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.

 

[ccs]

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.

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

 

[Maxperson]

This is a highly contentious hypothesis.

Find me an action that at its root is not based on what the doer wants, needs or likes to do.

 

[pemerton]

Find me an action that at its root is not based on what the doer wants, needs or likes to do.

You said:

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.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

A counter-example would be any action that is not motivated by feeling good, nor satisfying some other need, and that isn't something the person likes to do.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

 

[Maxperson]

You said:

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.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

Enjoyment is part of feeling good.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

No. Those all fall under the list I provided. People vote because they like to, need to have control, feel good participating, etc. They change dirty diapers because they enjoy caring for their kids, need to be responsible, yada yada. All of those have at their base, selfish motivations.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

Not necessarily those particular reasons, but some sort of selfish motivation is at the root of everything you do, including eating. I'd also like to point out that selfish isn't necessarily bad. Much like the word abnormal, people tend to view the word as being negative, but it isn't inherently negative at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

You said:

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.​

That is, you claimed that the only motivations are feeling good or satisyfing some other need - ie self-regarding motivations.

Now you have added to that list something the person likes to do.

A counter-example would be any action that is not motivated by feeling good, nor satisfying some other need, and that isn't something the person likes to do.

Some candidates would include voting at elections, a parent changing a baby's dirty nappy, tithing, visiting an old friend or family member whom one doesn't particularly care for, etc.

Of course, you may argue that all voters really like to do it; that parents are satisfying some sort of procreative need; that all religious people feel good as a result of paying their tithes; that people who visit friends or family out of duty feel good about it; etc - but those are precisely the psychological claims that are (as I said) contentious.

Maxperson is on my ignore list (I'm actually surprised he can see my posts, I strangely can't see people who have ignored me!). In any case, this is a highly common argument found among ultra-libertarian anarcho-capitalist circles. There's no argument that you can provide that he's not simply going to say "Well you're really altruistic because helping people makes you feel good so you're really only doing it for your own self-benefit of feeling good!" and around and around in circles the argument will go.

Hey don't let me spoil your fun, but you won't get anywhere.

 

[Lanefan]

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

And a supplementary question for [MENTION=93321]Psikerlord#[/MENTION] is, why would it automatically be a TPK? If there's one E in a party of G's you're probably looking at one or two deaths tops: the E and maybe a G if s/he manages to drag one down with him/her. You are, however, looking at a session or two where nothing gets done beyond this...

Lanefan

 

[Psikerlord#]

And a supplementary question for @Psikerlord# is, why would it automatically be a TPK? If there's one E in a party of G's you're probably looking at one or two deaths tops: the E and maybe a G if s/he manages to drag one down with him/her. You are, however, looking at a session or two where nothing gets done beyond this...

Lanefan

TPK is probably the wrong word - I should have said - end of campaign. edit: nothing worse than intra-party fighting. Been there, done that, doesnt end well (at all!)

 

[Psikerlord#]

So how does not writing two little letters on top of your sheets prevent that one guy from running what's essentially an evil character? And triggering the countdown to TPK?

If you're using alignment, and you allow evil PCs, it's a licence to do unacceptable things. If you arent using alignment, it's the usual gaming "social contract" that keeps everyone from playing evil buggers.

 

[pemerton]

this is a highly common argument

<snip>

There's no argument that you can provide that he's not simply going to say "Well you're really altruistic because helping people makes you feel good so you're really only doing it for your own self-benefit of feeling good!" and around and around in circles the argument will go.

Hey don't let me spoil your fun, but you won't get anywhere.

Yeah, I'm fairly familiar with the argument (although I suspect that in Australia it's less common to encounter it in day-to-day argument than in the US).

I'm not that interested in getting on the merry-go-round - I just wanted to make the point that it's pretty contentious.

People vote because they like to, need to have control, feel good participating, etc. They change dirty diapers because they enjoy caring for their kids, need to be responsible, yada yada. All of those have at their base, selfish motivations.

<snip>

some sort of selfish motivation is at the root of everything you do

As I said, this is contentious.

It is an empirical claim, not a logical one (from the point of view of logic "X is desired by me" does not entail "getting X will provide me with personal satisfaction/pleasure"). As an empirical claim, I deny it. And all you've done is assert it.

Just to give one counterexample - I have changed dirty nappies and haven't enjoyed it. I did it out of obligation, not pleasure!

 

[RedSiegfried]

After at least 25 years of using it in D&D, we never bothered with alignment starting with our 4e games. I was so relieved to discover the concept of "Unaligned." The only times we actually "used" it was in regard to certain classes who had to pick a deity of a similar alignment for the purpose of domain powers, and even then eventually we let it slide because we couldn't find any rule that said you couldn't worship more than one deity. Not sure if that was correct or not, but that's how we played it.

Now that we play 13th Age, we have disregarded alignment altogether, even though the game supports it optionally. Your PC does whatever you want him to do and his deeds might or might not affect his relationships with the Icons and other NPCs. No more "No, you can't do that because alignment." Even Paladins who have the option to take, for example, Way of Evil Bastards or Path of Universal Righteous Endeavor, and can Smite Evil, don't have to adhere to any specific code of behavior. They can re-flavor those talents in whatever way works for that character, and the game fully supports this.

I don't miss alignment, not one bit.

All that having been said, I don't always feel comfortable playing with a group of "evil" characters, but as DM I wouldn't disallow it. I just try to avoid the situation by telling people I prefer not to play that way and then playing with people who have a similar preference.