What would you call an evil character who sides with good?

[Douche]

I dislike alignment discussions, and more often than not I just leave that part blank... but enough with the disclaimer..

What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

[Keltest]

Id call them Chaotic Evil. Such a character has as much or as little depth as the player wants to give them. Maybe theyre just a murderhobo whos open about it, or maybe they were cursed by the local god of mischief when they were a kid, and their good deeds are a desperate attempt to overcome their divinely inspired malicious traits.

[TheRedFox201]

I'd call that character either chaotic evil or neutral evil. Even if you 'side with the good guys', murder happiness is directly tied to evil (see the Respect for Life thing). This being is someone who probably should steer clear of anything Paladin-related. I shall attempt to glean insight into this person's thought process: I shouldn't let bad guys blow up the world, because I live in it. I shouldn't kill my party members, because they can stop me from being blown up/smitten by the BBEG/Paladins.

To find depth in this character is possible, but all we the Playground enthusiasts can see is what you've written. As of my post, this character kinda seems like the Chaotic Stupid archetype. I see potential for some interesting dynamics in the subtext, but alas, subtext is not context.

Sincerely,
TheRedFox201

P.S.
The Good Evil scale in D&D is an objective measure ordained via higher beings. They are only called Good and Evil because some big powerful beings chose those as the team names. This also stands for Law and Chaos. In non-D&D terms, I would call him 'unreliable'. I do not hate him because he likes killing, I hate him because he breaks what I would rather have unbroken.

[Necroticplague]

A liability. Anyone who does anything without reason can't be trusted past the point of my.....whatever pointy thing I have.

[Amaranthine]

I dislike alignment discussions, and more often than not I just leave that part blank... but enough with the disclaimer..

What would you label a character who genuinely fights for good, but also is sadistic or murder happy, doesn't care for collateral damage (including people), trolls NPCs and screws them over needlessly (like dethroning a king just for the lulz), and always destroys the evidence after the party learns what they needed out of it so the proper authorities have a harder time

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

Your examples don't show someone genuinely fighting for good.

As an off-center answer to your question: I do believe that an evil aligned character, even a chaotic evil character, could be a successful and non-disruptive member of an otherwise good party.

An evil (little "e") character is primarily about selfishness. He is all about personal benefit. If he came across an elderly widow alone in an alley in an unfamiliar city, he may very well relieve her of any valuables and perhaps even her life (though "evil" does not directly translate to "randomly homicidal"). His relationship with his party, however, is likely to be completely on the level since actively antagonizing those whom regularly are watching your back is not in your best interest. Also, actively committing evil acts in the presence of good characters should result in capture and incarceration by authorities.

Similarly, any chaotic character is not incapable of following laws, just more inclined to believe them to be unnecessary or stupid.

The "random acts of mayhem and villainy" chaotic evil character is actually being played more as "random stupid", which I suppose if the character's intelligence is low enough could be an accurate portrayal, but such a character wouldn't really be welcome with the party of good characters.

[Segev]

I'm with the CE crowd on this one; that doesn't mean he can't be party-friendly, though. He can be totally cool to and towards the party, even consider them friends. Friends who sometimes make poor choices and leave him to clean up their messes (destroying evidence) or who don't appreciate his hobbies (torture), but people fun to hang around with. Just...don't rub things that are unpleasant in their faces.

CE doesn't have to mean "stupid prick." It can just mean "CN with a huge mean streak." Just avoid the usual party-unfriendly behaviors.

You can even be a little disturbing, if you keep it witty and funny, like an Addams Family sketch. Just don't, again, make the other PCs deal with anything they find uncomfortable. You're a considerate friend who respects their freedoms (because they ARE your friends) as much as you expect them to respect yours. You reserve your sadism and lack-of-respect-for-others'-rights for people who are not party-members.

And the fact that your party has a Good reputation just lets you get away with all the more......

[LibraryOgre]

As a literary example, I'd point to Raistlin. For much of Chronicles, he's with the Companions in goals... he wants to stop the Dark Queen. However, he's willing to use methods they object to, and he has ancillary goals that don't match up with theirs. He's not a crazy murderhobo, certainly, but he's willing to cause some carnage if necessary, and doesn't feel particularly constrained to help people, except according to his own rules.

I'd say Neutral Evil fits well, though the exact situation you described is more chaotic.

[HammeredWharf]

I don't see how his evilness could stop him. He could be friends with the party or think that being a subordinate of Darklord the Flayer sucks. That wouldn't prevent him from being evil. Additionally, a LE character could have some principles that conflict with Darklord's, such as thinking that torture is ok generally, but flaying is a bit much.

I once played a CE guy who actively worshiped a good goddess and genuinely wanted to be good. He just happened to be an unhinged psycho and have some curious interpretations of his faith's tenets. He was fun to play. I had to put real effort into misinterpreting every good quest as something involving murder, spontaneous violence and tort- *ahem* Sorry, I meant purification, self-defense and interrogation.

