Playin evil?

[blackspeeker]

I've always wanted to play a character who was evil, it just seems really interesting to me, but I dunno if my DM and party would really allow it for our next campaign, hopefully we'll start one and play during our college breaks, you know, fall break, turkey day, and christmas. I was wondering if anyone ever had trouble convincing their DM of allowing them to play an evil character, and if they convinced them what arguments they used.

Thanks in advance ya'll.

[psychoticbarber]

Well, I can tell you some of my general objections.

Evil characters are often disruptive: This is often true because players play evil for the wrong reasons. I've found a lot of players play evil to be free of moral restrictions, and you end up with Chaotic Stupid. (I'm aware that this isn't universal, by the way).

Evil characters are not usually particularly heroic: This can be a problem, especially when it comes to motivation. Personally, I don't really like campaigns where the motivation is loot and the joy of killing. This varies greatly depending on DM, of course.

Evil characters are tricker to DM for: A wider version of the above, Evil characters are harder to guide and harder to motivate. They aren't often restricted by rules, especially society's rules. Some may accuse me of being a railroading DM for considering this to be a problem, but some DMs (myself included) prefer good characters in general.

There are reasonable responses to each of these, but in my campaigns it's necessary to address each of them before playing an evil character.

[Neon Knight]

What is your concept for this evil character?

[Zincorium]

Evil characters in a non-evil group can very easily be a complete PITA. If your DM and fellow players aren't interested in letting you try, my advice is not to push the issue.

If you're looking to play an evil character just to 'get away with stuff' then they're perfectly justified in not wanting the hassle, but if you're actually looking to make a complex, deep character that's not there just to screw up the game, make sure that's how you present it.

Starting with a concept that you're pretty sure the DM will find interesting, express a bit later on that it would really be hard for the character to have an alignment other than evil. Ask them whether they would prefer that you be actual evil, or just very dark neutral. Stick to the answer they give you, alignment is a spectrum and it's the perception of the DM that really matters.

[Maerok]

Never played a good character.

[BRC]

I would suggjest more an evil-leaning character, or a personal-objective type evil. Somthing that could make a good plot hook at some point, but the rest of the party dosn't know about, and dosn't interfere with standard adventuring. Like adventuring so you can gain a reputation for heroism that you intend to abuse at a later point or somthing. However, an openly evil character would be very difficult.

[SadisticFishing]

Well, at the moment, I'm playing a Lawful Evil Kobold wizard. I mean, to play it right, I have totally evil ideas - but the paladin in the group is always like... "WHAT!? Try giving as many people as we can our disease to see how contagious it is!? NO!" Yes, a paladin is allowed to hang out with an evil character if he is trying to redeem him, which he is. But slowly as I get used to concepts like friends, tipping, and shoes, I'll lean more to wards N, maybe even CG, as really, all my guy wants is to know everything and not be looked at and called a goblin.

I'm also playing a CE Stormlord of Talos (CE god of storms and chaos and evil), who is basically a bit insane, and will heal people one day only to Wrack them and coup de grace the next. Storms are unpredictable :P

Really, the first of these two works very well if your group and DM play along properly, whereas the second really is just over the top and stops being fun (well, it's usually fun, but stops being productive) very quickly.

[Godric]

I'm playing in an evil campaign right now (high powered and definitely just for fun, but the most successful we've had). I'm playing a Blue Half-Dragon Fighter/Half-Dragon Paragon who worships/is a servant of Bane.

He looks at most races as "lower" than himself and to a degree believes in "Might makes right". HOWEVER, he is not stupid. He is a member of the watch of Waterdeep, but is a very low rank because of obedience/moral issues. They keep him on because he has never failed a mission and will take assignments others would never and knows when to toe the line - it makes for a great cover. He was not religious to start with - believing instead in the ultimate power of dragons - but stumbled upon (witnessed) the extreme power of the divine. He always keeps his word (but has no problem twisting words to weak or lesser beings), does very well by those who help him and makes sure he rewards them (aka the rest of the party).

