Do You Allow Evil PCs?

[shadow]

Standard characters are good or neutral but not evil. Evil alignments are for villains and monsters
-D&D Player's Handbook

Although the PHB implies that characters should play non-evil characters, I have heard of several players who like to play evil alignments. I have heard many different opinions on whether or not evil PCs should be allowed. I've heard players who like to play the anti-hero (ala Grand Theft Auto, the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc.) argue for playing evil PCs. I've heard players argue against allowing evil PCs on various grounds (causing infighting, disrupting the campaign, giving the game a bad reputation, etc.).
Fortunately, I haven't had to deal with problem. I only DMed for one evil PC (a lawful evil monk who met an untimely death at the hands of ravaging ghouls). There wasn't really any problem; the player didn't betray or start fights with others players.
I decided to allow evil characters on a case by case basis. I will allow evil characters if the player can come up with a good reason why they are with the party, and if they can get along with the other characters. However, I will not allow an amoral, nihilistic thug type villian, who doesn't "give a #$% about anyone", and is willing to attack or betray the party at the drop of a hat. I see such characters as a conflict waiting to happen.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd options, for me. I prefer to restrict evil PCs to evil-only campaigns. On occasion, however, if a player whom I really trust gives me a solid character idea--and understands that evil alignment is not a free pass to screw with everyone else in the party--I'll let them do so.

 

[Crothian]

I don't restict evil characters as much as the other players do. So, while someone might make an evil character, the rest of the party may very well soon abondan that person.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Use to be just special players but I always define good and evil in my game and found that once the players knew them adjusted their attitude some what. I have taken a like to the Eberron handling.

 

[Wombat]

Not usually.

I've run a couple of "All Evil" campaigns in my time, but usually that leads to too much loathsomeness for words. Also, since I have a fairly intense view of Evil, I don't allow mere cartoon-villain cop-outs.

A few of my players over the years have been able to handle the challenge, but I have seen few players in any game able to do so -- most just want no restrictions on their actions and want to laugh because they killed more little old ladies than the other guy.

Of course nowadays I run without alignment, so actions and words count a lot, rather than a label. And those who do unto to others before it is done unto them find that those they did to tend to have friends and relations...

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'll allow Evil PCs under the same restriction I allow ALL PCs(it applies to ANY alignment/personality). Your character MUST be able to get along in the ground. You MUST be able to add something. There is nothing wrong with a little tension within the party, but its not going any farther than that. This is a cooperative game, not competetive.

 

[T. Foster]

I voted #3 but I'm really midway between #3 and #4 -- I'd probably allow an evil character unless I thought the player was too immature to handle it responsibly or was going to try and deliberately wreck the campaign (by, say, killing all the other PCs). I run very "old-school" dungeoncrawl-oriented campaigns in which (IMO) the characters' motivations are largely neutral -- true they're killing bad guys and thus at least indirectly helping to keep 'civilization' safe, but their motivation for doing so is largely selfish -- wealth and increased personal power. From this perspective, evil characters (whose motivations are more wholly selfish) don't necessarily fit in with the group ethic any less than good characters (whose motivations are more wholly altruistic). Both will probably come into conflict not only with each other but with the neutrals as well, as the campaign progresses. IMO those sorts of conflicts, as long as they're handled maturely by the players (i.e. actual PC on PC violence is kept to a minimum), make for great role-playing and character development fodder. I'd love to see two high-levek characters, one good and one evil, who were once adventuring companions (when they were low enough level that their mutual survival depended on cooperation) but are now deadly rivals and enemies -- especially if I could find a way to once again force them to work together against an even greater threat!

 

[ivocaliban]

If a good story can come of it my players are allowed to create characters of any alignment. I tend to prefer Lawful or Neutral Evil characters, however, as Chaotic Evil characters (and in my experience those who are inclined to play them) are harder to reign in and make things interesting for all involved. Characters who wear evil as a badge are rarely as interesting to me as those who keep it hidden away and prefer manipulation over mania.

 

[Sejs]

#3, but with a couple points.

The restriction applies only for the start of a character. If a character becomes evil over the course of play, that's for him (and the other pcs) to deal with. I won't yank a character away mid-game and say you can't play him anymore because he became evil. If the PC decides to retire his character because of whatever reason - a change in his outlook, some affliction or curse, whatever - then the character gets retired and I'll ask the player in private after the game if they mind if I use the character later on as an NPC.

I have no problem allowing players that I know well and can trust to play an evil character that is something other than the stereotypical "Nyar har, I will sabotage the party and screw you all over because my having fun is far more important than anyone else having fun". If you can work with the group, sure, be evil. If you're antisocial and will turn on your closest friends and allies at the drop of a hat, then no, you're probably going to be better off making a different character.

There isn't an inherrant problem with evil PCs. In games I've run, I've seen people play a Thayvian wizard and her bodyguard (both lawful evil), a (singular) drow that I allowed on the provision that -not- be of a good alignment and rebeling against his society (suck it, scimitar-boy), so on and so forth. Evil PCs don't cause problems, it's jerks that cause problems. No matter what their alignment is.

 

[Darkness]

I generally allow evil PCs, though I tend to discourage the party-killing kind.