DMs, Do you allow your group(s) to play Evil PCs and/or parties, & why?

[Aenghus]

I don't allow evil characters in my regular campaign, because I don't want to explore that game territory and evil PCs tend to be a bad choice for long campaigns. I want my regular PCs to care about some of the places and NPCs in the setting, and that's more believable for good and neutral PCs.

I could run an "all evils" or "evils and neutrals" game, but IMO it would be a one shot game or just a few sessions, due to the inherent instability of such PCs even in the hands of sincere players. Evil games often seem to gravitate to heavy handed plot devices to force the disparate PCs to work together in a "Suicide Squad" type arrangement. I would prefer to go with all PCs being from one organisation or from allied factions, we can still write in tension but the plotting can be less heavy handed.

 

[steenan]

I run campaigns for PCs that are idealistic. They may have bad tempers, they may use questionable methods sometimes, but they can't be focused on selfish motivations (eg. money). This implies but is not equivalent to limiting PCs to good and neutral alignments.

One-shots are a different kind of a beast. I may run one with an evil party and/or PvP.

 

[Lanefan]

Anything goes around here.

As DM, if the party want to spend all session pranking each other or whatever...even killing each other, if it comes to that...I'm cool with it; I can sit back and have a beer. The only rule is that it stays in character: Eldrahon arguing with Tamarrik is fine, John arguing with Cindy is not. And while the party's busy arguing the opponents are busy doing whatever they're doing that the party was supposed to be preventing...

Long-term experience tells me that in any party there's always going to be a run - usually early on - where they want to do each other in, after which it (mostly) settles down.

As player, any game where I was forced to play altruistic or heroic characters all the time would lose me pretty fast, as would this:

I run campaigns for PCs that are idealistic. They may have bad tempers, they may use questionable methods sometimes, but they can't be focused on selfish motivations (eg. money).

As the player who invented the alignment "Neutral Greedy" for a character of mine many years ago, I have to oppose this on principle.

Even the most idealistic-seeming character can have selfish motivations. One I've been running for quite some time now is a LN Wizard-type from a Roman-based society. She's got herself caught up in an overarching save-the-world plot line, into which she's (to all appearances) idealistically jumped with both feet. Why? Because there's not much point in getting on to the Senate and ultimately becoming Empress (her personal long-term goal) if there's nothing left to rule...

Think about it: in the game world the quickest - if riskiest - path to riches and fame is adventuring, and people would know this; making "I'm here to get rich" the most obvious motivation there is.

Besides, in original 1e one's motivations for adventuring were almost always personal and-or selfish in one respect: in the end you were out to amass enough resources to be able to fulfill your duties at name level - build your castle, set up your temple, start your guild, set up your research lab, whatever - depending on class.

Lan-"this has to be the oldest thread I've seen around here this decade"-efan

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Any alignment, but with sensible caveats and reasonable restrictions. E.g., if you go CE when there's already a paladin in the party I'll require some convincing you're not just being a jerk (and vice versa).

 

[ccs]

Generally any alignment is fine with me.
Now & then I'll set some restriction depending upon type of campaign I want to run as:
1) Not everything fits into every campaign. Alignment is no different than races/classes in this regard.
2) Some other factor (so-and-so will only play if x,)
3) Or we're running this at the local shop. True, I generally don't care if you're characters are murdering psycopaths & eat the orc babies & then kill each other for whatever reasons.... If that's the type of game you all want, just let me know & I'll consider DMing that. BUT we're not going to run it on the center table of the local shop simply because that would be bad PR for the store. What runs at the shop is PG13 rated action-adventure.

My one stipulation is: Make it work. Applies to Alignment, Race, Class, RP, etc. If the game becomes un-fun because of you....

 

[Psikerlord#]

We dont use alignment anymore, but when we did, it was always "no evil PCs" because if just one guy was evil, it was a TPK waiting to happen.

 

[pemerton]

I had to answer "yes", because the last session I ran was an AD&D one-off, and the 4 PCs were of LN, N, NE and LE alignment.

