was dragged in chains to be executed, but received a reprieve by means of Abyssal Exaltation as the headman's axe fell; he hated the Mask of Winters for what he did to Thorns, but was ultimately grateful for his gift of "life," and so served him loyally. While I did intend to have him turn against the Deathlord, it was going to be a gradual thing, and would only start once he relayed his "debt."

Another Example:

Spoiler

Show

The time I got to play Vampire: the Masquerade, I set out to play a devious, manipulative Lunatic. His mental issue was, essentially, inadverdently using his powers. With most of his disciplines being mental in nature (telepathy, aura reading, domination, emotional manipulation, "stealth"), he probably would have made himself a lot of enemies, fast, if he didn't play himself off as two different kinds of more "harmless" varieties of crazy.

[Frozen_Feet]

I've played a variety of evil characters and it's hard to say which kind I like most, but one sticks out most:

I like for my evil characters to have a point. Some tiny piece of ground where they are actually right, or necessary. Something to say or do that can't be ignored or downplayed just because the character is a lying sonuvabitch.

I also like for my evil character to serve as meaningful moral challenges or mirrors. This is related to the above. I like for other players to seriously consider the question "are we actually being any better than this guy?" I consider it a personal failure when they don't.

Incidentally, this leads to me playing relatively low-key villains, who are decent people or at least have some admirable qualities, if not for fits of pettiness, cruelty or other immoral behaviour. The song "Osapäivänatsi" ("Part-time Nazi") by Juice Leskinen captures this perfectly.

[The Oni]

Arrogant psychopaths only account for a small percentage of evil people. It's pretty hard for a person to conceive of him/herself as evil - and typically, the ones who acknowledge their own evil aren't the ones you have to watch out for.

[AgentofHellfire]

In general, when I play evil my characters tend to have certain things in common:

--They're direct, rather than subtle. since generally some part of their motivation relates to a desire to feed their egos.

--They're generally either moral nihilists or hypocrites that believe they or their race deserves more than others or other races.

[The Oni]

Genuine evil is good. It's nice to have a villain that's hatable. The caveat is that the evil needs to be believable. Card-carrying, puppy-kicking evil is usually not believable if your character is human in any way.

I like to play sociopathic villains who kill not for malice but because the target was between points A and B. I like to play awful hypocrites who are the best example of the villains they claim to be fighting. But mostly, I like to play the villain who's so crafty, so eloquent and so devoted to his plan, he almost looks like a hero.

[AgentofHellfire]

Genuine evil is good. It's nice to have a villain that's hatable. The caveat is that the evil needs to be believable. Card-carrying, puppy-kicking evil is usually not believable if your character is human in any way.

...I really want to segue into my card-carrying, puppy-kicking villain now, that I really liked and thought had a pretty believable reason to be that way...

She was basically a vampire, and during her human life she was kicked around through foster homes and treated like she was crazy for holding as true the ideas her birth father kind of planted in her head (which included a belief in and obsession with a lot of the darker occult stuff), she actually kind of wanted there to be vampires, for a long time, so becoming one felt like validation and ascendance at the same time.

So now, she likes showing off that she's a superior creature, and that includes by bullying the lesser beings by doing things like killing their families. It's not just pointless puppy-kicking, in other words, but a power complex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So basically, puppy-kicking villains are totally possible in real life.

[Brookshw]

I'd prefer it played intelligently by my players. When its random slaughter for evil lulz by characters with no goals it feels pointless to run a game.

[Joe the Rat]

"random slaughter for lulz" - that's like part of the Adventurer's Credo:

"Random Slaughter for Laughs and Loot
Just make sure they're Evil and everything's Good."

[Morithias]

Brutally pragmatic and wise.

My villains realize that the best way to beat the good guys, is to never have to face them.

They play the legit game, they play subtly, and they rarely let their greed get the best of them.

They desire money, power, etc, but they never go over that edge that would result in that hero bashing their head in.

As Alexis Stratos, my iconic character from my skype group puts it.

"Diplomacy and Respect are more powerful than fear and intimidation, and peace of mind is more valuable than any gold."

[Lorsa]

I suppose my most enjoyable evil characters (when I am the player) are those that simply favour reason over emotion to such an extent that things like compassion are meaningless. They value their goals and very little else.

This may be because that's the kind of evil that I feel exist inside me, that if my believes in the good of humanity and intrinsic value of human life was eradicated that's what I'd become.

[The Fury]

I've mentioned my evil PC preferences on another thread, so I'll just post the short version here.

On some perverse level I sort of want to see my evil PCs stopped. Maybe it's because the story doesn't feel finished until they are. That's provided that they become a legitimate threat first. Other than that I've played the morally complex bad guys with standards and outright monsters-- both are fun in their own way.

[The Oni]

So basically, puppy-kicking villains are totally possible in real life.

That does sound like a believable villain - but, on the other hand, your villain isn't human, now is she? Take all that repressed bitterness and anger and vampirize it, and it makes perfect sense. The vampiric urges encourage the whole "Apex Predator" thought process, while the power complex is justified through her vampirism. Quite good.

[Bulhakov]

I generally play good characters. On the few occasions I played evil characters, they were, as Morithias put it, "brutally pragmatic". They had their own goals/agendas (sometimes even good agendas), and showed little to none empathy while reaching them.

