Evil Parties - and Evil PC's - A Discussion

[AlecAustin]

While I don't play with rigidly defined alignments very often, I have several players who consistently play characters that verge on evil. They're out for their own interests, generally apathetic about the greater good unless it affects them personally, and tend to be quite ruthless with regards to who they'll kill and why. The best way to motivate their characters is usually the prospect of malicious revenge on old foes or organizations that have crossed them.

That said, neither they (nor I, when I'm not DMing) run characters who are vilely evil... just ruthless, cold-blooded, expedient, and calculating. It's hard to argue that many of the characters in our games wouldn't be categorized as evil in the D&D alignment system, but at the same time, they work together well, partly because of metagaming, and partly because their alliance serves their own interests. Just because someone's "evil" doesn't mean that they automatically approve of everything that society considers wrong. A LE fighter might well have an ethical code as complex as a paladin's, and be fiercely protective of children, while slaughtering those who obstruct their goals or offend their honor without the slightest compunction.

Part of the reason why I like Eberron and 3E's approach to alignment is that it acknowledges that there are nuances in both evil and good. I mean, other than the big "Good" stamp on the paladin's forehead, what is it that makes the genocidally-inclined slaughter of evil humanoids or lycanthropes okay? In the Books of Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, WotC effectively came out and created new "alignment levels" beyond simple good and evil, and a lot of the people describing wanton rape and pillaging strike me as describing a style of play I'd describe as Chaotic stupid or vilely Evil. I understand why they don't want to having PCs of those kinds in their games. I wouldn't either, just as I'd never play one.

But to say that a ruthless, machiavellian character who works well with their comrades is okay if their alignment is listed as "LN" but one with "LE" listed isn't... well, it strikes me as a bit silly, given that how the character is played will generally be more important than anything else. I've seen more than my share of people who've used "CN" as an excuse to do anything they wanted over the years, and it wasn't the alignment that was the problem.

 

[DMH]

I guess I just play with... well... retards.

Call them whay you may, but they were playing CE correctly. Which is why I would never allow a CE player or play in a group with a CE character. NE characters are almost as bad as they will do anything to get what they want, but generally don't go on killing sprees.

LE characters can work very well in a group without a paladin or good cleric. They can be of the type where they do the lesser of two evils and rationalize everything.

Which brings up another point- how many "good" PCs commit torture or other evil acts in the name of good. A paladin killing baby orcs come to mind.

 

[Qwillion]

character driven vs. plot driven

A couple suggestions about running an evil campaign.

Party Unity: I believe you must have a hook and a plan to keep an evil party from in party fighting, lawful evil parties tend to avoid this but ne and ce parties can quickly break down

Character driven stories: You can make a story interesting by dealing with the evil acts the player commits on his own. You don't need a plot, the story will be driven by the players actions.

Level of evil: Before you start play you better decide if they will be simply be good guys without good guy tactics (like they will let the antagonist) kill the hostage. Or you going to deal with the prostitution of 6 year olds to the local petafile.

Fun: you are going to have to make sure the game is fun the minute the game makes you depressed you need to stop and go back to playing a heroic game.

 

[Darkness]

If all you do is kill, whats the difference if its beholders or level 19 clerics of Pelor?

Yeah. It was kinda like that with the LE monk (level 13) I played in 3.0. The only evil action we committed (and committed repeatedly) was slaying our good-aligned enemies in a fight for control over the region. We also stole their holy relic to weaken their powerbase.

If we had been Good and they had been orcs, the details wouldn't have been very different.

Still, killing an astral deva (their champion) was fun.

 

[maddman75]

I've played in an evil campaign, and didn't care for it much. If you want to play Villians, there are better systems for that sort of thing. White Wolf's Vampire and other games are great at this. The essential problem of the game is that that PCs are, well, monsterous cold blooded killers. However, they try to hang onto their humanity lest they allow the beast to take over entirely. This is supported mechanically, where it is not in D&D.

I've also had characters that were evil in a Good group that worked out. One that comes to mind was based off a character in (contact)'s Temple of Elemental Evil story hour. He was a NE assassin, cold-blooded killer. However, after being caught trying to break into some place, a priest of Pelor showed mercy on him. No one had ever shown him a drop of mercy or kindness in his entire life, and he dedicated his life to serving the Lord of Light.

But...old habits die hard. The group was a *very* holy group, with a cleric of Pelor and three - count em, three - paladins, two of which worshipped Pelor. So he was an evil sadistic SOB, but would completely go along with whatever the holy folks said. For example, when another faction in the city was challenging the Church's establishment, he suggested that he sneak into their camp to murder a few of them, just to teach them that Pelor wasn't to be trifled with. Or when a prisoner was captured who knew where the Holy McGuffin was, he started cutting on the guy until the paladins told him to stop. And so on.

