D&D 5E Evil character in the party

[Grainger]

I mean, if the other members of the party are not punishing the guy (probably because they have a lot of respect for the player), should I do anything?

A lot of this depends on group dynamic though (between the players). I once played in a game where a player was throwing his weight around, and wasn't challenged by players or DM because (I suspect) he was older than the DM, built like a brick outhouse, and the game took place at his house. (To cut a long story short, he wrecked the game - he ignored the quest, and kept us waiting for weeks while he wandered around town threatening important NPCs who were irrelevant to the quest. He also delighted in threatening to kill PCs he didn't like - there was no point in calling his bluff and standing up to his PC because he had a suspiciously powerful character who would probably kill you in a hit or two, and also hid his die rolls behind his hand and - funnily enough - never missed; your PC would almost certainly die in the ensuing fight).

I wouldn't recommend you do nothing, but at least the player's behaviour isn't anything like as bad as the person's I just described. So I'd think about why the other players put up with the rogue's behaviour. Is it just because they don't care, or because they are intimidated by the player in some way (or just being too polite to say anything?).

I would drop large hints that the other PCs should be royally ticked off about the rogue's behaviour. If they don't want to "have words" with her, I'd start to have NPCs comment on it; not too much, but enough to show that word is getting around that the party are being taken for fools. I probably wouldn't push it further than this, and you can't force the other PCs to act on it, but if the rogue starts annoying NPCs, they certainly can. Maybe people won't trust the party, because word gets around that the rogue is dishonourable, for example? I wouldn't be super heavy-handed about it, though - just do it enough to spur the other players into action. However, if that isn't likely to work, because they won't stand up to the player - you're just punishing them for his poor behaviour, so...

If this didn't work, I suggest having a word with the player that his behaviour doesn't fit with the tone of the campaign, but this is a difficult one, as it depends on your personal dynamic with the player in question. However, ultimately if he's detracting from the other players' fun, and he won't change his behaviour, then he should be politely shown the door or else you might end up with only that player left (and I definitely don't have fond memories of the game I just described, 20 years later). Yes, the other players should do something about it ideally, but he's ultimately the one "in the wrong".

 

[Jarrod]

It's interesting to see that "evil character" is "a jerk to the other PCs".

I'm in a campaign playing an evil rogue. He's definitely evil - ends justify the means, will kill someone without a second thought, torture and terror are just fine. But there's no way he would act like that towards the other PCs. First, he's not stupid; he knows what goes around comes around. But he also knows there is a party goal that we're working towards. He's just ... a little less restrained as to methods.

So evil does not have to mean "anti-social jerk".

 

[Lanefan]

It's interesting to see that "evil character" is "a jerk to the other PCs".

I'm in a campaign playing an evil rogue. He's definitely evil - ends justify the means, will kill someone without a second thought, torture and terror are just fine. But there's no way he would act like that towards the other PCs. First, he's not stupid; he knows what goes around comes around. But he also knows there is a party goal that we're working towards. He's just ... a little less restrained as to methods.

Further, if he looks at the long-term picture, sooner or later these walking bags of treasure he adventures with are inevitably going to get themselves killed; all he has to do is make sure he's well looked after in their wills...

Lan-"all your treasure are belong to me"-efan

 

[Grainger]

It's interesting to see that "evil character" is "a jerk to the other PCs".

I'm in a campaign playing an evil rogue. He's definitely evil - ends justify the means, will kill someone without a second thought, torture and terror are just fine. But there's no way he would act like that towards the other PCs. First, he's not stupid; he knows what goes around comes around. But he also knows there is a party goal that we're working towards. He's just ... a little less restrained as to methods.

So evil does not have to mean "anti-social jerk".

In my opinion, too, that's a far more interesting way to play "evil" than "kill the other PCs and steal their stuff". Pragmatic/cunning evil is always more interesting - and more dangerous - than brutish killer. If I was going to play an evil character, that's how I'd do it.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

My six year old daughter made her first D&D character yesterday and decided to be an evil drow. I confirmed about a hundred times, "You don't want to be a hero? You want to be a villain?" We only did character creation yesterday but she said she wants her character to own a castle. It'll be interesting to see where this goes...

 

[delericho]

Part of the key to playing an Evil PC in a mixed alignment party is the flip side of playing a Paladin. Just like a "Lawful Stupid" Pally won't be all that welcome (most of the time), "Stupid Evil" is just as disruptive.

This. It's not actually the Evil alignment that's the root of the issue - you'd have the same problem with the "jerk Paladin" archetype.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to play a character: you can either play in a way that adds to the fun of the group, or you can play in a way that drains fun from the group.

An evil character can certainly be played in a manner that adds to the fun of the group, even in a mostly-good party (see Belkar), and a good character can likewise be played in a manner that drains the fun from the table (see Miko Miyazaki).

So, provided the evil rogue is played in a manner that adds to the fun of the table, you don't have a problem. If her actions are making things less fun, you should talk to the player.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The same goes for evil PCs- played right, they're like a nice dash of cayenne pepper in a jumbalaya as opposed to a mountain of salt.

Agreed, but it seems like many players can't pull this off.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many players can't play Paladins without being fun drains, either.

 

[billd91]

Agreed, but it seems like many players can't pull this off.

I have yet to see a player who can't pull this off who isn't also disruptive in general. In my experience, it isn't the player being disruptive because they've made an evil PC (except for immature players playing on the dark side for their first time and letting it go to their heads), it's the player making an evil (or CN) PC to justify their disruptiveness.

 

[Meliath1742]

Maybe I'm an old guy thinking this...but how does an evil character fit with the premise that D&D is about a group coming together to face a common threat. A threat that is generally evil in nature. My old school mentality simply can't grasp how an evil character is conducive to group play. Does it add drama...perhaps. But that certainly doesn't mean it helps the story. It simply adds distraction to the main goals of the group forcing them to constantly watch their backs. To me an evil character is an NPC.