On evil PCs

[Damocles23]

Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts? Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"

If anyone is familiar with Marvel Comics, we know that's a bad idea if I ever saw one.

[Seto]

I allow evil PCs in my game, on the OOCly-stated condition that they have to go along with the party's agenda (even if they have an additional one of their own) and that any intra-party conflict they cause must benefit the game. I also remind them that any form of PvP is banned in my game, unless the players agree on it before hand. Within these limits, they can go nuts.
I currently have a LE PC who's a human spy for the Drows (her father is half-Drow), and so far it's going well.

Then of course if everyone wants to run evil PCs, most of these limits become moot and I have no problem running an evil campaign. I tend to be sandbox-oriented anyway.

[TheCountAlucard]

Do you allow them in your games?

I tend to play games without capital-G Good and capital-E Evil as proscriptive cosmological constants.

The PCs of my games are often heroic in the classic sense - larger-than-life, movers and shakers, out to do great and terrible feats and build legends that will live on for generations. Whether you see them as good or bad will depend on whether their deeds are to your benefit or not.

So, sorta?

Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?

I don't demand good roleplaying from only one type of PC, no.

Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

Sorta middle of the road on this one; I talk to players extensively about their characters, both in terms of what they want out of it and what I think would make a cool story for them.

Then I throw 'em all together and let things shake out; our current game has Rule 63'ed Franken Stein teaming up with Heracles and PotC's Davy Jones to stop Skeletor from returning to power, then they're likely to build up an army in Hell to kick out the Roman Empire.*

*Some exaggeration has been employed.

Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"

Sounds like you should've hashed that out before you started playing.

[Guran]

I have allowed players to play evil characters twice and actually regretted it both times. Not because I believe that an evil character can't work. It is more the case that said players weren't able to play evil characters in a credible way. Either resorting to burning babies or charming everyone with magic and being a total douche to the other characters. To bluntly say it, its a miracle that these characters have reached the age that is on their character sheet without getting executed.

As we play games focussed heavily on roleplaying, character development and story, evil behaviour like that simply does not end well.

On the example about the supervillain that wants to fight the party, I would not allow. I am thinking that, when things are not going according to the lone troublemakers plan, he will get annoyed. This will show and will annoy the other players.

It is possible for a player to play an evil character, if that player knows what he is doing. Personally, as a player I don't like playing evil characters. As a DM it is very fun though to go haywhire with insane villains. What you should realise though is that villains are an obstacle. They are usually an obstacle because they are evil. When a player plays evil, he can become an obstacle for the game and people's enjoyment of said game. So if someone wants to play an evil character, be sure to ask him how he is planning to play said character.

[ShaneMRoth]

It is my experience that most players over-estimate their roleplaying "chops"

Playing an Evil PC is not an easy gig.

Players tend to start out by trying to be Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs, but end up being Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.

My house rule is that if you want to play an Evil PC, show me you can play a Neutral PC first. If a player is disruptive without an Evil PC, I don't even want to know what he'd be like with one.

The players who want to play evil PCs the most are the players who, generally, shouldn't get the greenlight too quickly.

[Damocles23]

Sounds like you should've hashed that out before you started playing.

Thing is, we had everything ready beforehand. He's the kind of players who changes his mind a lot. But that ended pretty quickly. Doctor Doom incinerated him.

[dream]

Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

[Red Fel]

Do you allow them in your games?

Oh, goodness yes. Heck, take it a step further, I am them in my games.

Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?

Assuming it's a game that requires strong roleplaying, I require it from everyone, regardless of alignment. If it's a sillier or one-shot campaign, I don't. I don't demand it of anyone more than anyone else.

Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

Neither. In-character conduct carries in-character consequences, and my players know it. I don't railroad if it is at all possible to avoid doing so. And if my PCs go nuts - any PC, regardless of alignment - either the other PCs will take him down, or the NPCs will react appropriately.

Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

The problem there isn't an evil PC. It's a troublemaking player. And that's not an in-character issue, it's an out-of-character issue, which needs to be addressed out of character. Players who like to make trouble will do so regardless of PC alignment.

And that's the point. PCs, roleplaying, and general table cohesion function irrespective of alignment (absent the absurd restrictions on certain classes which will remain nameless about with whom they may work). If your players enjoy working well together, the rules don't change just because one or more of them have an E instead of a G on a piece of paper.

Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

Oh, you are just a treat.

[boomwolf]

I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.

Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.

[MrStabby]

I have played a couple of Evil PCs. The first one was a disaster. Basically I fell into all the problems discussed here and, if I am honest, probably spoiled the fun for a couple of the other players. Somehow, with the same group they let me have another go and I think I got it to work.