And so we have a party that is made of of a CE Half-Fiend rogue, a NE Lycanthrope Cleric and a LE Half-Dragon fighter. And...it works. It didn't at first as we were not familiar with the ins and outs of successfully roleplaying evil, but it can work. The subterfuge, deceit and meticulous planning that goes into being successfully evil is pretty fun and rewarding, I'd say.

I really liked the LE Kobold example above. Evil in a good party is even more difficult, but you just have to remember that you should always work WITH the rest of the party, never against them. It's supposed to be fun and you are a team. An evil party *could* tear itself apart, but that doesn't mean it should :)

[Chineselegolas]

psychoticbarber basically covered all the points that makes people not want to be with evil. In a campaign I'm in with an evil character, he gets along fine with a Cleric of Pelor (Though admittedly I'm not sure that he is LG like he claims...), as we make sure we find places we agree from time to time. Like coming across some undead, then having a free for all. Or with the druids, going and mercilessly hunting down and killing some poachers (Though the defiling of the bodies afterwards was frowned upon).

Just make sure if you make an evil, you can find atleast one element of common ground with every other party member, even if it is a tenuous thread at times.

[blackspeeker]

Thanks to all of you guys, you've given me some good ideas

Well, I can tell you some of my general objections.

Evil characters are often disruptive: This is often true because players play evil for the wrong reasons. I've found a lot of players play evil to be free of moral restrictions, and you end up with Chaotic Stupid. (I'm aware that this isn't universal, by the way).

Evil characters are not usually particularly heroic: This can be a problem, especially when it comes to motivation. Personally, I don't really like campaigns where the motivation is loot and the joy of killing. This varies greatly depending on DM, of course.

Evil characters are tricker to DM for: A wider version of the above, Evil characters are harder to guide and harder to motivate. They aren't often restricted by rules, especially society's rules. Some may accuse me of being a railroading DM for considering this to be a problem, but some DMs (myself included) prefer good characters in general.

There are reasonable responses to each of these, but in my campaigns it's necessary to address each of them before playing an evil character.

Well, I hadnt planned on disrupting the party, I know if we had a Paladin it would present a problem, I can see how that would be a problem though.

As far as proper motivation, I planned on the character being sort f a maipulator, who only really traveled with th party out of need for a group to be a part of, sort of like kreia from KOTOR 2.

If my dm doesnt buy my argument for it, what are some others
though, and for kasrikin's question Iwasn sure, I only knew that I didnt want to be chaoic evil, I thought a neutral evi cleric or duid might be fun, or posibly a lawful evil rogue.

[psychoticbarber]

As far as proper motivation, I planned on the character being sort f a maipulator, who only really traveled with th party out of need for a group to be a part of, sort of like kreia from KOTOR 2.

What happens when you succeed at whatever it is you need the group for? Are you willing to let the character go at the point, or will you manufacture a reason to stay with the party (either is perfectly acceptable, but you should consider it).

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say you would be disruptive, merely that evil characters often are.

[AKA_Bait]

I think the trick to playing evil in a way that isn't disruptive to the rest of the party is simply to make sure your character has loyalties to the other party memebers, for whatever reason. They can be close friends (evil doesn't mean you don't have buddies that you would take a bullet for) or just people you need (say the party Fighter is some noblemans son and you want to get into the good graces of the noble house to cash in later).

Also remember, having loyalties doesn't just mean you won't slit their throats when they sleep but that you also aren't going to intentionally screw up their plans. As an evil character you can go right ahead with the party and save the orphans, so long as you have some selfish reason for doing so.

One thing to remember, particularly with the Druid and the Cleric. Depending upon how you create their character focus (RP wise) you can run into trouble with the above. If you are a cleric of say, Hextor, you are probably going to have trouble going along with the party freeing a bunch of people under a tyrranical regime. A LE rogue would probably be the easiest to RP in this regard as you don't have to worry about split loyalties bettween a diety or concept (nature) and the party.

