Do You Allow Evil PCs?

[Imret]

Absolutely...with a bit of overview. The rampaging psychopath never lives long, but the schemer, the would-be tyrant; these people could easily band with a more heroic group to accomplish more important goals than "live up to the E on my character sheet by screwing over everyone near me". Plus, I've converted a few DM's to conditionally allowing them by playing evil characters that meshed well and proved helpful.

After all, without being able to play the evil (but not maniacal) wizard, Dragon Mountain (converted to 3e) would have been a nightmare. The thieves' guild was notoriously uncooperative, but it only took a few skirmishes in the streets to convince them I was not the man with whom to (deleted).

"We know what you're planning; you can have the map. Please don't unleash the warlock."

That still makes me laugh.

Of course, once all was said and done, a few judicious hold person spells, a few summoned air elementals, and a quick teleport meant I got away with the lion's share of the wealth.

I said "helpful", not "good-aligned".

Sorry for rambling. Just one of those rare D&D stories where evil more or less wins in the end.

 

[Storyteller01]

#4 with a caveat:

Your actions will have consequences, just like everyone else.

It tends to go well. Parties keep in-fighting to a minimum, mainly because the evil guy realizes that have an alibi/wall is a good thing. Worst case senario was a guy who just didn't get it. Walked store to store in a gnomish town looking for poison. Changed his story to rat poison at the last second, but...

Last evil guy who played IMC was a rogue shooting for the goal of crime boss. Players had to deal with him because he was the one funding most of their operations.

We've had evil guys betray the group, but the players knew what to expect before hand (my other rule for evil characters: what's the intent), so the players weren't cheesed off. Made for a great story...

 

[Jehosephat]

I allow it with the same caveat I allow any character: 'there must be a reason why you will not betray the group"

After that, anything goes.

While it makes practical sense, where's the fun in that? Evil characters, if they truly are evil should be able to betray anyone. What could be more evil than betraying people that put their trust in you.

 

[Azul]

I allow it with the same caveat I allow any character: 'there must be a reason why you will not betray the group"

After that, anything goes.

That's my basic rule, but I also adjust it depending on the campaign's storyline. In my current campaign, the party are trouble-shooters for a church of Good, the party includes several good PCs (including 2 good clercs and a paladin) and their mentor/trainer is a Neutral Good mystic theurge.

For obvious reasons, evil characters need not apply in this campaign because the employer would never have hired them (and would never tolerate their behaviour in general).

In prior campaigns, yeah, I've allow evil PCs but always insisted on party cohesion. Even evil bastards need someone they trust and socialize with. Total psychopaths are not tolerated as PCs... although I have seen interesting Chaotic Evil PCs before... just takes a creative player to explain how a PC can be Chaotic Evil and still trustworthy (at least to the party).

 

[Nihm]

Evil characters are great. I once had a rogue sell out his party for a plus three dagger. I think it is important that the evil characters have more drawbacks then powers. For every bonus they get I have them start falling apart. Losing hair, sweating grease, smells, that type of stuff, plus some anti-action points subtracting points from their rolls at certain times. Makes it more fun for me as a DM.

Competition is fun too. I have a plan for a party that is slowly turning into werewolves. As they would turn they formed their own counter party and I riun two seperate side by side adventures.

I think it is important though that the good guys always win. Or at least the bad guys always loose.

 

[fanboy2000]

I do not allow evil PCs, period. I don't like to roleplay evil. I don't like to fantasize about evil. I don't like to create encounters for evil to overcome. <snip> ...for me personally, I do not enjoy it. So I don't DM it, and I don't play it.

This sums up my position as well. Evil campaigns just aren't the kind of games I enjoy.

 

[irdeggman]

I think that people are confusing chaotic with evil here. There is no reason (or tendency) for an evil PC to "sell out" the party. A lawful evil character would never do it if he had given his word he wouldn't. A chaotic evil character would do it in a heart beat, but then again so would a chaotic neutral or even chaotic good character. A neutral evil character might do it, depending on what was in it for himself.

 

[Zappo]

I allow evil PCs, "at your own risk". That is, expect realistic reactions from everyone involved.

Law officers will come after you if you break the law. They will capture you, try you and hang you if they can. Being busted out of jail will not be reasonably easy for a low-level party.

Keep it up and more and more powerful people will arrive and they will probably KOS you if they can. Their level will be proportioned to your evil deeds, not to your own level. Your actions will not be forgotten if you lay low for a week.

Your enemies will exploit any party infighting to the fullest if they find out. Fellow PCs are expected to react to your actions appropriately. Sending the paladin to take a coffee while you torture the prisoner will not work easily. Aforementioned paladin will lose his paladin powers if he finds out and doesn't at the very least throw you out of the party.

OTOH, your alignment will be changed if the worst evil you do is wearing black, or if you base your roleplaying on metagaming concerns.

Personally, I don't like to play evil characters. I am so dreadfully sick of players wanting to have an E on the sheet at all costs but actually never doing anything evil, that by reaction I make my evil NPCs seriously disturbing. Enough that I wouldn't want to play them as a player.

 

[DMScott]

In the past, I've run all-evil campaigns. I haven't done that in a long time, and probably won't again. Usually, what I find is that when players want an evil character, what they mean is they want to play a character who doesn't care about Good and Evil. If I get enough demand for that, I just run a campaign with no alignment at all - people do whatever they like. Works fine for my games.

 

[shilsen]

I think that people are confusing chaotic with evil here. There is no reason (or tendency) for an evil PC to "sell out" the party. A lawful evil character would never do it if he had given his word he wouldn't. A chaotic evil character would do it in a heart beat, but then again so would a chaotic neutral or even chaotic good character. A neutral evil character might do it, depending on what was in it for himself.

Not to mention that evil characters can have strong loyalties and friends who they care for, just as good characters can. If that's what the other PCs are, there's no particular reason that the evil character should be a problem for the party.