A long-running RM campaign that I ran included one lead PC who, if he had to be classified in terms of 9-point alignment, would probably be NE.

(I also tend to follow the Gygaxian AD&D rulebooks for alignment - that is, good = someone who recognises other-regardind duties, and evil = someone who doesn't, and hence is only motivated by self-interest. I think when N is used for the latter, and hence when E becomes "kills a dozen puppies for fun every morning", the alignment system loses what litte utility it had.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I run campaigns for PCs that are idealistic. They may have bad tempers, they may use questionable methods sometimes, but they can't be focused on selfish motivations (eg. money). This implies but is not equivalent to limiting PCs to good and neutral alignments.

One-shots are a different kind of a beast. I may run one with an evil party and/or PvP.

As player, any game where I was forced to play altruistic or heroic characters all the time would lose me pretty fast, as would this:
As the player who invented the alignment "Neutral Greedy" for a character of mine many years ago, I have to oppose this on principle.

Even the most idealistic-seeming character can have selfish motivations. One I've been running for quite some time now is a LN Wizard-type from a Roman-based society. She's got herself caught up in an overarching save-the-world plot line, into which she's (to all appearances) idealistically jumped with both feet. Why? Because there's not much point in getting on to the Senate and ultimately becoming Empress (her personal long-term goal) if there's nothing left to rule...

Think about it: in the game world the quickest - if riskiest - path to riches and fame is adventuring, and people would know this; making "I'm here to get rich" the most obvious motivation there is.

Besides, in original 1e one's motivations for adventuring were almost always personal and-or selfish in one respect: in the end you were out to amass enough resources to be able to fulfill your duties at name level - build your castle, set up your temple, start your guild, set up your research lab, whatever - depending on class.

Lan-"this has to be the oldest thread I've seen around here this decade"-efan

I really have to side with Lanefan on this one, I've run quite a number of mercenaries who are "neutral greedy" or as I call it "chaotic money". They'll go where there's pay. They'll do what they're paid to do. They have morals and ethics and codes of honor sure, things that go against those just cost more. It's not that they lack goals or ideals, they just understand the one constant rule of the universe: the people with money have power and the people with power get the things they want. So maybe my merc really wants to end poverty and save all the homeless fish-people, but they can't do that without money and power and influence.

I find this fun because in a lot of ways, it feels like you're starting a character at zero and they can either move into the negative as they do progressively more evil things for money and power, losing sight of their goals in their quest for power, or they move into the positive as they turn town potentially high-paying jobs to preserve their ethics, even if that makes it harder to achieve their goals.

Now mind you I like playing paladins. Really do. I like being the good guy, always have. But I like the idea that my character makes a conscious choice to do the right thing. Sometimes playing a paladin is just too easy and it makes the character flat and two-dimensional. They never really make any real decisions, their codes and alignments and religions have it all laid out for them where they should step and when they should take that step.

Further: selfish motivations can be some of the best motivations. And really, I don't even see how a person would use questionable methods if they weren't selfish. You use questionable tactics for the simple reason that it is a faster way to achieve your goals. Maybe your goals are to help the poor, but if you think the best way to do that is to kill the bourgeoisie, that's a selfish decision. You have decided that your goals trump other people's lives. @steenan if your players are never selfish, I don't see how they could ever use questionable tactics.

I will add though, it's one thing I've like that 5E and other systems have codified: that "ideals" (bonds/flaws, etc...) are something that should go down on your character sheet for the GM to reference right along with your attack mods and class levels. Even if your only goal is to get rich and retire young, that's a goal I can work with to put you in some interesting situations.

 

[Maxperson]

Further: selfish motivations can be some of the best motivations.

All motivations, including altruism are selfish motivations. People wouldn't be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good or satisfy some other need of theirs. The same with everything else anyone does.

 

[pemerton]

All motivations, including altruism are selfish motivations. People wouldn't be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good or satisfy some other need of theirs.

This is a highly contentious hypothesis.