[blackspeeker]

What happens when you succeed at whatever it is you need the group for? Are you willing to let the character go at the point, or will you manufacture a reason to stay with the party (either is perfectly acceptable, but you should consider it).

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to say you would be disruptive, merely that evil characters often are.

No worries man, that isnt how I took it.

AKA, never thought of the nobleman's son thing, that really works well with the LE rogue I wanted to play since I intended on him being a secret police sort of thing.

I know Id need more working out if I did decide on that druid or cleric, i just feel like I'd have to be overzealous to do them at all, of course maybe I could be secretly serving the dark, like Chancellor Palpatine, where you got that feeling like he's totall evil, but on some level, you really didnt care because it seemed lie he was doing good.

I etter stop with the SW references...

[psychoticbarber]

There's no evil quite like evil that benefits people. It's often institutionalized and the hardest evil to stop.

[Krasus]

Evil doesn't have to be zealous. Maybe your person is just found of power, if you were a cleric, or money if you were a rouge, or both if you were anything. In that case, the evil just means you don't have problems with pocketing some stuff from the party. My personal favorite was when I had an evil cleric and there was no one else with high ranks in spellcraft/knowledge arcane in the party. If I took some stuff from their unconscious body before healing them, they were 'consumed' to power the spell.

And if the DM is against you playing an evil character, just find out why. If it is about not being loyal to the party, be loyal to needing the party like Kreia, then take what you can and get out when you don't need them anymore. Evil is a legitimate alignment and it shouldN'T be oppressed.

[slexlollar89]

playing evil doesnt have to obcious either. for example, i was a paladin of slaughter (CE) but routinely saved the cleric of pelor's life. he was very surprised the first time (he followed me around to "clean up the mess you leave, and maybe show you the light of goodness"), but he was even more surprised when i told him that i saved his life so that he was able to clean up my problems.

he was so confused, and i had to explain that my dude was only eil because he beleived evil existed so that good could counter it. the DM made me become N after i declared my beleifs, and i lost my paladinhood, i got pissed.

anyway... evil doesnt have to be "MWAA HA HA HA HA" or "YES kill ALL the good!!" or "thats right, fall into my webs and traps".

[Aurion]

I'm playing a LG Cleric of Moradin in a campaign right now, and in the same party is a half-orc barbarian who claims to be CN, but is really CE leaning towards chaotic stupid. He will do **** just to piss me off or for no reason at all, like slaughtering a group of people after we had knocked them up and tied them up, and then afterwards not expecting me to get angry with him. This is starting to look like it's going to come to a confrontation between me and him. So when people say they don't like playing in campaigns where only one person is evil, I deeply sympathize.

[Morty]

I'm playing a LG Cleric of Moradin in a campaign right now, and in the same party is a half-orc barbarian who claims to be CN, but is really CE leaning towards chaotic stupid. He will do **** just to piss me off or for no reason at all, like slaughtering a group of people after we had knocked them up and tied them up, and then afterwards not expecting me to get angry with him. This is starting to look like it's going to come to a confrontation between me and him. So when people say they don't like playing in campaigns where only one person is evil, I deeply sympathize.

The difference is, player you described isn't acting in an evil way, just plain stupid way.

[Grey Paladin]

Killing for no purpose is a neutral act,
selfish acts are Evil,
altruistic acts are good.

Having a party where at least one character isn't evil is hardly realistic,
I'd say that there are more evil people then good ones.

[leperkhaun]

I think alot of the problem with evil characters is that most people tend to turn them into kill/burn/maim/kill/burn/maim or do things that are inherently disruptive to the group.

Just because you are evil doesnt mean you slaughter all the guards to get into that house, just because you are evil doesnt mean you want to get rid of the party (most evil will recognize usefull resources), just because you are evil doesnt mean you go around trying to be Mr. Super Evil Man.

As a player try to remember that overt actions (like say killing a shop keeper so you can get items for free) will have consequences such as death and that just because you are evil does NOT mean you have to be a disruptive character.

