When evil characters make friends :3

[Stormsparrow]

I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.

Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.

I think it would be really interesting, especially if the character's true colors started to show after a while. How would her new friends react?

Providing the GM is entirely aware of what is really going on, and is prepared for any scenarios that might develop, how would a lying character be played from a metagame perspective?

Would the other players be able to make insight or even diplomacy checks to learn more about their companion? How would that work?

 

[Andor]

It depends on what kind of lawful evil you're talking about.

Evil can mean motives or simply means.

If you mean the devil worshipping, stop at nothing to rule the world, manaical evil, then yeah, the party is doomed.

If it's simply that the character's scruples are not particularly concerned with being nice, then no big deal.

Frankly LE is often less disruptive to a party than CG.

 

[Stormsparrow]

I'm assuming that within the framework of the adventure - if not the campaign - the character is willing to work with the player characters. She may want to rule the world, destroy various enemies, or even find pleasure in killing and violence. These motives are not difficult to cover up, at least temporarily. My question is how they can be covered up while giving the other players an opportunity to figure things out.

 

[Oni]

Frankly LE is often less disruptive to a party than CG.

Or LG for that matter....

 

[Simplicity]

I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.

Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.

I think it would be really interesting, especially if the character's true colors started to show after a while. How would her new friends react?

Providing the GM is entirely aware of what is really going on, and is prepared for any scenarios that might develop, how would a lying character be played from a metagame perspective?

Would the other players be able to make insight or even diplomacy checks to learn more about their companion? How would that work?

It sounds like a great idea.

Speaking from a LOT of experience, let me just tell you. It's not. Party distrust turns to party violence and player bitterness.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It sounds like a great idea.

Speaking from a LOT of experience, let me just tell you. It's not. Party distrust turns to party violence and player bitterness.

IME (30+years) I think it depends on the group.

A couple of years ago, I played a Neutral Evil Fighter/Rogue who did keep some of the treasure he found concealed, who did pick on the frail wizard (in a manner disguised as macho joviality), and so forth...

And it was a Good-aligned PC Cleric who got himself in trouble with the Prince for evangelizing in his region without permission, earning him a quick exile and derailing the campaign.

 

[Hussar]

One thing I've found that helps is right at character creation, tell your players that each character must have links to at least two other characters. Some fundamental element that provides a reason for these people to tolerate each other's presense. They don't have to be friends, but, there has to be some reason why they won't come to blows.

Then, enforce a PVE rule. No player vs player combat. You can do whatever you want, short of outright attacking another player. Be very upfront that breaking out the D20 when you get into an argument is NOT an option. Leave it up to the players to figure out other means of conflict resolution.

Once that's out of the way, I've found that evil parties, or evil PC's in a good party can work rather well. When everyone is aware that their actions have consequences, but, they cannot simply solve those with violence, people start being very creative with both introducing conflicts and resolving them.

What I've found is that players start dancing around each other in much more interesting ways. Instead of someone being very directly confrontational, the players start trying to justify each other's actions. Looks a lot like an episode of the Sopranos, where you have all these bad people, who given a really good chance, might off one another, working together and acting very politely to each other most of the time.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I was giving some thought to character creation last night, when it occured to me that party dynamics shouldn't always be open and honest.

I agree. One of my house rules is that only I (the DM) and the PC's player know a PC's alignment (barring divinations and such). I ask the players not to write their alignment on character sheets or any other place another player might see it.

I've also played in campaigns where PCs killed other PCs, and it wasn't a problem. Groups that can handle such stuff are rare, though, and my current house rule is that PC vs PC conflict must be nonlethal.

 

[Hereticus]

Let's say you have a character that is lawful evil, but finds herself working alongside characters that are generally good. While she can be a "team player" and advance the goals of the group, her alignment might make it impossible for her get along with the more religious characters. In this case, the player would be best served by having the character hide her true alignment, or even pretend to be a worshipper of a good deity.

I've run into this scenario quite a few times.

Being evil does not mean you are a monster, it more than likely means that you are a self-centered SOB who only has your own interest in mind.

Like most of my characters.

First of all I make myself valuable to the party, effective in combat and a team player. This helps make the sins I am caught with seem a bit more tolerable.

Also make some donations to local good churches and orphanages, especially those with character involvement. If you donate alot of gold, wait a while before stealing it back, it will be less obvious.

 

[Hereticus]

I'm assuming that within the framework of the adventure - if not the campaign - the character is willing to work with the player characters. She may want to rule the world, destroy various enemies, or even find pleasure in killing and violence. These motives are not difficult to cover up, at least temporarily. My question is how they can be covered up while giving the other players an opportunity to figure things out.

The character must be witty... there must always be a good reason for the action.

Gold is stolen and put aside as a special donation to a charity. The evil character may even set up a phony charity to donate to, and convince other characters to donate too. Yes, I had done that and gotten away with it.

If you kill someone, it was for a valid reason. That innocent looking farmer may have been a terrorist in hiding, or may have been a wanted person. I had an evil Cleric that would cast commune with dead spells and relay fake messages back to the party. Being in an evil group, I suspected that they were lying to me too.

Soon enough even the densest player will catch on that maybe all these evil actions are not a coincidence.