Evil Characters in good campaigns?

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, well, Clancy's world is also not one in which there are many moral absolutes, while core D&D is full of them. Much of the point of the book is to explore the gray areas that D&D nominally lacks.

Also, there's a whole separate argument as to whether revenge is evil. The line between revenge and justice is a bit too fine to make it clearly evil.

Again, it isn';t that the PCs all have to be 100% united on all purposes. They simply really shouldn't be working on goals that realy oppose one another. Real evil characters (ones who are out to hurt the world) are very difficult to pair with good characters (out to make the world a better place) for lengthy periods.

 

[Gothmog]

It depends on how you define and play evil characters. If you depict evil as bloodthirsty, sadistic, sociopathic, and generally comic-bookish evil, then yeah, its likely good characters and evil characters will attack each other on sight. Portraying evil in a more mature fashion where morality is in shades of gray, and the evil guy might be willing to go to further extremes to achieve the same goals as the good characters will not necessarily result in eventual intra-party fighting.

For example, a few years ago, I played a LE fighter who was trying to establish a barony in some wilderlands. He was held in high regard in the court of the LG aligned king because he had pledged fealty to the king, and had served the interests of the kingdom at every opportunity- rooting out traitors, protecting borders, and dealing with threats to the status quo. Although sometimes his methods were harsh and final, he believed in the legitimacy of the state, and would do anything he could to protect it. Eventually he did establish a barony with the lands the king granted him, and he treated his subjects fairly and protected them, although he was very strict on crime and dangers to his authority and the safety of the kingdom. And yes, a large portion of his reason for wanting a barony was power for its own sake and to safeguard his good standing. He adventured in a group with a NG cleric, a LN mage, a CG thief, and LG paladin (in fact, he and the paladin were close allies and fast friends). Evil doesn't make someone a maniacal madman, it could simply mean the lengths someone is willing to go to to acheive their goals. He could be cruel, heartless, and violent on occasion, but he was also generous, trustworthy, and relaible when it served his purpose.

 

[Janos Audron]

When I see these threads, I always wonder why there aren't any thread about Lawful and Chaotic characters. Surely a paladin would get annoyed by the free spirit and disregard of rules of the CN rogue?

Second, I agree with people's views that evil is not 'spreading evil', like it says in the PHB, but more a different set of morals. Even evil characters might think twice before killing children / unarmed civilians...

 

[ced1106]

But what about the evil wizard hoping to achieve lichdom, that knows that he can achieve his goals faster by working with a bunch of goody-goody adventurers?

Works for me -- Sure, common goals are **much** more difficult to work with than common alignments, but if all the darn lich is going to do is seal himself up in a cave, his PC might be useful for the goodys to achieve their goal. Likewise, a lawful party might work together as an alliance to achieve an objective that they would not be able to succeed at had they worked individually. (Helps that the lawful adventurers have orders from higher ups not to kill each other, lol.)

After the object has been reached, the GM would then need to do to keep the party together is create a new goal that will overcome alignment problems. Not impossible, IMO.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Sejs]

this is one of the issues that sticks in my craw. Just because a character has an evil alignment does not mean they are stupid. Or required to do anything because of said alignment. You're evil. Peachy. Doesn't mean you have to go about peeing in christening fonts, burning orphenages, slapping nuns and razing vilages to the ground. Evil alignment primarily denotes self interest well above any concen for others.

For quite some time I played a neutral evil Priest of Erythnul in a party that included a paladin, and in the long run things worked out just fine. He just made a point of every time he would pray for spells, to cast Undetectable Alignment on himself and cary false religeous trappings. His personal goals were pretty simple ~ feed his god. Adventuring with a 'good' party gave him plenty of kills to rack up, let him build up an unassailable reputation, and provided him with numerous resources and allies incase things got sticky


Evil does not mean stupid, any more so than Lawful Good means stupid.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Interesting. Hmmm...in one campaign that I have, there is one character--Mathias--who is a Wizard. He is Lawful Evil. He conceals his alignment from the rest of the party by a layer of enchantments that conceal everything about his personality and so on. He is an interesting character.