I was an evil knight type character who had sold his soul for power to protect his lands. His personally story was trying to find redemption but, finding himself in more and more dangerous situations as the plot progressed always made him need more power. The more bad things he did to survive the more he feared death and the greater lengths he would go to. As his hopes of redemption were closely tied to the party he was with he could never afford to betray them and whilst he was cruel and uncompromising it was always for a purpose.

[dream]

I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.

Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.

Evil's morality is "me first". Even with organizations like the Mafia where evil people work together, there's tons of back-stabbing, to the point they had to make rules like "you can't kill this guy because he's with so&so family. IF you feel the need to kill that guy, we need to talk about it first & you better have a good reason."

Still back-stabbing. To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all. That good PCs have the ability to spread righteousness with their actions, so also evil characters will spread corruption with theirs. It's deeper than the "I'm evil so I eat babies" thing.

[TheCountAlucard]

To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all.

This seems familiar.

You're seriously going to suggest that an orphanage-arsonist isn't evil if he prioritizes saving his skin over backstabbing his buddies?

[goto124]

Note the title of this post ^

Demand fleshed-out characters that go beyond the two capital letters written on the character sheets.

Neither 'Good' nor 'Evil' people are -just- good or evil. In what way is your char good or evil? Surely she doesn't go around backstabbing people and eating babies for the heck of it?

Don't forget the Lawful Stupids.

Don't tell yourself your character is Evil. Instead, think of your char as pragmatic- and oftentimes, doing the neutral or good thing is just less troublesome/stupid/etc.

What's the point of stabbing and eating babies in broad daylight? They're so bony, you're not that hungry, and a lot of people hate you now.

I personally find that the alignment system, at least the DnD one, encourages pigeonholing a bit too much. Do away with the alignment-specific spells already, as 5e has done IIRC.

[boomwolf]

To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all.

No,it means he is practical.

There is no point in backstabbing those who you know are "good guys" who will not betray you first. Gaining and keeping their trust is 99% of the time simply more convenient and efficient in the long run than whatever gain is to be made by backstabbing.

Evil CAN have friends. For selfish reasons. A smart evil realises that being in a party of generally good guys gives him some sort of blanket protection as long he does not go too far.

And then he can afford himself a growing level of cruelty and evilness towards the rest of the world, as the goid guys around him have their boundaries pushed slowly into accepting his quirks, not noticing the subtle escalation of his behavior.

My current evil characters runs in a party consisting among others a cleric of behemoth, a paladin and a "folk hero" bard. None of them is even aware if just how evil the char really is, because she keeps her evil action under a guise of misunderstandings, cultural differences and doing things away from their sight. (the fact the other two members use questionable methods for decent goals helps blending in)

Not all evil is chaotic stupid by default.

[Jormengand]

Evil PCs can potentially work:

"What? I'm not doing this because I like you!" (NE antihero)
"Well, of course I'm going to save the world: I live in the damned thing!" (Any evil PC)
"So, how much am I getting paid for this?" (NE mercenary)
"I like you guys... that's why I'm not going to stab you." (CE psychopath)
"I am many things, but a traitor is not one of them. Of that, you have my word." (LE Paladin of Tyranny).
"Wait, so you want me to burn things this time? I'm in." (CE sorcerer)
"Why don't I hurt you, you ask? Uhm, because you're my friends, and I kinda like you?" (Any evil PC)
"If that's your command, I have no choice but to obey." (LE character who holds authority in high esteem)

[Necroticplague]

Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

To answer these questions in order:yes, only as much as I do as everyone else, same as the previous.

That being said, while I am highly tolerant of evil (especially given that, in the system I most play, Evil and Good are cosmic forces with sometimes alien views on the issues), I am not of being a disruptive bag of phalli. Evil is about 'screw you, got mine'. However, an evil person who isn't a complete morons should probably realize its far better to play nice and get the benefits of that that to just shank everyone they meet. No man is an island, after all. Screwing other people over can end up screwing yourself, and the opposite (helping others can end up helping yourself) is also true. I won't tolerate one using their alignment as an excuse to be disruptive. This goes for Good characters who feel the need to police everyone else's actions up to their standards just as much as it does Evil ones who would raze a city out of boredom.

[goto124]

"What? I'm not doing this because I like you!" (Tsundere)

Fixed that for you

I find that in actual gameplay, pragmatism works the best. But I've never ran into morality issues in actual gameplay either, so I can't speak for those.

And again:

"However, anyone who isn't a complete moron should probably realize its far better to play nice and get the benefits of that that to just shank everyone they meet."

Now, where's that neat post on why 'sticking to character' does not mean 'inflexible'. It's in another thread, and I should sig it, but meanwhile...

"Your blood tastes nice and sweet. I'll stick by and make sure you stay alive." (Vampire)

[Red Fel]

Evil's morality is "me first". Even with organizations like the Mafia where evil people work together, there's tons of back-stabbing, to the point they had to make rules like "you can't kill this guy because he's with so&so family. IF you feel the need to kill that guy, we need to talk about it first & you better have a good reason."

