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

[Magic Rub]

Tom, though you may never read this, I'm very sorry! It was not my intent to piss you off. I thought that would have been funny. Again, I'm quite sorry.

...and no, I don't think I will go to "[EDIT]". But thanks for the suggestion. (meant as a light and fluffy comment with no spite or malice)

Sorry I thought my last post would have been taken a lot more... light & fluffy.

I was also wondering about this example of alignment paradox. Lets say you play a Good Undead slayer, a kit from 2e in which you are hell bent on killing all Undead. What happens when a good undead, say an Elvin lich is encountered & killed? Your PC won't feel guilty, because of your zeal/need to slay all undead abominations. However all around you may feel that what you did was inherently evil.

 

[Tom Cashel]

No offense. I overreacted, and I edited my comment.

You see, I don't really have much respect for the idea of playing "evil" characters, and I'm just trying to understand what the big draw is. Or even trying to understand why my prejudice is wrong. I have yet to find out.

As for your example, I'd say the paladin is obviously wrong, because the lich is good. A paladin who was truly good would try to atone for the mistake. One who had a one-track devotion to the destruction of all undead might have a harder time retaining paladinhood. Either way, it makes for interesting role-playing.

(And do you really want to post that long and (forgive me) exceedingly sarcastic sig with every comment? Seems a little over-the-top. )

 

[Psion]

No evil in my game without prior DM collusion.

Even CN comes under scrutiny. If a character puts CN on their sheet, I imediately require them to quantify their character's motivations. All too often, CN is a mere excuse to play a prankster with no real reason for being involved in the story. I can't abide by that. I refuse to twist a character's arm to get involved in the story session after session.

Good characters you can usually motivate with altruism, lawful with duty. But CN characters tend to be trouble IME.

 

[Voadam]

And chaotic and evil parties can be motivated by greed, lust for power and personal hate.

I have played a good character in a neutral and evil group. It was intense, particularly because one of the really evil characters was significantly more powerful than me. Manipulation and bluffing were essential, and I was able to get evil people (PCs) to fight greater overarching evils (NPCs and monsters).

I have a long standing campaign where the main PCs include two chaotic evil brothers (grugach assassins), a neutral evil drow wizard/cleric, and a drow ranger/fighter who has been corrupted from Chaotic good to now chaotic neutral with evil tendencies. they don't usually do things just to be nice guys, but they still have motivations and goals, even if it sometimes is really, really evil.

 

[Eryx]

I allow good and neutral only, no evil. I also frown on CN unless played better than "randomly".

I believe that D&D is a game of heroes and heroic adventure. Thats why I choose the above alignment limits. The characters are the good guys.

 

[Magic Rub]

No offense. I overreacted, and I edited my comment..

No prob. I hope all is cool.

You see, I don't really have much respect for the idea of playing "evil" characters, and I'm just trying to understand what the big draw is. Or even trying to understand why my prejudice is wrong. I have yet to find out.

Your prejudice isn't wrong, it's what you think and that's just fine.

Well here's my take on it... Evil parties that I've DM'd or played in were always lots of fun, & not the twisted "Murder, rape, kill" epics you may be envisioning.
From a DM's viewpoint they are fun to run because for once you are not the epic bad guy trying to FTW. Instead you are the just towns guards, or the high level (insert goodly NPC here). You have to think on a whole new level. What authorities know of the parties shady goings-on? What other evil factions are mad about the publicity that the PC party is steeling from them? There is a whole world of DMing out there that many people aren't exploring, or even open to the idea of exploring & it's sad. Why are so many DMs & PCs against the thought of allowing evil PCs, when nearly every DM plays & plots out things that would make Satan blush. As a DM if I didn't run such campaigns from time to time, I would be one twisted son of a &^@!~. A person isn't sick for wanting to play a villain, dark hero, or whatever you want to call it. D&D is a excellent out let for a persons Dark side. The side that everyone, YES EVERYONE has. It's safe, clean, and most importantly... All in your mind the place where your darkness starts, & the place where it should never leave.
From a PCs prospective, I myself, & my fellow party members keep the "evil" in check. It never degrades to far. We do not allow chaotic evil characters, no loyalties, no honour, no sanity, NO WAY. As a party, we are always joined by some type of common, nearly unbreakable bond, as friendship doesn't always cut it. Our plots are initially simple, a low level PC can only get in to so much trouble. They're for the most part pretty cloak & dagger, very intelligent, with lots of roll playing. Sometimes we're up against "Good" honest folk, but just as much of the time we're fighting an evil that is just as bad, or worst then we are. It's always interesting when nearly everyone wants you dead.
I think the reason why the idea of Evil PCs has gotten a bad reputation is because of the limitations most DMs put on the subject. The odd time a player gets an evil PC, he's/she's the only one, & the new found "Freedom" goes to his or her head, that's when is degrades past the point of "acceptable". If done "tastefully" (I know these are some strange terms but..) an evil campaign can be very cool.