If nothing else adventuring with the party will increase your power (loot and xp). While you may not be donating to a feed the poor children of shanty town fun, you can go rescue that princess for the reward money, not because its a good thing to do.

[Hawriel]

this is what I hate about alinment. evry one who has posted understands being evil does not mean automaticly being some form of stariotype evil because its evil chartacter. however D&D pigion holing on alinment has caused you to worry about it.


if you want to play an evil character thats cool. just think about some of the vilans in books, movies and tv shows you have read/seen. think about what makes your character evil same as what would make him good.

artimes entrieri was evil. did he kill babies for fun? no. did he automaticly back a corupt dictator because he was the same alinment? no. he was apathetic. that is an evil trait. he had contemped for the week. that is also an evil trait. he did work with good peaple when it suited his needs. he did not kill for fun, but killing was a means to an end when needed.

Boba Fett could be considered evil. again not a raving lunatic that had an alter to a bloodgod some ware.

a corrupt police are evil but they still do there job.

D&D broke good PRG with the alinment issue. and that section on why you should not play an evil character in the players hand book. thats only in there to apease thoughs who beleave D&D is about corrupting children.

think on this though. RPGs are the only place (because of intolerant peaple) whare doing things because its right, good, benevolent reason is acutaly the real reason characters do things. just because your evil character saves the orphans with a motive other than "because its right" doesnt mean the motive isnt valid and realistic.

[Pestlepup]

Actually, in my opinion, an evil character's actions don't have to be motivated by evil intent. In fact, I have been playing with the idea of a character (fighter to be precise), who is utterly faithful to a good cause, but believes that any and all means to eradicate evil are acceptable. He (Or she. Undecided.) would be the one willing to do all those things the paladin cannot in good conscience. (Torture the misguided if not utterly evil minion for information. Coup-de-grace the BBEG they've managed to beat, but who pleaded for mercy and was captured instead, though they know he/she'll eventually escape and continue wreaking havoc. Slay the inarguably innocent infant vessel to be the next Prince of Darkness and Inconvenient Bowel Irregularities. And so on...)

The point would be to do whatever it takes to benefit the cause and the people. "A god of disease has contracted an entire village with an incurable and higly contagious plague? Burn them all." Along those lines. I think it'd be fun.

[psychoticbarber]

"A god of disease has contracted an entire village...

I think the word you wanted was inflicted, though I'm greatly amused by the idea of contracting a village.

"Oh my goodness gracious, I've got villagers. Call the doctor, honey!"

[Person_Man]

My favorite PC of all time was a Lawful Evil Kobold Scout. He was loyal, honest, group oriented, and respected authority, especially local laws. He was also cruel, greedy, and enjoyed killing for the sake of killing (an outlook that comports very well to an adventurer's lifestyle).

Although he would often argue that the group take an Evil course in their decisions, once a vote was taken, he respected the result. He never stole or murdered when within the boundaries of any legal jurisdiction, which meant that Good NPCs never had a reason to come after him. If anything, the Chaotic Good Ranger PC was the one that always got the group into trouble.

Being Evil is not not inherently disruptive to any group. You just have to respect the other players in a way that any player of any alignment should. Don't attack other players. Don't lie to other players. Don't steal from other players. If you're going to do any of these things to NPCs, make sure that the other players are ok with it (or at least willing to turn a blind eye to it). Advocate for your position, but don't go off on your own if the group disagrees with you. Remember that even Chaotic Evil Blackguards of Nerull can have family, friends, and a reasonable thought process. Even if his ultimate goal is for the entire world to be pitched into a bloody civil war so that he might build a skyscraper of bones to please his god, he can still have a logical plan for how to accomplish it (Step 1, travel and gain experience...), and a small group of childhood pals that he trusts.

[Palanthos]

I once played a LE Cleric of Sargonnas in a Dragonlance campaign, and the rest of the party was good. And it totally worked, because of the character's goals and background.