Still back-stabbing. To say the evil rogue wont steal from & betray party members means the rogue isn't really evil at all. That good PCs have the ability to spread righteousness with their actions, so also evil characters will spread corruption with theirs. It's deeper than the "I'm evil so I eat babies" thing.

A character whose defining characteristic is "me first" isn't Evil. "Me first" is simply selfish. That's Neutral behavior. Evil is when you perform selfish acts at the expense of others. It can be argued, and has been, that the average adventuring party dances around Evil for that specific reason. ("Let's murder things that are ugly to us and take their stuff!")

A character whose defining characteristic is "compulsive backstabbing" isn't Evil, he's psychotic. More than that, he's unplayable in any context; he's a one-dimensional caricature, not a person. I feel genuinely sorry if that's been your only experience with Evil characters. As others have observed in this thread, however, and as I have frequently argued in these forums, there is more than one way to play Evil, and Chaotic Backstabbing is hardly the be-all and end-all of the alignment. Heck, even the Giant has written about this:

Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.

Now, in that segment, the Giant was discussing emotional reactions, as opposed to logical ones. But he makes a point: Just because a character is a villain (or Evil) does not mean that betrayal is his automatic response. Evil characters can and do work together; they can and do work with Good characters as well. Are they self-interested? Certainly. But it doesn't mean that they're incapable of showing loyalty, friendship, or emotional attachment, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're going to do something stupid like attempt to ruin a good thing. Look, if you're in an adventuring party, and you all work well together, why mess with it? The system works. The meat shields keep the squishies safe, the squishies make things explode, everybody works well together. Why would someone, alignment notwithstanding, do something stupid like ruin that simply because of a letter on a character sheet?

[Darth Ultron]

Do you allow them in your games? Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them? Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts? Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

Yes.

Always demand good role playing from everyone.

Always railroad, no nuts on board.


Though I will only allow some one I think is a good player to run an evil character. I really don't like the whole ''stupid evil'' way lots of players have characters act. Not that is causes too big of a disruption, as I'll just kill off the evil character after a round or two.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

But...all PCs are evil...

[Keltest]

Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

An evil character will rarely betray the party if they can help if. If theyre with the party to begin with, they have some particularly compelling reason to follow them around, whether that be the accumulation of wealth, a personal stake in the outcome of their quest, or the fact that evil people can be pleasant, friendly, and have lots of friends.

Furthermore, a character with "evil" on their character sheet isn't necessarily going to actually be going around doing evil all the time, or even at all, because that's horribly inconvenient, both to them and their party (which, again, they want to travel with). An evil character, for example, would have no qualms against torture as a means of gathering information, but that doesn't mean they will jump at any excuse to torture someone. Sure you CAN play an evil character like that, but stupid anything will generally negatively impact the play experience.

[Yora]

I am not telling anyone how they have to play their characters. But if one character becomes a burden or threat to the party, I will tell the players that they probably should get rid of that character at the first opportunity. They don't have to pretend to trust him or go along with him just because it's a PC. If they rather would prefer to not have the character around, they don't need to.

[Hawkstar]

I found that my evil characters are actually the LEAST disruptive. The fact I can allow moral flexibility lets me be more conceding in arguments in favor of "keeping face" or simple efficency, while good guys need to stick to their moral codes.

This is true as well. A character of any alignment opposed to the general alignment of the party is likely to develop a strong IC-reason to backstab the party. Evil tends to backstab because it gets sick of a Good party being sanctimonious and condescending (I'm reminded of "The Sith Janitor"). Good tends to backstab because it realizes the party is a monstrous entity that needs to be put down, even if they were once friends (All those other monsters he's killed had friends too, and he's not going to put his friendships over the friendships of others). Lawful tends to Backstab chaotic parties out of an obligation to a higher authority. Chaotic will generally actually try to work around Lawful people, either sabotaging efforts to establish order when that order opposes their desire for freedom (releasing prisoners behind the party's back), or stabbing Law in the face when it finds itself cornered and needing to escape. (A pragmatic, but not evil act, as much as Lawful Good wants it to be.)

Proper evil is not baby eating psychos, real evil us the subtle one you hardly notice but have a corrupting effect on their surrounding.

I'm gonna have to disagree here. [url=http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnoll.htmSome evil really is just bald-faced, baby-eating psychopathy[/url]. And, they don't have to be corrupting or treacherous.

[Cluedrew]

I guess I only have one thing to add.

If you want to play an evil character I would recommend giving him/her at least one redeeming characteristic. Loyalty to friends is a good one to cut out party conflict. Other things like honesty or being nice around children may also make the character less... flat I guess. It is also a good way to check for the "Bwah ha ha, I'm so Evil" thing if you are not playing the character.

