Evil PCs

[RamrodTheWizard]

Hey, am I alone in the the fact that I disallow evil PCs. This has recently come under contention with one of my friends and I need a more articulate argument then I can provide over aim. I believe that they mess up campaigns and that deep down the idea just doesn't click with me. I'm not looking for you to fight my battles, I'm just looking for points that i can look into to educate myself.

[Lord Iames Osari]

I disallow evil PCs as a matter of course. What exactly is your friend's argument?

[RamrodTheWizard]

He just doesn't think the point is rational. He says that evil PCs are workable in normal party, which he considers a nonhero. Claiming that the PC can work with the group to support their own interest. I understand his points, but it doesn't click with me. The feel of it doesn't fit with my views, but this isn't a huge deal, just a point of contention.

[Tengu]

Most evil characters act in a way that any good character (and most neutral ones) roleplayed with at least a tiny amount of credibility wouldn't associate with them, but made their best to see the evil character in question killed or jailed. Those evil characters who can work in a team with an otherwise good/neutral group usually have the evil part of their alignment questioned (see how many people say that Jayne from Firefly would be CN).

[Green Bean]

Evil PCs only really work for campaigns where the whole party's evil. Even then, it's a pain to DM. And in a party of good/neutrals, it becomes even harder. Not only are you going to have to deal with backstabbing (on both sides; obviously evil people don't tend to last long in good parties), but you'll need to figure out how to motivate the evil guy to actually go along with the party. It can end up being twice as much work.

[Jannex]

There are thematic considerations as well. If, as the DM, you're going for a more "heroic" feel to your campaign, then an evil character won't fit in with that.

[Reel On, Love]

Evil PCs only really work for campaigns where the whole party's evil. Even then, it's a pain to DM. And in a party of good/neutrals, it becomes even harder. Not only are you going to have to deal with backstabbing (on both sides; obviously evil people don't tend to last long in good parties), but you'll need to figure out how to motivate the evil guy to actually go along with the party. It can end up being twice as much work.

Sorry, but that's crap.

No, you don't have to deal with backstabbing. You deal with backstabbing from backstabbing characters, not from evil ones; someone can be Evil but still be loyal to his friends. Chaotic Neutral characters, for example, are just as likely to backstab.

Evil just means that a character is willing to harm others to benefit himselof, not vice-versa. It doesn't have to be *all* others; he could be kind to his dear old mum and give her half the money he makes so that she can buy medicines for her painful illness. He could consider the party his best friends.


To the OP: "Evil PCs" are a broad category; "evil" covers a potentially infinite number of characters. I think that if you think it over, you'll find what you really mean is that you don't want characters acting in certain game-disrupting ways that you associate with the Evil alignment (I'll note here that Paladins, who are Lawful Good, are about as game-disrupting as evil characters when both are done wrong).

Identify what those actions are. For example, "I don't want any party infighting. You should be loyal to and/or trust the party. I don't want you murdering random NPCs. I don't want to have to figure out an extra reason on top of the basic for you to stay with the party, go on the quests, et cetera."
Those are reasonable things. If the player can make a Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Evil character who can follow those campaign rules, then why does his alignment matter? You can tell him as much. "Don't do X, Y, and Z; if you can make an evil character who follows the rules, go ahead. The point is that all the characters, evil or not, have to follow the rules."

Some players treat evil alignments like an excuse to do whatever they want, disregarding the plot, the party, and everyone else's fun.
Some players treat chaotic alignments that way, too.
Not all of them do. Ban disruptive behavior, not alignments.

[asqwasqw]

How evil is his character? Is he the slaughter everyone in sight kind of person or the rational, I don't care who gets in my way, I will get what I want type of person?

[dyslexicfaser]

If he thinks he can pull it off, I'd say give it a try. There are ways to play an evil character in a group of non-evils - after all, all good bad guys need a few stooges, and just because someone is greedy and puts himself first doesn't mean he can't be part of a team.

But it can be a terrible experience that can split or even destroy a group if not played correctly.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

In general, no, I've not had evil party members in good groups. Oddly enough, no one seems to care about having Chaotic members in Lawful groups, or vice versa.

I'd allow an Evil character in a good group if we can establish a good pecking order. If the good characters can keep the evil character under control (mostly), then the situation will work. If the evil character would end up walking all over the good party and hindering the party's short and long term efforts, then it's not a great idea to have him along.

[Ulzgoroth]

It really depends where you draw the 'evil' line.