Mathias is 6'6" and weighs approximately 268-lbs. He is broad shouldered, and in rugged physical condition. He has shoulder length coal black hair, and pale, grey-blue eyes. He wears a full beard, that he keeps neatly trimmed. He wears the best fashion of clothing, very stylish, and finely tailored. Mathias started out as being Lawful Nuetral, but has drifted to being Lawful Evil. Mathias is a powerful Wizard, and he has several very powerful magic items, including a Wand of Fire, which is crafted of a wand of black steel inlaid with gold, and has a black and gold lion head at the tip, with ruby eyes. He also has a staff that has a elephant-like foot on the bottom, and a carved elephant head at the tip. The staff has great powers of Cold, as well as Force.

Mathias the Wizard smokes a pipe of fine tobacco with his companions, and also enjoys good ale. He gets along especially well with humans and dwarves. Mathias is an excellent and very knowledgeable scholar, and assists companions with many insights of cryptic and long-forgotten knowledge. He is fanatically loyal to his friends, and has shown inspiring courage again and again in battle, fiercely throwing himself into the thick of the fighting, and even risking his own life for his comrades, even members of the group that are of Good alignment--which is just about all of them--and even people that he often times disagrees with religiously or philosophically. Despite these differences, they are members of the Company of the Black Tower, and he has given his word of honor to serve with them loyally and with courage. He is friends with many members of the group--but as mentioned, there are some members that don't often get along with him for a wide variety of different reasons. Mathias is slightly racist against elves, seeing them as weak, selfish, and too ensnared to hedonism and too undisciplined. He thinks that the elves' time has passed, and now the elves just need to get used to the idea that the humans--and the Vallorean Empire in particular--are in charge of things.

Mathias can also be callous, and he doesn't have any compassion for his enemies. He doesn't care about killing men, women, young, or old, it matters not to him. Once he believes that he is fighting against enemies, he is entirely ruthless. He can blast a whole barracks full of enemy creatures, and as they sprawl about, writhing and moaning in agony as the magical fire proceeds to burn the flesh like stacked sheets from their bodies as they gasp their last breath as their lungs burn, he can walk calmly through such grim devastation, and slowly light a fine cigar, puffing slowly as he searches for treasure or secret documents or intelligence information. Mathias doesn't expect quarter, and he doesn't offer it, unless he has been specifically instructed to take prisoners by the group's leader, who is a Paladin. Mathias respects the paladins in the group, for their religious committment, for their loyalty, discipline, skill in combat, and their ferocious zeal to wage war against the forces of Darkness! How's that for irony?

That is just it, though. Mathias doesn't want *Evil* to triumph at all. He doesn't worship the Dark Gods, and he would gladly give his life to save his friends. He would even give his life to serve his country, and to protect his countrymen. He doesn't believe in stealing, and only rarely lies, when he feels it is necessary, or if the other person that he is talking to doesn't really deserve to know the truth about this or that. In that sense, he is generally truthful about things to his friends and those people that he respects, but to others, he determines what they need to know on a case by case basis.

Mathias isn't especially greedy, though he does desire wealth and power. He believes in having dignity, and having a proper, noble demeanor at all times. He believes in vengeance, and in blood guilt. Those who commit crimes should pay the price, and preferably the most severe possible, and painfully. Those who kill his friends, family, or indeed, anyone that he feels loyalty to, can expect a fanatical, determined Wizard to hunt them down and kill them in extremely painful ways. Mathias believes in order and discipline, and in unity. Those who cannot abide by such should feel the scourge of pain until they do learn, until they understand. Those who exalt the individual above the greater good of the society are chaotic, selfish parasites that at best, need to be watched carefully, and constantly influenced to see their need for the Ways of Discipline, Order, and Obedience. At worst, Mathias believes that they are traitors to not only the state, the glorious empire, but they embrace a philosophy that is in spiritual rebellion to the very foundations of reality. They are embracing the philosophy of Chaos, and are rebels at heart, and are therefore a danger to all that is good and holy, and should therefore be killed and eliminated from the population, so that their hateful ideologies cannot spread and infect the rest of the population. Those that are deemed to somehow be compliant enough to be given some chance for reform, can be institutionalized in special asylums where priests and doctors can work with them to get that damned Chaotic philosphy out of them. This process, of course, may take years to accomplish, and their are also dangers involved, with various magical and medical research methodologies and spells that can at times prove painful or even fatal. Alas, such is the price of progress.