[Geddy2112]

Do you allow them in your games?

Absolutely.

Are you a demanding DM that asks for good roleplaying for them?

I want all my players to have good roleplay, but I won't be upset if they don't. Alignment is not really a factor here.

Do you try to railroad them or allow them to go nuts?

I try to never railroad any player, regardless of alignment. I do enforce the consequences of actions though. If a player jumps off a cliff and falls, they take falling damage. If a player kills somebody in the street and guards see, the guards respond accordingly. If a player donates gold to a temple, the temple, faith, and possibly deity respond accordingly.

Personally, I don't like running evil campaigns and my players know it, though sometimes, if I'm impressed I may allow one. Even though, there are always the ones that just like to make trouble...

Problem players are problematic regardless of alignment. Or perhaps they are not problem players, but their character concept is problematic for X reasons(usually overly dogmatic, narrowminded, 2 dimensional or something). Most recently, the problem player at my table was the most goody 2 shoes NG of the group. He retired his PC for something less dogmatic and now everything is gravy.

Me:"All right, we can start playing Mutants and Masterminds! Everyone is okay with playing a superhero team, right?"
Everyone else: "YAAAAAAY!"
Lone troublemaker: "I think I want to be a supervillain. Can I fight the party and destroy Latveria?"

Simply don't make characters in a vacuum. There is nothing wrong with either playstyle, but they won't gel well in most games. The most upright LG do right straight laced hero and the most CE babyeating murderhobo can both work as concepts, but usually don't do so well in the same party. This is a group game, so regardless of alignment, philosophy etc. If the group can work together, then work together. It may mean the player who wanted to play a villain plays something less villainous, or perhaps the hero plays something a bit less heroic. Or maybe they agree to both respect each other and work together, even if there will be a bit of (constructive) tension sometimes.

[Kriton]

But...all PCs are evil...

Yes! That... So much THAT!

The system I've been running for years, does not mechanically represent a character's alignment, instead the players get to set goals and beliefs for their characters and then try to stay true to them.

This has resulted in characters that are usually evil(even by DnD standards) for some reason, I can't remember a party that didn't contain at least one evil character on my table, for the last ten years maybe. The how disruptive each player has been to the game, had nothing to do with the how many babies their character would eat for breakfast.

[Fyndhal]

Evil PCs can't work. I've seen too many parties betrayed to think it can. There's a big difference between playing a "roguish" PC and one that's truly evil. People who say they've seen it work haven't really seen true evil.

I disagree. *Stupid* Evil PCs cannot work.

Two of my best characters have been Evil (Lawful Evil, both times.) In the later case, the rest of the party thought I was *good* because I stuck to the letter of my contract perfectly. I profited quite a bit so I had no need to betray the group. Sure, I was a bit more brutal than one would expect from a "good" character, but the other players never twigged to it. My most "evil" actions were reserved for "off-camera" times and generally involved eliminating witnesses after the fact.

[icefractal]

One thing I've noticed - it's not a 100% guarantee or anything, but evil tends to spread. You start out with one evil character in a party, and a few levels later you've got the majority of the party engaged in highly dubious, if not outright evil behavior, and the rest either condoning it or needing to act blind to it.

Doesn't apply if the evil character is completely hiding it, obviously. But once they reveal I'd expect the same thing to happen starting from that point.

So I'd allow it as long as I was ok with this becoming an evil campaign, and not otherwise.

[illyahr]

I once ran a LE wizard that the group agreed was very well played. He just came off as kinda creepy IC so the rest of the group asked if I could switch characters. He specialized in the perfection of self so experimented with potions, tonics, and spells to get the best interaction that would make him the perfect being (think Orochimaru from Naruto crossed with Franken Stein from Soul Eater)

For example, this was an interaction with the party's kitsune bard:

kitsune: Hey, you brew potions and stuff, right? Could you provide me with a supply of Eagle's Splendor and Cat's Grace potions?
me: Perhaps. My services aren't free, however. I am already providing magical support for a share in the treasure and a claim on any magical texts we find. Wait, your people are naturally dextrous. If you would provide me samples of fur to study and experiment on, I will provide you with magical potions.

Using kitsune fur to augment it, he actually got his potions of Cat's Grace to provide a +6 bonus instead of +4. He also used zombie flesh to make an elixer that provided a temporary DR 5/slashing to anyone who drank it. When one of the party was killed by a wraith, he removed the party member's eyes, implanted one into his own eye socket and used the other as a remote scrying device that could fly around and see things for him. He did this using the ectoplasm of the wraith that killed the party member so the eyes were still connected by residual life energy.

[mephnick]

My rule is "Everyone is evil, or no one is evil."

I like running evil campaigns. I hate having evil characters in a mixed party.