It seems obvious to me that a character who would just as cheerfully plunder towns as dungeons is evil, even if they are deterred from doing so by threat of retaliation and by the demands of allies who they are unwilling to break with (for whatever reason). Such a character is perfectly viable in a heroic-good type game, provided that either that character always has some (good) selfish reason available for what the party does, or the character has some leash keeping them with the party line when they do completely altruistic things.

Some people seem to classify that character as neutral, and require that an evil character not simply be unconcerned with the lives of others but rather be actively inimical to them. If you don't consider someone evil until they're a rampaging sadist, pyromaniac, mass poisoner, or eater of live babies, you'll have some trouble fitting evil characters into almost any party. Or justifying why they haven't been hung yet, for that matter.

[Reel On, Love]

In general, no, I've not had evil party members in good groups. Oddly enough, no one seems to care about having Chaotic members in Lawful groups, or vice versa.

I'd allow an Evil character in a good group if we can establish a good pecking order. If the good characters can keep the evil character under control (mostly), then the situation will work. If the evil character would end up walking all over the good party and hindering the party's short and long term efforts, then it's not a great idea to have him along.

Presumably, the evil character--like *any* character--has a reason he's with the party. Given that, hindering the party's efforts isn't evil, it's just stupid and suicidal.

[The Glyphstone]

See also: Belkar. He's a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who functions as part of a Good-aligned group.

[WrathOfLife]

Well, in a game I'm in right now most of the party 3/5 are evil. The balance is found.... with some give and take. Mostly, the weaker evils (the kobold and the necro) give in to the stronger evil (troll rogue). Although the Kobold (myself) and the troll plot to kill each other, neither of them can really act to openly because the good characters might pick sides or they might be badly wounded or killed (a growing threat to the troll as my kobold caster nears his first save or die).

The plot continues and is, if anything speed along by the evil acts of the 3. They don't go around killing random people or being jerky (well execpt for the troll), they instead choose moments where bending the moral norm will provide them with better or faster awnsers, for example torturing for information. Naturally being evil doesn't mean stupid, so the evil characters did the job away from the good characters, and when the poor fellow escaped, they either made disguise checks or left town.


In general I find that most evil partys or characters work best if they make moves to hide there evil side. There's a reason that the BBEG always has a party of do-gooders after him.

However I'v also encountered the no evil in a party games, and I enjoy these as they tend to reduce the encounters with the old 'I pick-pocket all the loot from the fighter' kind of players.

Its really up to how you want to run your game, if the players don't like it, well... there are always more players than DMs.

[Danin]

I've had a number of evil PCs in my campaigns with varried success. I simply explained the rules ahead of time to them and they managed to follow them. Some seem more neutral than evil, others seem entirely evil without disrupting the party ("The Tempest" is a good example of this, a Chaotic Evil Cleric of Talos). I allow it but if it disrupts game play I'll axe em off.

[Dr. Weasel]

There's no reason to ban Evil characters; if a player wants to ruin a campaign, they'll do it just as quickly as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good.

[BlackStaticWolf]

When I'm running a campaign with an overarching plot that requires it, I not only ban evil... I ban neutral. It's all about the kind of campaign I want to run, and I'm very up front with my players... I tell them exactly what I want.

What restrictions I place depends entirely on what kind of campaign I want to run. Sometimes I've placed no restrictions at all, other times I've actually required specific class make-ups.

[Lemur]

As usual, there are different perceptions on what "evil" as an alignment entails. The other difficulty is that disruptive characters or players can really have any alignment.

Paladins, even non-Miko types, are infamous for conflicting with the rest of the party due to being too good for practical adventuring. Likewise, chaotic characters might take a lot of leeway on screwing with how things go, and a CG or CN character could potentially "mess up" the campaign without committing an evil act. Thematic concerns are valid, however. Evil characters don't usually fit in when high heroism is expected (likewise, paladins don't fit in well with grim n' gritty settings)

Ramrod, look at it this way. There's one way to check your views on the matter: let the player make an evil character. What's the worst that could happen? If it really becomes disruptive, you're justified in taking the character away and enforcing a "no evil characters" policy. If it turns out not to be a problem, everything's cool, and there's no need to sweat it any more. Keep in mind that you have to be fair, and not vindictively work against a player just because he's evil. If the NPCs are metagaming against the evil PC, there's going to be problems.

It's just a game, after all. Have fun and try new stuff out.