[Jormengand]

A player character.

EDIT: Alternatively, Belkar Bitterleaf.

[Vitruviansquid]

Disruptive behavior is never on the character, it is always on the player.

An evil character in a good-aligned party can be interesting and pleasant to play with if there is not a douchey player behind it, just as a good aligned player in a good aligned party can break the game wide open if there is a douchey player behind it.

[Douche]

Too many replies to address each one, but I will try to paint a more specific picture. (Thought it was better to be vague in the OP)

The character is an agent of the fey (in fact, the whole party is) and wants to protect the magic of the world. The enemy represents order and control - using demon magic to achieve it, whereas the fey faction represents freedom and whimsy. Subsequently, the character is somewhat of a maniac, but his intentions are not for personal power or selfishness. He wants to help the world.

His actions are disruptive in the sense of the story, but he does not actively try to screw over the other players. He would burn down a building that contained demonic texts, to deprive the enemy of them and make sure they don't fall into the hands of the authorities - perhaps inadvertently allowing the fire to spread. He would not try to make life harder for the other PCs. Also, he does consider them to be friends.

Lastly, he would rather kill a demon worshiper than allow them to be taken prisoner. And, he has ruined the lives of a few NPCs (that deserved it, but it wasn't necessary) for his own enjoyment.

[Dire Moose]

On that note, if I ever play a Star Wars RPG, I'd been thinking of playing a former Jedi Padawan who fights the Empire but unconsciously falls to the Dark Side in the process. Thing is, she would still fight against the Empire while being a Dark Jedi all the same. As in, she'd still reject the inevitable offer to be Vader's co-ruler because she genuinely hates what he stands for.

What would this character be considered in the grand scheme of things?

[CharonsHelper]

Definitely Chaotic Evil.

Evil isn't monolithic. Far from it - it's one of the main reasons that evil doesn't take over. (Good isn't monolithic either, but they work together more consistently.) Fighting evil doesn't inherently make one good.

[HammeredWharf]

@ Douche: That sounds more like CN, if anything. However, it depends on the details. Ruining the image and power of some evil noble wouldn't turn one evil, but poking that nobles eyes out and killing his family would.

@ Moose: Fighting evil with evil is still evil. Most Imperials aren't even that bad, so doing typical dark side things to them would still count as a bunch of evil acts.

[CharonsHelper]

@ Moose: Fighting evil with evil is still evil. Most Imperials aren't even that bad, so doing typical dark side things to them would still count as a bunch of evil acts.

I thought that that was his point.

[nedz]

If you can get away with an insanity defence CN, more likely CE.

Being Fey complicates it somewhat because they have a different world view, but alignments are objective.

Incidentally IC, there is no such thing as an NPC/PC divide.

[TheIronGolem]

Sounds like the dreaded troll "excuse to be a douche to the party, chaotic neutral", but do you think a character like this can actually have any depth?

Jormengand beat me to the "I'd call him Belkar" joke. So instead I'll point out that because your OP could almost be Belkar's biography, you can rest assured that such a character can in fact have depth.

[OldTrees1]

Your description in the OP leaves it quite ambiguous but it would probably be on the line from "Don't destroy the world, that's where I put my stuff" evil thru "I do my best to do what is right" but happen to be quite mistaken evil. (although it sounds closer to the first end of that continuum)

So yes there are a variety of characters there that can have a startling amount of depth and have real world counterparts (even historical counterparts hint hint).

[goto124]

How does a character actually perform evil (Evil?) behavior without being disruptive, by the way? It's something I've been wondering for a while, since any 'evil acts' would have to be hidden from the rest of the Good party members, which stops the 'evil character' from actually performing 'evil acts' with real regularity. Also, the IC and OOC separation (the party members don't know about the 'evil acts', but their players do) get really frustrating.

Besides, what for when the 'evil acts' backfire? Setting fire to a library means I kill innocents when the fire spreads, plus the party has to waste time and HP and spell slots saving the innocents. A murder won't go unnoticed for long either.

Are 'good acts' or 'evil acts' more likely to backfire?

[Satinavian]

, since any 'evil acts' would have to be hidden from the rest of the Good party members,

Why ?

Being good does not force people to stop others from all evil acts. Being good does mean not doing evil things and not actively promote evil things, but that is all. The good party members are not the boss of the party. They might not like the evil members doing evil things, they might promote others plans, they might refuse to partake in them, but they are not compelled to not let them happen.

But there is evil and evil. Most good people have some line that should not be crossed by party members. Actually people of any alignment have such lines. If the evil deeds don't cros those lines, the group will work, if not, it is a problem. The evil tag is actually not that important. Some would not allow torture to happen, some have a problem with necromancy, some don't accept collateral damage to innocents under any circumstances, but all those are individual principles, not shared by all good people to the same extend.

