Do You Allow Evil PCs?

[Nifft]

The character or the soul?

Whichever that brooding vampire on UPN has.

-- N

 

[Campbell]

I voted for option #3, but it doesn't accurately address the issue for my games. I don't use alignment in my games, but I expect a degree of heroism from my players. However the type of heroism I expect isn't in line with a number of fantasy novels depict. Since I cut my fantasy novel teeth with heroes like Conan, and Elric, that's the type of heroism I expect. I expect smart heroes with admirable goals who do not neccesarily have to be nice or merciful. It might help them to meet those admirable goals if they are merciful and nice from time to time, but when your enemies are not nice or merciful sometimes you have to use similar tactics to dispose of them. I suppose my tastes are rather odd...

 

[Alhazred]

I permitted evil PCs for a brief period. However, those who attempted to play evil characters ended up trying to out-kill one another (someone else in this thread mentioned attemtps to rake up the highest dead granny count - that's what happened to me). Since that time, I've disallowed evil PCs, and am leary of neutral PCs (those who use to play evil PCs wanted to play neutral PCs, and then played their neutral PCs as granny killers... very frustrating). Fortunately, the group for which I now DM prefers playing good guys, so I've yet to encounter a serious alignment-centred problem. *knocks on wood*

 

[Gunton The Terrible]

I don't allow evil PCs.

I tell them in the beginning they are the heros so act that way. I don't mind a character who is trying to redeem themselves for the evil they committed before they started adventuring with the group. I am currently playing a former evil PC in another group and having a blast trying to RP him as he reconciles his past.

 

[painandgreed]

Surprisingly enough, evil parties always seemed to work with the least party conflict for the games I was in. Good parties always seemed to have the CG theif runny around being silly, the paladin trying to enforce his morals on everybody else, and no discipline because since everybody was good nobody would come to blows over anything. In the evil parties, it was understood that anybody messing with the other players or endangering the party would find themselves in a bad way, and "the job" was always put first and foremost. Of course, we never played really evil characters that did things like "granny killing", we just all wanted to be the self serving Resevoir Dogs type anti-heroes.

 

[was]

NO. We never use them. Too many past problems. We limit it to good or neutral.

 

[Bigwilly]

I started my homebrew campaign as non-evil, and as one of the PCs is a Paladin, I doubt they would even let an evil PC join. However, I am currently running the WLD and two of the players are evil. I fully expect at least one of them to come to a sticky end - probably the psychotic halfling barbarian who scares the rest of the party - and strongly expect a TPK at some point as they are a rather selfish bunch and will likely get themselves killed through lack of cooperation.

Bigwilly

 

[NiTessine]

I don't allow evil PCs except in villain campaigns, and usually have to disallow even chaotic neutral, because of a couple of my players' tendency to create lone wolf characters with no morals who will betray the party and create unwanted conflict.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I generally do not allow any player to be chaotic or lawful evil. The only exception is when I approach a player about an option of being a spy in the group working for the primary villain.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Yes and no.

I'd have to say it depends on the game. In my current game - see the Riddle of Kukhulaid story hour! - there's little alignment as such and to survive everyone must be thieves, scoundrels and slayers (if not outright murderers). Conan/Lankmaar type of game with vast spaces, few humans and all the rest of that.

As such the players enjoy the moral freedom, instead keeping to their personal codes of honour, personal racist sentiments and so on and so forth. It's wonderful roleplaying opportunity.

To give alignment it'd be a lot of CN with evil leanings - they certainly have to be out for themselves to profit. Far too many dead people crucified, starved, tortured or matryed in some way for the name of good - they know better .

ME: What'd you reckon your alignment is?
Lupicos's player: Oh, Lawful neutralish.. true neutral maybe.
Me: Does he care about law as an overiding philosophy to the benefit of himself?
LP: Not particularly..
Me: Does he ignore the law when it suits him?
LP: Well, yes..
Me: And last session he rode over a mob of starving beggars to get away from their stealing hands..
LP: Neutral evilish, then.



However in more high fantasy, modern or traditional fantasy trope type I limit evil characters to players who I know can only add to the storyline with it. Good characters I encourage.

If I'm playing Cyberpunk.. different again.

I'd say 'alignment' suits the game to be honest. And LG suits D+D and is encouraged for that game.