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

[Magic Rub]

Yes - any alignment from the PHB is fair game.
No - Only goodly aligned PCs are allowed.
Shades of grey - Only goodly aligned & Neutral PCs are allowed
Pitch Black - Only evil PCs are allowed.
Other?


I will allow any alignment from the PHB, with the exception of Chaotic Evil (as it's too unpredictable! & they generally don't last long.) Other then that I feel it should be up to my players as to what they would like to play. It is my job to figure out their relevance to whatever plot I have planned. With the obvious exclusion of an occasional alignment theme based quest, eg: your typical "Lawful good" Paladin quests. My philosophy for D&D alignments has always "generally" been that "Good & Evil" are merely a perception based on ones goals, & morals in relation to another persons goals, & morals. (yes true there are always exceptions. I do understand the mechanics of it all, & keep them in mind.)

Good Party-A invades "evil" lizard man camp on orders from the King, who often donates money to help local no profit charity groups all the time. They kill all the "Bad guys" take the treasure, & tails back for their "good" King. little does Party-A know that the lizards are peaceful. The King likes the taste of lizard tails, & needs more treasure to support a war he's planning. But Party-A is still Good Because they didn't know. Sure!?

 

[Crothian]

In your example the pary is good. Just cause you were folled doesn't make you evil. Of course if the Lizard Men really are peaceful the party should be able to see that. But if they are obeying the oprders of their king, that's more lawful then good. But the party can be good and kill a bunch of good creatures and still be considered good. It's all about the reasons behind the actions that matter. A single action can be goo, evil or neither. Only knowing the reasons why the action was done and the circumstances behind them can we tell what an action is.

I allow most alignments, but i usually run a more herioc game which favors good alinged characters. But anything is allowed as long as the party is not disrupted. I warn players of this ahead of time and you only get one chance. Some people can play evil, but most people use it as an excuse to do whatever they want without conscequences.

 

[Arkham]

I voted Shades of Grey

Although it really depends on the flavor of game
I am trying to run.

If I am running a heroic game, then I encourage
all the non-good characters to at least have
good tendancies.

But for more kick-in-the-door, hunt down
the orc, kick him and the junk and take his wallet
type of play, anything goes.

 

[rushlight]

Well, I chose Pitch Black. That applies to my next campaign, which will be starting soon. It's set in FR, and the PCs will be the bad guys. Very evil bad guys! They will have to deal with those pesky heros foiling plans and plots.

I'm sure my players will enjoy the new setting, since the game they are playing now is the typical good-party-saves-the-world style. But then, that's fun too!

 

[Crothian]

Well, I chose Pitch Black. That applies to my next campaign, which will be starting soon. It's set in FR, and the PCs will be the bad guys. Very evil bad guys! They will have to deal with those pesky heros foiling plans and plots.

I'm sure my players will enjoy the new setting, since the game they are playing now is the typical good-party-saves-the-world style. But then, that's fun too!

If the group is together for long enough, I like to have a group of Evil PCs and allow them to form a huge evil sindicate and kill a bunch of the powerful heroes and really throw FR into chaos. THen when they get at a level you want them retired, you start a new campaign. same world, same time period. This time the PCs play the good guys and have to overthrow their previous characters.

 

[Mordax]

I allow any alignment. Sometimes, I have a scenario that requires good or evil. Mostly, I just encourage PCs to make characters that will work well together.

(I'd ban Chaotic alignments before I'd touch evil. Frankly, LE characters are usually better for a game than CN ones.)

 

[Johno]

All colours works OK for a while, then you end up with half the party slaughtered due to intraparty conflicts, as the aasimar paladin and tieflng assassin just couldn't get a long for some reason...

This is why I have shades of grey. It makes for better party cohesion. Some intraparty tension is good. Too much is disruptive not only in game, but even in my living room.

 

[Black Omega]

I don't have a problem with evil PC's. In my Rokugan game it's all about honor and lawfulness. LG and LE can work together just fine against the wild attempts of the chaotics to mess up society.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Shades of Grey

Put me in the Shades of Grey section. At the moment, I allow all good and neutral alignments (although CN is closely monitored, I don't treat the law/chaos axis as magically detectable and absolute--it's just a tool for players to help categorize their characters' views).