Also good party does not mean 'fighting for good' and vice versa.

[goto124]

Perform any acts the party doesn't agree on with any regularity and the party won't stick together for long.

Unless everyone is stuck together for some reason. But then the players will feel as if they're forced against actually playing out their characters, and they're just sticking to one another begrudgingly, both IC and OOC.

Doesn't sound healthy.

Unless the group want an unhealthy party because it causes intra-party conflict, and they feel intra-party conflict is fun.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

A liability. Anyone who does anything without reason can't be trusted past the point of my.....whatever pointy thing I have.

What the guy with the tentacles and too many eyes said.

Though lately, I've been calling him Jack for the most part.

[Logosloki]

Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid tendencies. You can still fight against evil and be evil, isn't Team Evil vs Team good vs Team neutral.

Even chaotic evils that haven't succumbed to their chaotic side will be pragmatic in some of their outlooks if they have managed to live or unlive for a while. As a chaotic evil you have a job, the party has the same job, it is probably in the best of interests that those jobs at least aim in the same direction (quibbles about...methodology will always creep up) and to ensure that neither impedes the other. Consider Belkar, as a good reference, with the exception that clearly the character in your instance is aligned to the fae rather than the party leader.

[Mastikator]

There could be several very different characters who fit that bill.

An evil mercenary who is bought by the good.

A psychopath held on a leash by the good.

An agent of evil attempting to subvert good and destroy it from within.

[Nobot]

I'd call him your user name...

Definitely siding with the chaotic evil opinion here!

[TeChameleon]

On that note, if I ever play a Star Wars RPG, I'd been thinking of playing a former Jedi Padawan who fights the Empire but unconsciously falls to the Dark Side in the process. Thing is, she would still fight against the Empire while being a Dark Jedi all the same. As in, she'd still reject the inevitable offer to be Vader's co-ruler because she genuinely hates what he stands for.

What would this character be considered in the grand scheme of things?

... "Screwed."

(if you want a more in-depth answer, falling to the Dark Side usually seems to result in becoming increasingly deranged until you can no longer really function in society. A Dark Side takedown of the Imperials seems more likely to result in Galaxy-in-Flames type Anarchy rather than any positive result).

Responding to the OP... if your character is less 'evil' and more just 'cuckoo for Cocao Puffs', I'd peg him as more CN than CE, or at least trending more in that direction. Depending on why he's so messed up (was he raised by the fey?), he might even be shading towards CG, just... with a rather heavier emphasis on the 'C' part of things than usual.

As has been noted, him being fey-sponsored does complicate things slightly, as they have a certain tendency to respond to questions like 'are you good, or evil?' with 'banana'. Or something equally nonsensical that makes perfect sense in their strange little minds, but doesn't really work for the rest of the world.

Also, for that matter, what you've mentioned of his actions and motivations hasn't been all that far outside the boundaries of standard PC behaviour >.>

[DigoDragon]

TVTrope's Anti-Villain article comes to mind. It's how I would label the character in question:

The Anti-Villain is the opposite of an Anti-Hero - a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and/or virtues. Their desired ends are mostly good, but their means of getting there are evil.

[CharonsHelper]

TVTrope's Anti-Villain article comes to mind. It's how I would label the character in question:

I don't think he qualifies. Anti-villains tend to be more high-minded. (Death Note's Light seems the epitome of the anti-villain.) This character doesn't have these goals because they're good, he has them because they're for him & his. Plus - he does evil simply because he enjoys it. The anti-villain does evil, but it's always at least rationalized as being for the greater good.

*shrug* All of that are judgment calls though.

[Satinavian]

Unless everyone is stuck together for some reason. But then the players will feel as if they're forced against actually playing out their characters, and they're just sticking to one another begrudgingly, both IC and OOC.

I don't think a party with a compelling reason to work together is a bad idea under any circumstances.

Unless the group want an unhealthy party because it causes intra-party conflict, and they feel intra-party conflict is fun.

While intra-party conflict can be a lot of fun, i don't think, there is necessarily a lot of conflict. I have seen too much instances of :

"Hey, i am regularly casting spells with evil tag like summon monster [evil thing]. That is a lot of evil deeds on a regular basis and thus i am evil"
"Really ? Hey, i am good but i don't care at all about your alignment because you never harm innocents, and are a loyal friend and pillar of of common sense in the group"

I have been in a group with mostly good PCs and one evil that never had an issue with it for nearly a full year. And when it came it was about multiclassing for a paladin dip and the "don't associate with evil"-rule. Which, by the way, is utterly silly.

[Seto]

In a system where Good and Evil are just names to represent opposed cosmic forces with military objectives (in the JRPG tradition of Angels vs. Demons), such a character is aligned with Good.

In a system such as D&D 3.5 where Good and Evil are closely tied with personal behavior and morality, they're CE.