So without going on about this forever, that's basically it.

 

[Magic Rub]

Oh and "undead slayer" was open to any class not just Pal's

 

[Xarlen]

Allright, *cracks his knuckles* let's get started.

First, I voted allowing any aligment. However, as the DM, I want to keep close tabs so the party doesn't slaughter one another.

Second, you want to know what allure playing an Evil character is? It's a seperation from Life. In life, society expects you to be good, and atleast decent to your common man (or woman), to do the right thing, yadda yadda. However, when you roleplay, you can extend yourself from that. That's the point, isn't it? ROLEplaying. Acting as someone else.

Play a game of Vampire. I know this is a D&D forum, but Vampire is an example of an 'Evil' game. You're plotting against people, maybe even your own, but it's a game of outsmarting. It can be brutal, but the most dangerous, the most Fun, IMHO, are those who are secretive, and *smart* about their evil-ness.

I think the allure of playing in a Well Run evil campaign has it's perks. Exploring not only how the characters respond (Be they neutral, and slowly sliding toward the dark side, because of choices that they have to make). I'm reminded of a Shadow Run game where, being a poor mage, I pointed a cop who let me off to some mobsters, because I needed money, else a corp was going to hunt me down, and the job I was doing for the Mobsters was foiled by said cop. The conflict, not the 'I don't care' attitude, is much more interesting then the blinding goodness.

Have you ever presented your party with young orcs? What did they do? Did they kill the young orcs, because they were Orcs, and would grow up to be Evil orcs, or did they let them go?

The only 'Evil' game I ran was one in High School, and it blew horridly because of the people playing. They were powergamers, and always looking to be the Strongest and the biggest.

And, I think that an LE, or even a NE person could slip into a party of good and neutral characters, if played right, if they are someone like... an NE bard. Going to save the Baron's son from an Aristocrat kidnapping? Surely the bard could use some, unsavory methods of getting the information, if the party isn't near.

I'll leave it with this. My party was in a wilderness, and in the middle of a Tribe war. On one side, the barbarians, and lizardfolk, who worshiped a white dragon, and on the other, Gnolls, and Frost Giants, who had allied with a Refugee town on the outskirts of the arctic. The whole area was at war over hunting ground, and religiously over the Dragon. Now, the Party helped out the pack of gnolls, because they were going to be sacrificed by the Lizardfolk. They were doing it because they needed a dragon egg, which the gnolls were being sacrificed over.

Is it evil, then, to help the gnolls? They're often an 'Evil' race. Or is it a goint business action?

 

[Magic Rub]

Well said Xarlen.

 

[The Furious Puffin]

*Shrug*

In my game I run you can play whatever you want - as long as you do not over distrupt the party. If you are I will have a quiet word

This does make some alignments difficult to roleplay correctly, but if you can make it your - more power for you.

 

[IceBear]

I'm just of the belief that in order to properly play an "Evil" character you have to always be planning on turning everything to your advantage, no matter what the cost to the rest of the party. I wouldn't really have an issue with one or two evil PCs in my group (a la Raistlin) as it might lead to some interesting roleplay, but if you have an entire party of evil PCs I just can't see the group sticking together for more than a couple of adventures.

Why? Because the intelligent evil characters will always be plotting against each other. Why share the treasure with everyone else when you could just poison them all and keep it for yourself and then hire lots of guards to protect you.

If you're in the middle of a battle and one of the characters falls to negative hitpoints, and a couple of powerful foes stand nearby, I just can't see a party member sacrificing himself to bandage the fallen member. Sure, maybe the party (and thus the evil PC) has a better chance of surviving if all the members are up and running. But, if most of the opponents are now dead would this selfish evil person really take the chance of being killed just to help a fallen party member? I couldn't see it as a regular occurance. If it did happen a lot, then that player isn't playing his alignment properly. Thus, over the course of several adventures most of the PCs will have died off. Then the players start holding grudges against each other and things get ugly.

Anyway, I guess I'm of the camp that D&D is an heroic game and thus I would prefer my PCs being good or Neutral. If push came to shove, I might allow one evil PC into the group but not much more than that.

IceBear

 

[Mordax]

I'm just of the belief that in order to properly play an "Evil" character you have to always be planning on turning everything to your advantage, no matter what the cost to the rest of the party. I wouldn't really have an issue with one or two evil PCs in my group (a la Raistlin) as it might lead to some interesting roleplay, but if you have an entire party of evil PCs I just can't see the group sticking together for more than a couple of adventures

That's a reasonable way to look at stuff, but it's not necessarily true.

1st possibility:
LE characters can work together for extended periods of time, as long as they have a common goal.

(You can say a lot of things about fascists, but they work well in groups...)

2nd possibility:
Sometimes, a game where everybody schemes against everybody is very interesting. As long as there's a good reason for them to *not* resort to murder, that is.