If I had to start my campaign over again, I'd consider allowing LE and disallowing CN. I've seen some rather messy game self-destructs because of poorly played CN (really CE) characters. On the other hand, I've also had a lot of fun with well-played CN characters. And I don't think that poorly played LE would be any better than poorly played CN. . . .

 

[Particle_Man]

goody two-shoes

I am rather strict. I only allow good-aligned PC's, and if the PC's shift to a non-good alignment then they become NPC's. It works for me, but of course YMMV.

 

[Cyberon]

Basicly i allow the players to play either an evil group with allowance for a Neutral Good, or a god group with allowance for a single Neutral Evil character..

Any other mixing of alignment leads to conflict.. and even allowing a single character of Neutral Evil/Good causes some conflicts if the group contains any of the extreme Good/Evil alignments.

 

[Ziggy]

I voted shades of gray.

In my experience a too big aligment spread in the party will cause it to break up, especially along the good-evil axis.

.Ziggy

 

[IceBear]

I voted shades of gray.

In my experience a too big aligment spread in the party will cause it to break up, especially along the good-evil axis.

.Ziggy

Same here. I know that intelligence is a factor, but in the end if someone is *accurately* playing their alignment there is going to be conflicts among the good and evil PCs that will lead to party dissolution. I like the party to stay together for the long haul.

IceBear

 

[Tom Cashel]

I voted "shades of grey." Neutrality is fine by me, as a DM or as a player. Hello again, Rub!

My philosophy for D&D alignments has always "generally" been that "Good & Evil" are merely a perception based on ones goals, & morals in relation to another persons goals, & morals.

I completely disagree with this. My philosophy of the real world is what you've stated above.

In D&D, "good" and "evil" are absolutes. You have to do quite a bit of houseruling to make it otherwise, which I imagine you have done.

So, if I am playing an "evil" character in your campaign, I would feel that I am justified in whatever actions I take to promote my cause, because I believe that it is "good" for me and mine? If you're going to make it relativistic, why bother having alignments at all? Why not just have a personality for each individual character?

 

[Vaxalon]

There's enough moral ambiguity in the world, I don't want it in my game, too. I require that the PC's be heroes... which pretty much lets out any evil alignments.

Some of the PC's have got peccadilloes, however. One of them hates her own culture with a vengeance, but otherwise is a decent person.

 

[Magic Rub]

There's enough moral ambiguity in the world, I don't want it in my game, too. I require that the PC's be heroes... which pretty much lets out any evil alignments.

Some of the PC's have got peccadilloes, however. One of them hates her own culture with a vengeance, but otherwise is a decent person.

So question, If she meets up with (good) people of her own culture & some type of conflict happens (some one gets killed). Is her "Goodness" in question. "hates her own culture with a vengeance" is not a Good choice for a PC "peccadilloes". Hates Orcs, hates evil liches, hates Sea Bass are all good but your own kind. Sounds like someone is on a dark path.

 

[Tom Cashel]

I'd say yes, absolutely, in that situation the character's goodness would be in question. But it leads to interesting role-playing: does the character attempt to atone (preserving the goodness) or keep walking toward the "dark side"?

 

[Magic Rub]

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

why bother having alignments at all? Why not just have a personality for each individual character?

The PCs, & NPCs in your group don't have personalities as well as alignments?
*Snicker* sorry

 

[Tom Cashel]

I can only assume that post is an example of what passes for "maturity" in your game. Thanks for getting me involved in what I thought was a fine discussion and then pissing me off.

Have fun!

[EDIT]

 

[IceBear]

This is getting pointless. In the D&D world "evil" and "good" are distinct things. They aren't moral states of mind like in real life. That's why you can detect someone as being evil or good with a spell.

Obviously, Tom isn't saying that his PCs and NPCs don't have personalities he is just stating that the way alignments are defined in D&D, these alignments define a personality.

If you want to create a "good" character with an "evil" personality trait that's just a hook for good role playing.

IceBear