[QuintonBeck]

I've only played one evil character, he didn't start that way though, he fell.
A devout LN cleric he was the guiding force and leader of the party, then the big reveal of the campaign was the pantheon of gods were actually just kinda Wizard of Ozing their whole divinity thing so, with his entire ethos and set of laws that he normally turned to shattered by the fact that they weren't given by divine beings he went a little crazy, "Screw the rules, they're all just a made up pack of lies anyway" and got killed by his the rest of the party (though it took them about half a session to finally stand up and say they weren't going to follow him down the rabbit hole since he had led them for so long)
So I suppose I'm not too good at playing evil characters, at least not when I haven't been playing them the whole time. I've yet to give it another chance though I hope to play a LE character in one of my next games.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

One of my favorite authors, John C. Wright, says something to the effect of, "Every villain should have a speech where they explain to the heroes why they are undoubtedly in the right."

I rather like that approach. (Mind you, I also like more muddled cases like characters who aren't sure of their morals--but then again, I guess they don't really count as villains.)

[Ravens_cry]

I like the defector from decadence type. While still evil, they are appealed by the excesses of their parent culture, and the sheer inefficiency of its senseless violence. They are amoral and willing to do much to attain their goals, but inefficient? Never!
Why do evil when good gets you want just as fast? It's when it doesn't one must turn to evil.

[TheThan]

If you're going Evil, go all in. While there's something for "I'm pragmatic and selfish" or "I'm doing what has to be done", cheerful arrogant psychopathy is where the real fun is.

oh I agree, give me a top hat, opera coat and a Moustache to twirl any day of the week. If you going evil, go all in.

*strolls off, practicing evil laugh*
buahahahahahah!

[Acatalepsy]

oh I agree, give me a top hat, opera coat and a Moustache to twirl any day of the week. If you going evil, go all in.

*strolls off, practicing evil laugh*
buahahahahahah!

And it's so easy when you're evil....

[Kane0]

I prefer a combination of jaded and ruthless, with either scheming or brutal themes. Occasionally I try pure selfishness or utter hatred but I don't really do those as well.

[Bosaxon]

Only rules are the party is off limits for kills and adhere to the general squeamish factor tolerated by other players. You can still administer corporal punishment to fellow pcs around from time to time if you take damage as a result of their actions, inaction, or poor rolls, but otherwise, you have higher priority targets or lower priority that can be a lot more fun.

This is the evil I rarely play. Everything else I can make arguments for being somewhere in neutral.

[Mekboy]

With my evil, I tend towards the 'evil with a moral code' (not specifically lawful, just following their own brand of logic). Examples include the mystic theurge necromancer who quite happily used evil magical artefacts, raised her fallen enemies and generally was happy to use any kind of evil magic to her own ends - most of which were trying to rid the world of evil races. And there's the Khornate duellist I've played in a few Black Crusade games, who's basically just looking for a challenge to make herself stronger. Consorting with demons, giving offerings to the Blood God and receiving his blessings in return, but generally refused to kill anyone who surrenders (they got turned into slaves instead, weaklings that they were) and following a general code of honour, refusing to drink, take drugs, use witchcraft et.c

[devinebovine]

I played in an "evil" campaign run with friends. We all started with pretty basic archetypes: I was insane violence for violence's sake, there was a reserved but scheming leader, and a rogue who didn't really care about anything but killing and stealing for profit.

However as the game progressed and we began fleshing out our characters, we began to plumb the morality within evil. Foremost in my mind was the fact that we were living in an "evil" (defined by D&D) society, and yet somehow a functioning society lived and thrived. Just as one can argue about different ways to be good (consider the real moral philosophies which can differ greatly), we began to formulate and define the different ways to be evil.

Eventually my character, who was a cleric, wrote a treatise. In it he made the claim that pure evil stems from a perfect sense of love. But whereas good tends to direct that love outwards, evil is about loving oneself above all other things. "Weak" traits, like helping others out of compassion/duty, seeking compromise, being generous, stem from the failure to completely love oneself. Thus, the only way for an action to be judged truly evil, it must be done for no other purpose than to better oneself. Not killing someone can be worse than killing them, when their continued existence would cause greater harm to them and benefit to you. In the end, when everyone cares ultimately only about themselves, a perfect society is created where people view others as a means to an end. The more people you try to use, the greater your ends can be. It is therefore perfectly within keeping of villainy to build a society and work together (with the caveat that it's not really working "together", since all others should be viewed as tools).

Another character built up a cult around hatred and refuted my character's leanings. True evil, he said, comes from understanding that the self is weak, prone to failure, and ultimately doomed by the forces of the world arrayed against it. The only proper response to this is hatred and aggression, both against oneself and the world at large. The world and everything in it must die, since it clearly seeks our own destruction.

And then there were those who played characters that stayed out of this and were just simply cruel because it was titillating. We even had a vampire who, although perfectly fine with draining the life from innocents and using babies as bargaining chips (and then literally throwing those chips away when no longer needed), went to immense lengths to protect her helpless progeny, and was really a loving mother.

Overall it felt as though we had a pretty good spread of justification for villainy, and since we weren't all on the same page there was occasional tension and party disagreement over the "correct" incorrect way to act. Great fun was had by all.

[Raimun]

I prefer to play heroic characters, either Good or Neutral. There's nothing like making the world a better place by judicious application of violence.

Still, I have to say I kind of liked playing a scheming and civilized Lawful Evil-type. Especially since I had actual political power and could plan mysterious attacks on the unsuspecting countryside.

"Go forth my minions!"

I don't think I would want to play a Chaotic Evil character who takes all of the candies from all the babies and flips the finger for every and all puppies.
One, I have no desire to do that sort of thing.
Two, that would be like be playing an NPC-mook.
And three, that's not very effective villainy.