(I've played some very good games of Amber that involved plotting against all my friends. I'm sure it could work with D&D, under the right circumstances.)

In most campaigns, though, yeah...it's best to keep evil characters in the minority for group harmony.

 

[IceBear]

That's a reasonable way to look at stuff, but it's not necessarily true.

1st possibility:
LE characters can work together for extended periods of time, as long as they have a common goal.

(You can say a lot of things about fascists, but they work well in groups...)

2nd possibility:
Sometimes, a game where everybody schemes against everybody is very interesting. As long as there's a good reason for them to *not* resort to murder, that is.

(I've played some very good games of Amber that involved plotting against all my friends. I'm sure it could work with D&D, under the right circumstances.)

In most campaigns, though, yeah...it's best to keep evil characters in the minority for group harmony.

I pretty much agree with what you said, but as you say, if you want a long running campaign with the same PCs, you should have evil characters in the minority.

I'm pretty sure that a group of LE characters *could* work together for extended periods (if not, then there wouldn't be tribes of hobgoblins or drow for example). It's just that if something that comes up during an adventure that would work to the advantage of a PC he almost HAS to take it (like a Good character HAS to think of the party good). For example, PCs finish climbing out of the dungeon via rope and for some reason the most powerful PC is the last on rope. If I were the second-most powerful I'd be hard pressed to think of a reason to NOT cut the rope.

I guess I see a party of all LE characters as being like the alternate universe version of Kirk and Spock on Star Trek

IceBear

 

[Lela]

Shades of Gray

I find that Evil PCs tend to either avoid RPing too much or get too into it and betray the other characters. When the former happens it takes away a good amount of the fun and the latter can create too much friction between players in RL; possibly even ruin a friendship. It's not worth the risk.

 

[Crawdaddy's Boy]

I've always found that evil characters can easily participate in groups, if they're designed to. I myself almost always play lawful evil, because I find it the easiest to role play, especially when I'm playing a wizard. And my Gray Elf, Lawful Evil, Wizard and our group's Mountain Dwarf, Lawful Good, Cleric were the best of friends. Why? Because rather than getting caught up on the words good and evil, we looked at each other's motivations. We also didn't play the alignments too over the top. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you are entirely self serving. That's only CE. LE, especially, can get along well in groups because of the lawful. Have part of your law code be 'be loyal to those who are loyal to me', or something like that. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you have to treat everyone like dirt. It just means you have to be willing to do what would be deemed morally wrong by most other people. I didn't go around blasting everyone out of my way, but I would never sit back and take anything. There was one time that an npc insulted my wizard several times, and I set his hand on fire. The reasoning was "the burned hand teaches best. I'm an adventurer, and a wizard to boot. I demand respect." In most circles, burning off someone's hand is considered pretty evil to do, even if it was only his left hand, and while the cleric was very angry about it, he understood why I did it.

For any of your players who wants to try playing evil, or any other alignment they're not used to, just remind them not to go too far. It's the same with LG. Lawful good doesn't mean Lawful stupid. They don't have to charge off without thinking for any and every village woman with a sob story. The descriptions that most places have for the evil alignments are pretty extreme. They were written with DM's designing the villains in mind. A DM's first couple of villains are pretty cartoony, because that's what's easy. That's the way I did it, and it's the same for anyone else I've talked to. A character they're planning on playing for a full campaign needs to be far more complex than the villain you meet just before the final battle. Also, tell them to think, "how could I design my evil character to be motivated to cooperate in a group?," rather than leaving it up to you as the DM, or their fellow players to come up with.

 

[Sunseeker]

Typically I try to persuade people away from evil alignments, because most people do them poorly. They're either chaotic evil psychopath or a babykiller or some other extreme subject I'm not interested in having at the table. Historically I have enjoyed (both as DM and player) games without evil PCs for much longer. Evil PCs inevitably decides to do some horrible mutilation to someone, murder NPCs for no reason and so forth. If you can play evil and stay away from the piles of dead babies you're fine. Most often than not, I find people simply cannot restrain themselves. And so I don't usually have to disallow evil, as those people tend to end up not playing with me (or I stop playing with them, depending on how prevalent it is).

It's also worth noting that I tell people to keep their alignment secret. I also nerf "detect alignment" pretty heavily to that end.

 

[Maxperson]

I allow any alignment to be played. However, I don't allow players to play a disruption of the game via alignment or any other reason. If one player wants to play a CE aligned PC in a party where everyone else is good and neutral, they need to come up with a reasonable way that it can happen, or it won't be allowed. Even CE people have desires and wants that will keep them from doing certain things. Negan from the Walking Dead and his dislike of killing women is a good example. He bends over backwards to keep from doing it.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Nagol]

"I've always found that evil characters can easily participate in groups, if they're designed to." -- said the necromancer while instilling new energy into the 14-year old corpse of a survey.

 

[MwaO]

I only allow Evil parties when they're all made up of Zombies created by a snazzily dressed Necromancer(good threads!)