Evil Characters in good campaigns?

[Buttercup]

I wouldn't want a party of wildly divergent alignments because it would, as others have said, lead to conflict within the party. I also don't really want evil PCs because I like to run a game where the PCs are a force for good in the world. It isn't a moral issue with me, it's just personal preference. Would I ever play an evil PC in an all evil party? I don't know. As the DM, I get to run all the villains, so when I'm lucky enough to be a player, I guess I'd like to be a good guy. But I never say never.

 

[GruTheWanderer]

Did anyone else read this and without even looking at the name know it was nightfall?

I did. I was reading down the messages and had just started the next one when I thought, "Wait a minute. I've never heard those names before. I wonder if it's that Scarred Lands stuff..." Looked back at the author. Sho nuff, it's Nightfall.

 

[WayneLigon]

I think it's generally a bad idea all around. Because Mr. Evil is eventually going to slip and do something pretty bad in front of his companions or one of his actions will be the straw that breaks the camels back; then he'll either be handed over to the guards, or they'll just take matters into their own hands.

So now Mr. Evil has to go to the trouble of creating an entirely new character, starting over with RPing with the group, etc. A pretty big hassle just for the novelty of playing an evil character.

I think actually I'd be more interested in why said player wants to play an evil character in a predominately good party. What does he hope to gain from this, other than (1) to create bad feelings when (not if) he does something that is counter to what the others want or need to do (2) or find his character incarcerated, banished from the group, or killed.

I'm sure there are some people out there capable of playing an evil character, but my own personal experience is that when a player wants to do this, I see red warning flags start to wave. More than once when closely questioned, said player simply wants a character that feels no constraint of law or morality, and 'can do what he pleases, as he pleases'. That way lies a quick road to campaign death.

I can see certain limited scenarios where it could work for a little while. Maybe two or three sessions (perhaps even longer, depending on what is going on), but then the jig is going to be up.

There are ways around it, too. The other characters can simply ignore what's going on under their noses (You know, Conrad always seems to be more than a little interested in lichdom. Maybe we should pay more attention to that book that Lilly saw him concealing in his pack the other night) but that eventualy is going to have alignment repercussions for them.

The question of his real motives and actions will eventually come to light, and it's been my experience that very very few players are willing to deal with the consequences. Detect Evil is usually the thing that reveals this. (I'm playing a paladin in the current campaign, so I've given at least a little thought to this.).

It doesn't have to be an instant death sentence to Detect as Evil. After all, that spell or ability can be fooled. It should signal you to keep a close watch on the person, however.

 

[GruTheWanderer]

And now for my actual thoughts on the issue. This just came up in my campaign last night (a revisit to the War of the Lance seen by humans from the other side of the tracks, specifically the nation of Khur). I told the players when we started that any alignment was fine, but they were all friends for at least the last year. At first the alignments were fairly normal (LN, NG, and N humans, NG half-elf, and CN kender).

Last night the kender decided CE was more appropriate to his views (and played it that way). He's also quite a dominating player in discussions (if he disagrees with others, it holds up the action for twenty or thirty minutes). The party got into several arguments about what to do with goblin captives (in the Sunless Citadel). Interestingly, three of the characters (LN, NG, and CE) all wanted the goblins dead (for very different reasons).

I was a little surprised by the heated discussions, but it did allow the players to really decide what their characters valued. IMO, good and evil can exist in the same party (Raistlin was an excellent example).

 

[Happy Monkey]

The way I view it, anything that will lead to conflict between the pc's I regard with some suspicion.

Bearing in mind that alignment is a tool to quickly gauge character outlooks, it is obvious that radically different alignments will cause tension.

IMC there is enough tension between the CNs' and CGs'.

A properly played evil pc is usually beyond players. Properly as in evil yet still cooperative and not directly antagonistic. Instead the aspiring 'lich' usually gets pasted at level 5 for insulting the Queen in the Kings presence, or something equally stoopid.

The temptation for mischief is usually too great "because I'm eeevil".

 

[Nightfall]

I did. I was reading down the messages and had just started the next one when I thought, "Wait a minute. I've never heard those names before. I wonder if it's that Scarred Lands stuff..." Looked back at the author. Sho nuff, it's Nightfall.

Just because it's me, doesn't make point less right!

But thanks for the love guys. Sort of.

 

[WayneLigon]

I think it's generally a bad idea all around. Because Mr. Evil is eventually going to slip and do something pretty bad in front of his companions or one of his actions will be the straw that breaks the camels back; then he'll either be handed over to the guards, or they'll just take matters into their own hands.

So now Mr. Evil has to go to the trouble of creating an entirely new character, starting over with RPing with the group, etc. A pretty big hassle just for the novelty of playing an evil character.

I think actually I'd be more interested in why said player wants to play an evil character in a predominately good party. What does he hope to gain from this, other than (1) to create bad feelings when (not if) he does something that is counter to what the others want or need to do (2) or find his character incarcerated, banished from the group, or killed.

I'm sure there are some people out there capable of playing an evil character, but my own personal experience is that when a player wants to do this, I see red warning flags start to wave. More than once when closely questioned, said player simply wants a character that feels no constraint of law or morality, and 'can do what he pleases, as he pleases'. That way lies a quick road to campaign death.

I can see certain limited scenarios where it could work for a little while. Maybe two or three sessions (perhaps even longer, depending on what is going on), but then the jig is going to be up.

There are ways around it, too. The other characters can simply ignore what's going on under their noses (You know, Conrad always seems to be more than a little interested in lichdom. Maybe we should pay more attention to that book that Lilly saw him concealing in his pack the other night) but that eventualy is going to have alignment repercussions for them.

The question of his real motives and actions will eventually come to light, and it's been my experience that very very few players are willing to deal with the consequences. Detect Evil is usually the thing that reveals this. (I'm playing a paladin in the current campaign, so I've given at least a little thought to this.).

It doesn't have to be an instant death sentence to Detect as Evil. After all, that spell or ability can be fooled. It should signal you to keep a close watch on the person, however.

 

[Hejdun]

If you play an evil character, the other characters should, or ought (if they are true to their alignments) to kill you ... and soon!

Not necessarily. Evil characters don't necessarily have diametrically opposed goals with good characters. In fact, they may have virtually the same goal, albeit different motives and means to persue them.

For example, an evil character seeks bloody revenge (evil) against the bandits that murdered his family, while the good character wants to eliminate the threat to the village (good). Both want the bandits to be gone.

If anyone has read Without Remorse by Tom Clancy, John Kelly is not exactly a good character. Yet it is often remarked that he is doing the world a favor, as indeed he is. While he isn't exactly evil either, this is an example of how getting revenge (evil) can actually be good.

 

[Endur]

evil PC + Good PC Party = bad idea

I don't recommend this.

For two reasons.

1) You can have an evil PC that causes a player vs. player conflict.

2) A good PC can cause the conflict and blame the conflict on the evil PC because "he's evil."

Its just a recipe for player conflicts, no matter what way you look at it.

I've played in a ton of D&D campaigns that allowed both good and evil PCs and I've seen many good vs. evil conflicts.

I think the 3e rule of no evil PCs is a good rule.

You can run a campaign with evil PCs, but then everyone has to realize that player vs. player conflict is an expected outcome.

Tom

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem is that a lot of people don't think

"Here's how my character thinks - gee, guess that makes him evil", they think "hey, evil's cool. I'll just kill everyone!".

ie - they play chaotic stupid, not evil.