[slexlollar89]

If the man wants to be evil, you should consider it, but tell the peron that he/she is not to disrupt the game or you will no allow the same type of character again. If he insist on being disruptive, dont allow him to play the campaign, but don't penalize a viable role-playing option.

[Dausuul]

See also: Belkar. He's a perfect example of a Chaotic Evil character who functions as part of a Good-aligned group.

...badly. Actually, if I were going to ban evil characters, Belkar would be a textbook case of why.

Better example: Raistlin Majere.

[Saph]

Evil characters can work fine with a good/neutral party, as long as the player of the evil PC is mature and reasonably intelligent. They have to know when to back down, and to avoid doing things that they know will seriously annoy the rest of the group (and if they get found out, they have to know what to expect).

That said, there are two big problems with evil characters, neither of which make it impossible to play an evil character, but which are likely to cause issues.

1) Evil characters tend not to play well with others, especially Chaotic Evil ones. An evil character is much more likely to put himself above everyone else, and this can cause problems given the generally team-based nature of D&D. It can also be hard to justify why your Good-aligned characters are putting up with an evil companion in the first place - most of the members of the OotS are ambivalent about having Belkar around, and for good reason, given that he's openly talked about killing party members for fun and XP.

2) There's a certain set of players out there who tend to play characters with evil alignments. These are the guys who kill shopkeepers in the middle of a town filled with high-level clerics and paladins, then when retribution arrives run to the rest of the party and expect to be protected. These are also the guys who think tabletop RPGs are great places to act out violent sexual fantasies, and who think everyone else at the table will be really impressed by listening to detailed descriptions of the novel torture techniques they've come up with. Now, most players who play evil PCs aren't like these guys, but there are enough of them out there that most DMs are justifiably wary of being told "I want to play an evil character."

- Saph

[freeze43]

Evil =/= Uncontrollable rage-ahol backstabbing villains o' doom.

No. Evil can mean that you are greedy, have a penchant for stealing and can ignore what is 'right' in order to get what you need. Hell, some of the nastiest Lawful Evil people have maxims to not hurt the innocent. Belkar alone shows that an evil character can work just fine.

[Saph]

No. Evil can mean that you are greedy, have a penchant for stealing and can ignore what is 'right' in order to get what you need. Hell, some of the nastiest Lawful Evil people have maxims to not hurt the innocent. Belkar alone shows that an evil character can work just fine.

Belkar is a perfect example of why many players do not want evil PCs in their party. He's tried to kill one party member for XP and is so keen on getting to kill others that he spent his question to the Oracle finding out about it. If I had a character like Belkar in my party, I'd either get rid of the PC or get rid of the player. I have enough to worry about fighting monsters without having to deal with a PC putting a dagger in my back too.

- Saph

[Freshmeat]

Some players treat evil alignments like an excuse to do whatever they want, disregarding the plot, the party, and everyone else's fun.
Some players treat chaotic alignments that way, too.
Not all of them do. Ban disruptive behavior, not alignments.

QFT. Exactly what I was thinking when I read the first post.

For the DM evil does offer more risks though. One can roleplay a good character either in a horrible or a fantastic manner, and in neither case wil they be disruptive. Evil characters on the other hand, if roleplayed badly, will have an adverse effect. But there's nothing wrong with evil on itself.

If you trust your players to play their evil characters in a mature manner, they can be a great boon to a roleplaying session. If you're dealing with the kind that only thinks of 'kill everyone! lol!' when trying to 'roleplay' an evil character, the problem lies with that player, not the alignment.

If you ask me, it's just because of the prevalent clichés that exist. Just like rogues have to be greedy and paladins have to be preachy and holier-than-thou, so too must evil characters apparently try to kill everyone 'just because'. And then people say clichés are clichés 'because they work'. Ugh.

You know what? I advise you to ditch alignments altogether. People will act in a more logical, natural way and it takes away the entire Morality 101 issue where people that don't ping on detect evil are trustworthy, chivalrous and honorable, whereas people that do are nothing but lying, greedy monsters that have undoubtedly murdered hundreds of innocents already.

[Xuincherguixe]

Evil characters being allowed is generally the exception to the rule.

It can be pretty hard for evil and good types to get along. Be prepared for conflict. Hopefully it ends up being mostly just in character yelling. Or no characters are eliminated that anyone is particularly attached too.