The difference was that this character, while evil, was designed to work within the group. Had the campaign continued, it was possible that he'd eventually stop his evil and malicious ways. I think the reason a lot of players want to play an evil campaign is because alignment has been used as a yoke in the past - you can't do the obvious and easiest thing because you are Good and that would be Wrong. The DM should take care to demonstrate the downside of Evil as well - you can't trust any of your associates and common folks will often not support you.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

Not at all my cup of tea. As stated above, I like heroes who more or less live by the same rules as Pre-Crisis Superman, The Green Lantern Corps code of conduct, and Gene Autry's Cowboy Code. Good guys doing good and risking their lives because its the right thing to do, plain and simple. Evil seriously makes it not fun for me if its the focus of the tale.

 

[Darkness]

If you want to play Villians, there are better systems for that sort of thing. White Wolf's Vampire and other games are great at this. The essential problem of the game is that that PCs are, well, monsterous cold blooded killers. However, they try to hang onto their humanity lest they allow the beast to take over entirely. This is supported mechanically, where it is not in D&D.

Yeah. Looking back, I think none of the PCs in my greatest Vampire campaign had more than 4 Humanity after a while. They certainly were an "evil" group but most of them still had some redeeming characteristics.

Looking at the main characters...

The Ventrue I'd call LE. He was basically an assassin of the powers that be (and planning to become one of the powers that be one night). He was all but a nice guy but his enemies were worse. Well, generally, that is. (Final Humanity score: 3-4)

The Caitiff was CN. Depending on her wasn't a good idea but her information-gathering prowess was incredible so she could be very useful. Her mystical combat powers weren't exactly weak, either. (Final Humanity score: Around 3, but I think she might have switched to a Path after that.)

The Toreador was NE. Arrogant, selfish bastard to the end. Good to his friends, terrible to his enemies. I don't think he killed even one vampire personally, though. Ever. He paid others to do it or arranged accidents and conflicts with a third party. (Final Humanity score: 3-4)

The Assamite antitribu was NE as well. Selfish, no morals, completely mercenary, willing to do just about anything if you paid him enough. He even murdered another player character at one point (the Toreador paid him to do it). (Final Humanity score: 1, with megalomania and 2 other derangements. Looking for a Path at that point.)

 

[painandgreed]

In all the years (~25) that I've been playing D&D, I've only had one DM ever try and run a "heroic" game. Everybody else has found the idea pretty lackluster among my friends in several cities and states. There was probably a majority of good characters but plenty of neutral and evil characters also. They are no more disfunctional than the good ones. Party unity is mainly a factor of player unity, not their character's alignment. I've seen disfuntional characters that could end a campaign due to "role playing" what their character would do on both sides of the fence from the Paladin who gets the entire party into what is known will be a TPK to the CE assassin that wants to kill the party just because he can. Some people like the heroic ideal but most seem just to want to be self serving. It's their character, they want it to advance, and while caring for their imediate friends, pretty much doesn't give a rat's ass about most other people. By the RAW, that self-serving attitude is going to end up most characters as evil. No group I've ever played with except that one has ever had a problem with that. Even in that one (and he was one of the beest DMs I've bplayed under), the heroic one where players must be good, the mere fact that your life is spent killing and looting bodies created some "interesting" ideas about what it meant to be good.

Actually, Vampire is a terrible system to play a villain because it actually penalizes you for it. The lower that Humanity goes the rougher it is to keep from slipping into unplayability. The more of a villain you are the more Xp you have to spend just to keep your character usable. D&D is a great system for it because it is pretty much a dualistic system where evil has just as much as the good and there are no penalties in the game mechanics for being evil. It's just the flip side of the coin.

 

[Darkness]

Vampire is a terrible system to play a villain because it actually penalizes you for it. The lower that Humanity goes the rougher it is to keep from slipping into unplayability.

Choose a Path of Enlightenment whose taboos go well with your personality.

 

[maddman75]

Actually, Vampire is a terrible system to play a villain because it actually penalizes you for it. The lower that Humanity goes the rougher it is to keep from slipping into unplayability. The more of a villain you are the more Xp you have to spend just to keep your character usable. D&D is a great system for it because it is pretty much a dualistic system where evil has just as much as the good and there are no penalties in the game mechanics for being evil. It's just the flip side of the coin.

Yeah, but that's the essential conflict expressed in game mechanics. After all being "good" (ie not drinking people's blood) isn't exactly a teneble option.