D&D 5E (2014) Evil character in the party

[Saeviomagy]

Maybe I'm an old guy thinking this...but how does an evil character fit with the premise that D&D is about a group coming together to face a common threat. A threat that is generally evil in nature.

Evil isn't monolithic. Take the aforementioned evil drow who wants to own a castle. Are they likely to be pleased if the local evil cult of the elements destroys the world? Is it a good idea for them to hinder heroes who are trying to put a stop to that? Or are they much better working with the good aligned heroes until the cult is stopped?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Exactly. An Evil PC who just wants to satisfy all of his hedonistic desires is going to be very opposed to an Evil character who is so nihilistic he wants to destroy the world.

Heck, even guys who both want to destroy the world may work against each other if they're doing it for different reasons: BBEG1 seeks to gain mystic power through a ritual performed as things go BOOM, so he can recreate the world according to his whims; BBEG2 just wants to see everything destroyed because existence itself offends him, utter universal entropy is his goal.

 

[Lanefan]

Evil isn't monolithic. Take the aforementioned evil drow who wants to own a castle. Are they likely to be pleased if the local evil cult of the elements destroys the world? Is it a good idea for them to hinder heroes who are trying to put a stop to that? Or are they much better working with the good aligned heroes until the cult is stopped?

That, and evil people have friends too; and maybe by the time said drow and party have worked together for a while and dealt with the cult they'll have got to know each other well enough and developed enough respect for each other that the drow might consider them worth keeping around.

Lan-"hey guys, this castle I'm building: anyone who attacks it, why don't you go out and smack 'em down"-efan

 

[SirAntoine]

This. It's not actually the Evil alignment that's the root of the issue - you'd have the same problem with the "jerk Paladin" archetype.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to play a character: you can either play in a way that adds to the fun of the group, or you can play in a way that drains fun from the group.

An evil character can certainly be played in a manner that adds to the fun of the group, even in a mostly-good party (see Belkar), and a good character can likewise be played in a manner that drains the fun from the table (see Miko Miyazaki).

So, provided the evil rogue is played in a manner that adds to the fun of the table, you don't have a problem. If her actions are making things less fun, you should talk to the player.

This is subjective, though. You shouldn't tell your players what they should find fun, so I'd just let them play their characters how they want.

 

[SirAntoine]

Maybe I'm an old guy thinking this...but how does an evil character fit with the premise that D&D is about a group coming together to face a common threat. A threat that is generally evil in nature. My old school mentality simply can't grasp how an evil character is conducive to group play. Does it add drama...perhaps. But that certainly doesn't mean it helps the story. It simply adds distraction to the main goals of the group forcing them to constantly watch their backs. To me an evil character is an NPC.

I have seen it work. As long as everyone is interested in the game, cooperation is easy. "In the face of a common threat" is relatively easy actually, but there are innumerable other reasons the party can come together. Whatever the mission, or the circumstance, there is strength in numbers, and evil characters often choose the fastest means available. They don't announce they're evil, and look for other evil characters. They understand the risks of betrayal better than anyone.

It's best to have all the players keep their character sheets in folders, and only share information others need to know.

 

[delericho]

This is subjective, though.

Yes, it's subjective. But if the other players at the table say, "we're not having fun", that's probably a decent indicator.

 

[SirAntoine]

Yes, it's subjective. But if the other players at the table say, "we're not having fun", that's probably a decent indicator.

Of what? That a player is a jerk or that the group should disallow evil characters?

All you can do is talk it over, and try to find some common ground. The DM can disallow anything, but he or she needs to try to make the game fun for everyone including someone who is playing an evil character and who the other players are concerned about. It would be crossing the line to call anyone a jerk unless they are doing something player to player that should get them asked to leave.

The DM controls the pacing, and he or she can add into the story an extra cause for everyone to cooperate if they want. But I wouldn't restrict the freedom of a player to have the role he or she wants. Certain activities can be disallowed, such as adult-themed activities, but an evil character wanting to exploit the party for their personal gain is fine. It's in-character.

I draw the line on unprovoked attacks, but there are also times when a player is not only playing an evil character but a double agent of the party's adversary. I would say this is only suitable for advanced difficulty levels, with very experienced players. In these cases, if they don't sniff out the mole they will pay dearly for it.

 

[billd91]

The DM controls the pacing, and he or she can add into the story an extra cause for everyone to cooperate if they want. But I wouldn't restrict the freedom of a player to have the role he or she wants. Certain activities can be disallowed, such as adult-themed activities, but an evil character wanting to exploit the party for their personal gain is fine. It's in-character.

It doesn't really matter if it's in-character if it's pissing off the other players and making the game not fun for them. Then being in-character becomes an excuse for corn flake whizzing behavior that really needs to be quashed.

 

[SirAntoine]

It doesn't really matter if it's in-character if it's pissing off the other players and making the game not fun for them. Then being in-character becomes an excuse for corn flake whizzing behavior that really needs to be quashed.

It can be abused, yes, but everyone doesn't have to enjoy it when someone playing a selfish character acts selfishly. There are all kinds of personalities, and you can enjoy rivalries and more of an every man for himself game without getting too deep under anyone's skin. That's how I might define playing an evil character "in a fun way", from the viewpoint of the other players, not "letting everyone in on the plan or the reward". The goal is not to add to everyone's fun. The goal is enjoy the game and your character, and not go too far.

 

[Mercule]

I'm with the "wait and see" crowd. I've been in groups where everyone was CE/insane and we had a blast for about a month; then the DM told us all to knock it off. There was also a player in college known for creative ways to make others look like asses, or just taking stuff off their corpses. Playing with that group was different, but fun.

The problem isn't having an evil PC, though. I've played my share of evil characters, both with non-evil and evil groups. The trick is to play rational. Evil characters still have self preservation instincts and can follow a chain of consequences. In 3e, I played a ranger/assassin with Quick Draw (or whatever the feat was). I had no compunctions about killing people, innocent or not, but I didn't want to go to the gallows or have some fool paladin hunt me down. When the crazy cultist starts threatening people, including one murder, in a semi-public area, I just said to the DM, "I'm intrigued. I watch her intently to figure things out." Next round, she continued on, so I studied her some more. Same thing, next round. The round after that, I cut her head off (surprise attack after three rounds of study) and then turned it over to the watch. Boom! Instant hero, with a dozen witnesses, and benefit of the doubt in future questionable situations. Also, the rest of the group was a combination of thankful and scared such that I was pretty much the unofficial leader, from then on.

Smart evil = interesting change and challenge.
Dumb evil = annoying and disruptive (unless the whole group is just cutting loose).