I like evil characters, but the books themselves don't just not allow evil characters, they seem to not even act as if they're something that is in the range of possibility. Sort of like how no one thought of portable music players before the invention of the wheel (okay, not completely impossible. But let's just pretend that it was outside of the range of things cavemen could think of)


If you do allow it (and I'm not saying you should), make sure that the guy isn't going to backstab and betray the other PCs. NPCs in my mind are always fair game, but if you don't feel that it's alright for after the princesses usefulness is at an end that she gets sold into slavery when the other characters can't find out about it then really there's no good reason to allow evil PCs. I know I for one would get pretty sick and tired of not being able to maim or destroy anyones lives fast while playing an evil dude.


Really, I would say that Evil PCs fall into the category of house rules.

[DiscipleofBob]

I don't disallow evil PC's, but I do frown upon them in my games. Basically it comes down to whether or not said PC will act rational in his evil and still be beneficial to the party, or whether he'll just go around torching villages and killing helpless NPCs. The latter is disallowed.

[drunkmonk]

There is a thread about happy endings, buy I think that this might be a better place to talk about the right time to play an evil character.

First, let me say that I don’t agree with backstabbing, stealing, or otherwise jamming up other PCs. In fact, that would not happen in our group, because we are all friends who know each other really well. I have thrown a lazy boy recliner on our DM for being a jerk in the game. If one of us killed a fellow PC in the game, I don’t think he would make it out of the room without getting his ass handed to him.

However, If we as a group are told that we are going to start a new game that is going to have a very dark theme, I think an evil PC is perfectly workable. IF the ideas covered are war, betrayal, and general delving into humanoid inhumanity, then I think that I would rather play an anti-hero. Somebody who might not be as “likeable” as some of the characters I have run over the years, but maybe more appropriate to the theme of the game. This is PARTICULARLY true when the DM does not allow raise dead or any of its fellows. Also, if a dark PC gets killed at the last fight taking even greater evil down with him – then it might feel like all is right in a weird way.

DM

[Runolfr]

Those evil characters who can work in a team with an otherwise good/neutral group usually have the evil part of their alignment questioned (see how many people say that Jayne from Firefly would be CN).

Not me. I think Jayne's evil.

[LongVin]

Taking an example from literature look at Artemis Entreri from R.A. Salvatore books. He is evil but he is in control, he doesn't randomly go and kill innocents. He works well in a group because it is mutually beneficial as seen with him and Jarlaxle.

[Stephen_E]

For party disruptive behaviour I've seen Lawful PCs be used as disruptive/hijacking tools as much or more than Chaos/Evil. "I have my rules/code and everyone must follow them" types.

Note the term "tools". Disruptive behaviour is a player activity, not a PC activity. Confusing the two is what often causes difficulty in debates.

If you can't beleive that a evil PC can play in a party without been disruptive think about this. The odds are that a reasonable amount of the people you play with, work with, or otherwise hang around with are "evil" by DnD standards. I don't mean "EVIL" as in trying for world domination, I mean "evil" as in the bend/ignore the rules to suit themselves, look after themselves 1st, screw others who get in their way, are greedy and/or manipulative.

I can think of a friend of mine in particular who has done much of this and who I consider "evil" (and I'm not alone in my view). Yet I like the person and they are quite capable of teamwork. Indeed is quite good at it. They will tend to try and arrane things so that they end up with a slightly bigger share of the pie than anyone else, but they also work hard to make sure that everyone in the party gets the biggest share possible from everyone outside the party. The problem with this person is if he considers himself in competition with others. Then his evil side really shows.

Summing up.
Is the player a disruptive player? If so you're likely to have problems regardless. As a "evil" PC he's likely to be more open about it, but by the same token you can be more open in shutting him down.

Is your party a co-operative party or a competitive party. In the latter "evil" is likely to have more internal impact on the party.

If you insist that the PC's backstory makes him/her a part of the group, and that they aren't a psycho-villian, there is no particular reason they can't be a productive member of the party.

As for your personal distaste of the idea of an "evil" PC. Make a list of exactly why you don't like the idea of "evil" PCs. What exactly do you think they do that is so objectionable. Show this list to the player who wishes to paly a evil PC and see what they say. If they say "but that's the point of playing evil" then you're probably right to say no. If they say "but that's nothing to do with my concept" or "Hmmm, yeah, I can work with that" then you should let them go ahead. The inbetween situation is if they go "fine" on most of the points, but say "that's silly" on a few. Then you should sit down and have a discussion and see if their is a compromisable posistion.

Stephen