Do You Allow Evil PCs?

[PJ-Mason]

I absolutely loathe alignments. Cause more trouble than they are worth. I thought they were stupid when i was kid first starting to play rpgs. Players act and react and the world and npcs around them do the same. Anyone can do what they want so long as they are prepared to reap the whirlwind and everybody is having fun.

The only pet peeve i have is when players have their characters just act silly or do things that the characters they created would never do, just because its a game and they don't care about their characters. I call that meta-playing and i hate it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Yes, I allow evil PCs. But only if they work as part of the team. I don't like major inter-party conflict. Arguments are fine. Fights to the death are not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't like to roleplay evil. I don't like to fantasize about evil.

How do you play the bad guys then?

 

[Orius]

I allow it depending on the player and situation. I never allow evil PCs that are part of the major villainous organizations IMC, since they're supposed to be the bad guys. You just can't have a party set up like that, it doesn't work. But someone who's selfishly evil who's got his own bad goals is alright. However, the character does not get any breaks from me, if the character commits evil acts that piss off the wrong NPCs, then the character will face the consequences. Also, if the character causes problems with the rest of the party (and I mean serious problems, like killing them, stealing from them, etc.), then I allow the rest of the party to deal with the character by any means they deem necessary.

Besides, most of the "kill everything I see, including party members just because I'm evil" types of players seem to like living out some kind of psychotic fantasies anyway, and they may do that sort of thing even if they're not playing evil characters. That also includes warpos who want to act out stuff like rape fantasies. There's a difference between people who play evil badly because they're immature, and people who play evil badly because they're closet psychos.

 

[scourger]

It's just not the kind of game I want to play. In my current camapign, I made it a condition of the setting (I imported jedi, so I had to lock down the dark side of the Force).

 

[Corinth]

By default, I disallow the option to play an evil character. A player has to demonstrate to my satisfaction that he possesses the maturity and knowledge necessary to both play the character properly and to do so in a manner that won't be destructive of the group's enjoyment. (For the same reason, I also disallow Chaotic Neutral characters and I am reluctant to allow people to play paladins.) Of all the gamers that I deal with in any capacity on a regular basis, I would offer these expanded options to only one of them- and right now, he's busy with two games of his own, playing in a second, and playing in my Exalted game.

 

[beeber]

no restrictions.
if the pc becomes too psychotic or the like, the rest of the group usually takes care of it, be it turning him in to the authorities or outright killing of the offender. and if the evil (or chaotic neutral) pc ticks off the wrong power (political, divine, etc.) then the chips fall where they may. it weeds out the "granny killers" fairly well.

 

[DragonLancer]

In a D&D game, I ban evil characters. D&D IMO is about heroic adventuring, and that means good characters, or neutral at the very best.

Of course other games are different. You'd have real trouble trying to play a good guy in a Vampire game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a player, I have several times run evil characters in an otherwise all-good party. The key to doing so is to remember that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone. It helps a lot if you are willing to play a redeemable evil character (i.e., a character who begins play as evil, but whom you want to have "see the light" when the opportunity presents itself). This can provide great role-playing moments for everyone.

One example: I once played an evil wizard in an adventure where slavers stole women and children from the town he lived in. The character was not a generally nice guy, but he was lawful evil, and he viewed targetting women and children as ignoble. So, he went along with the group, provided invaluable aid, and was willing to resort to unsavory methods against the slavers. He was also scornful of the moral position of the group as a whole, viewing their "good" as only so many words. At the end of the day, the group was successful.

The party returned at night. As the "good" characters woke the Mayor to collect their reward, the "evil" character eschewed all reward -- although he viewed women and children as "helpless" and "lesser beings" (something designed to give the female PCs a chance to show him the error of his ways), defending them was simply necessary for a lawful society to survive, and nothing to either reward or punish. He turned his back on the "good" characters, point proven, and the adventure ended. It was fun for everyone.

The evil "I'm in it to betray everyone" PC is no fun. The evil-but-noble PC is a lot of fun.

Usually, as a DM, I'm willing to allow evil PCs who have some form of redeeming angle to their characters. I also look at the player; i.e., do I think the player is aiming to dominate the game?


RC

 

[Lord Pendragon]

How do you play the bad guys then?

To be honest, I don't roleplay the bad guys very often. They are more often killed once the PCs actually meet them face-to-face. The lion's share of my roleplaying as a DM comes in the form of NPCs the PCs interact with along the way to slaying the bad guys.

Some times, of course, role-playing the bad guys is necessary. This doesn't bother me. It's more acting than roleplaying, really. I'm not identifying with the part, just acting out my lines.