We played the campaign during the era of the War of the Lance, and in his early teens, my character's village was sacked by the draconians of the White Dragonarmy. His family was killed before his eyes, and a Baaz draconian scarred his face with an overconfident swipe of his claws before my cleric-to-be picked up his father's sword and slaughtered the Baaz in a blind rage. Sargonnas appeared to him after the act in a vision, and asked him if the revenge he had exacted against the Baaz had satisfied him; my character replied that it would take more blood before he was content.

Sargonnas had his own reasons for allowing one of his chosen to cooperate with those who resisted Takhisis; Sargonnas had been left out of the Dark Queen's plans for the domination of Ansalon, and he was seriously miffed. By helping those who opposed her, Sargonnas was exacting his revenge against his consort. My character was simply a tool to be used in pursuing this goal.

The party dynamic worked well - his goals and the goals of the rest of the party mostly coincided, and while he occasionally was rebuffed for being a little too enthusiastic about things like torture and wanton destruction, the party was mostly harmonious. :D

[Krrth]

I gotta say, good luck. As mentioned by previous posters, this can be a problem. BUT....it can be worked around. Our group started an evil group, just to try something different. Everyone distrusts the others, but we work together due to various reasons. The fighter was tasked by his church to protect the cleric. The cleric wants to keep the meat shield alive. My character (the mage) wants to keep the others alive because there is strength in numbers. The point is, while there is a limited amount of backstabbing going on, none of us will *really* screw over the other party members...(unless it comes down to life or death. Then we'll h ave to see).

[Telonius]

Got a link here to an interview with actor Brian Cox, on playing villains. You might find it useful.

[Paragon Badger]

Chaotic Evil usually does not mesh very well with any other character, even other chaotic evils and neutral/lawful evils.

Exception to the rule: Checks and balances.If a chaotic evil character can appropriately keep himself from being kicked out for any IC reason (NOT OOC- although powergaming doesn't count; since even lawful good players can powergame...although being the walking avatar of death and murdering peasants haplessly is an IC reason), then they can and probably will be able to contribute positively, possibly moreso, to the party. Belkar Bitterleaf is a great example of this. Another good example would be a character who knows that he would get jumped/abandoned by the rest of the party if he goes on a murderous rampage, a la Belkar.

Lawful evil is almost always easier to play than Chaotic- in a non evil campaign. Your villiany is much more subtle and/or predictable. That, and lawful evil characters tend to be the type who are secrative, but this by no means prevents Chaotic evil characters from being secretively evil. A chaotic evil character could be an angel during the adventures, but is mysteriously absent or wanders off by himself during routine visits to cities.

What is he doing when nobody in the party is looking? FEEDING BABIES TO MUTATED PUPPIES!

Killing for no purpose is a neutral act,
selfish acts are Evil,
altruistic acts are good.

What the? No it isn't- it's evil! >_>

"I render the defendent not guilty- on account of deriving no satisfaction or gain from the murder of Kelly Doodad, mother of 3."

[Gerrtt]

If you're looking to play an evil character just to 'get away with stuff' then they're perfectly justified in not wanting the hassle, but if you're actually looking to make a complex, deep character that's not there just to screw up the game, make sure that's how you present it.

Huh...it struck me as I was reading this, nobody bats an eye when someone makes an idiotic good character, but as soon as evil is thrown in there it has to be deep, planned, and complex all of a sudden? If you ask me it's a two way street.

As for the OP: I've only played an evil character once and that was in an all evil game. I suggest that you take the time to talk about it with the party before jumping to the conclusion that they will be all against it. Just because you are evil doesn't mean you have to make an enemy of everyone that is good, afterall. Good people can have friends with shady sides, it happens every day in both directions.

[TheOOB]

One piece of advice, don't play evil just to be evil. Very few characters, in real life or fiction, are evil for evils sake, and those characters are rarely compelling (I think Kefka might be an exception :P). Evil characters have motives, reasons for why they do the things they do. These reasons may not make sense to a normal person, but they are there. Even the most heartless bastard doesn't kill without a reason.