At least the person can be comforted with the knoweldge that his children and younger family members that are taken away and educated properly will grow up free of the Chaotic and wicked ideologies that somehow the individual is of primary importance over the culture as a whole, and over the glorious empire that sustains and makes life possible for the whole of the citizenry. As can be imagined, he differs in method and degree in many ways from people that are otherwise Lawful Good, or Lawful Neutral, or Neutral Good, for example. Still, he has many qualities that other members of the party admire and are very appreciative of.

Mathias is generous with both his knowledge, as well as his wealth, being enthusiastic in helping other younger, less well-off members of the group, and being willing to share spells and knowledge with other wizards int he group. He is disciplined and sincere in his desires to obey the laws of the land, and in serving the glorious empire loyally. He is also a very handsome character, and can be quite charming with women. He is inspiring to men, and has demonstrated excellent leadership qualities, and commands great loyalty from his own cohorts, who have been rewarded well, and treated with dignity, discipline, and loyalty by their lord, the wizard Mathias.

Indeed, evil characters can be very complex, interesting characters that do not have to be bloodthirsty savages, running around on killing sprees, or killing their friends, or robbing their friends. Evil characters can and should often be far more complex and diverse than that. That is a simplistic caricature of what evil is, and what evil means.

It is also to interesting to note, that there are some characters in the group that are suspicious of some of Mathias' motives, or at least they have been critivcal of some of his attitudes, methods, and tactics, but at the same time, they also really like the wizard Mathias, and are respectful of him, his abilities, and his loyalty. He has proven to them to be a very interesting person, and a good companion, even if he is ruthless, harsh, and unforgiving.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Fenes 2]

Hmmm... I am not so sure I would judge Matthias as evil. If he is ready to sacrifice his life for his friend or country (and not for a dark god in order to gain greater power in the afterlife ) then he is not selfish. If he is not gunning for some "evil" to triumph, but for law and order to be maintained at all cost, then he has no "spiritual evil" either.

IMC, such a character would be LN, with a ruthless streak, but then, I allow a wide spectrum of behaviour to be classified as "neutral", reserving "true evil" for almost black-and-white cases.

 

[Bagpuss]

For one off or short campaigns it can be great fun to have a party with hidden agendas that are oppossed to each other.

In party conflict can be what the game is about, making the adventure secondary to the in-party interaction and personality clashes.

Paranoia is a great example of this, but it also works well in horror settings, where conflicting personalities are force to work together due to the situation they find themselves in. If you look at a lot of great horror movies, what would be considered in party fighting is the majority of the dialogue.

I would be too afraid of doing it in a normal D&D game as long as the evil player is warned and happy with the fact they will lose in the end and probably end up dead. In a good campaign evil always loses in the end, so the player should except that fact. I know of three campaigns that we have had (one Shadowrun, two D&D) where there has been this sort of conflict and its really improved the game.

Depends on your players, if they get in a mood OOC about IC things I wouldn't risk it.

 

[Al]

As has been repeatedly mentioned, it all depends on the context.

For a one-shot campaign, it may work. Characters of wildly divergent alignments may be working together for one specific goal, albeit with different motivations. It is perfectly plausible, for instance, that a former henchman of an evil warlord (who was exiled) would seek revenge on said warlord and work with good PCs to accomplish that aim.

However, paladins aside, it is unlikely that a long-term campaign could last with a good/evil party dichotomy. That is not to say that a mature and sensible evil campaign cannot be successfully run (mature and sensible excluding the ridiculous 'eeevil' denigrated quite correctly in this thread). Indeed, a neutral/evil campaign could work. Yet good/evil doesn't. Why?

The point is moral objection. Even aside from the evil PC raping, pillaging and murdering; and even aside from the more evangelical side of goodness (characterised by iconic paladins), there is a point at which the good PCs will find the evil ones too objectionable to continue adventuring. At some point, the nature of the evil characters will make itself known- when they perform an act of 'evil'. Eventually, the evil character will seize the opportunity to further either himself or his diabolical creed. Evil characters may well work with good to achieve an ultimate aim, but the point is that the evil character always has his eye on that ultimate aim, and it is unlikely to be a benevolent one. When the ultimate aim becomes clear and near, a truly good character will have to dissent.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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

Well, the CAPITAL letters are a dead giveaway...