Evil Characters in good campaigns?

[starkad]

Evil monk in my game

My game is predominantly neutral/good.

I have:

a chaotic good elven ranger
a neutral svirfneblin cleric of baervan wildwanderer (don't ask...)
a lawful evil human monk
a neutral good human wizard
a lawful neutral human cleric
a neutral good human rogue

They seem to get along just fine... The only problems they have had so far, are the greed of the monk. He always wants the best stuff, always wants to live, tends to wimp out and let others take hits when he's getting beat on, etc. Nothing awful, but selfish and evilish acts when added up. The group tolerates him because he is their link to the female wizard, whom they desperately needed, and he's handy in a fight.

Evil CAN work, and I usually veto evil in my games because it usually DOESN'T. I've relaxed my views on this a little bit lately, but with heavy reservations. Evil characters can disrupt a game. It just depends what they do, and who else is in the group, both character-wise and personality-wise.

Oh, and for humor factor: The monk's name is 'Rong Wei' *LOL*

 

[Gothmog]

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.

See, this is where I have found a lot of people stumble over what evil characters are like. The behavior cited above would be the EXCEPTION, not the rule for an evil character (unless of course his society condoned that sort of behavior). Anyone would know rape is a sure-fire way to get on the wrong side of the law very quickly- rape is a sign of a personality disorder, not necessarily evil. As for murder and pillage- I would contend that most LG PCs are more adept at those tasks than many evil NPCs. Evil simply defines who a person regards as #1- in this case evil is self-serving, and doesn't care about how others fare in the long run. Still, an evil character can be generous, kind, loyal, and honorable if is serves his ends.

In my experience, the chaotic alignments are much more destructive in a game than evil ones. Chaos is all about change and the individual putting a few people's well-being ahead of the well-being of the larger community. For CG characters, this means he value's ANY individuals rights more than he values the conventions of society as a whole. The CN values his own right before those of anyone else, but won't actively try to oppress others in order to put himself ahead- but neither is he against opressing others if it suits him. CE though is a different story- this individual is basically a sociopath and/or narcissist- he puts his own rights and happiness ahead of others, and often tries to be as destructive and cruel as possible in his ends. I have always thought of chaotics as people with very little impulse control, hyper-emotional, and who see themselves as some kind of under-dog- things which are very disruptive in a group. Clearly, the chaotic individual is going to have problems working well together in a group, often splitting off from the group or taking impulsive actions for the hell of it. Consequently, the only alignments I ban in my game are CN and CE.

By the way, the Detect Evil spell only detects supernatural evil, not absolute alignment as it is written in the PHB. So things like undead, evil outsiders, and priests of evil gods show up on it, but not any character with an evil alignment. I have always treated the Detect Evil this way, and it makes evil characters more realistic as a result- not to mention they don't have to worry about being smitten by wandering paladins.

 

[Mallus]

Just because a character is of evil alignment does not mean they have done anything deserving of their murder. Ought paladins be able to walk into a bar and decapitate anyone that has less than wholesome motivations. Evil isn't about doing horrific things, evil boils down to motivation. Evil characters can save a town just as easily as good characters, the real question is why are they doing it.

Well said. I like to add that evil also comes down to a characters methods, as well as their motives. An evil character could torture an enemy to gain information, perhaps even in service of a "good" cause. Or kill innocents. Or use terror.

One of my favorite characters was a lawful evil fighter/mage, a hideously scarred, both inisde and out, war veteran who hooked up with a party of adventurers who accepted, and came to respect him. He was extremely loyal to them. He counted them as friends. He wasn't "in service of Evil". However, he had a ruthless streak a mile wide, and no limits to what he would do to those he counted as enemies.

And its rewarding to run a campaign where characters of differing moral outlooks have common cause. Wars are good for this. Evil characters can be as patriotic as good. Also little conflict is good for the game --so long as campaign breaking behavior is meta-gamed out from the start.

And however said characters of the same {read: good} alignment can't be bitter rivals, or enemies? Whether or not PC's can take arms against one another should be part of the house rules set before a campaign starts. Its totally independent of alignment.

 

[Umbran]

Evil simply defines who a person regards as #1- in this case evil is self-serving, and doesn't care about how others fare in the long run. Still, an evil character can be generous, kind, loyal, and honorable if is serves his ends.

You are free, of course, to play it as you want in your own game. But what you write above certainly isn't what the PHB says, on pg 88:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

and

" 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

These don't match what you've said. Evil is far nastier than simply looking out for #1. Your definition seems rather weak and narrow, to me.

Evil can be self-serving (for profit or gain of some sort), but it doesn't need to be so. Evil can be sociopathic - hurting people for the sheer joy of it. Evil can also be religious fervor -the servitor of a dread god, who may gain power in service, but for whom that power is not the actual motivator. Evil can be many things, not all of which serve the self.

Evil is about more than personal profit and convenience. Evil actually preferrs taking a nastier course when it can. Evil goes out of it's way to hurt people.

Evil is as evil does - alignment is a long-term average of behavior and motivation. Being at one of the extremes of the alignment axes (Good, Evil, Law, or Chaos), implies a dedication to a certain type of behavior. Good characters aren't allowed to slack off on being good because it's inconvenient - if they stop acting good, you note the change in their alignment. Similarly for Evil. You gotta walk the walk, not just think the talk to yourself.

If a nominally Evil character joins a group, sees they are mostly Good, and stops being evil simply to save his own skin, he's not really being Evil. If he finds that by staying with this bunch he gets more $$ and safety, so long as he's honorable and helpful, he's not being Evil. If he chooses to run with the group for a while, and seems to be generous, kind, loyal,and honorable because it allows him to hurt more people, or cause more pain in the long run - that's evil.

And that's the danger - a really evil character doesn't stop doing evil things (if he does, he probably doesn't stay evil), he merely hides his evil from prying eyes, uses deception and lies. Eventually, he slips up, and the party finds out. Then the trouble starts.

 

[AngelTears]

The Character I play in Ocean's of sand is completely and uttelry evil character. There is no shred of humanity left within her. There is actually a common joke in the gaming group that if she were to have an evil double created it would most likely turn out good.

The character's only reason for being alive is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That and having a God as a patron.

In many ways, it is all a part of the upbringing, being the handmaiden, to a snake god, who is also the God pf deceit, treachery. Ritualistic killings and cannibalism are also part of the doctrine of the temple.

There was a scene at the beginning when she was talking with the temple priest. Either something was done about reviving and obeying the teachings of the temple or the priest's daughter would be the next sacrificial victim. Later on he did nothing, and so she killed his daughter in a ritual to appease the snake god. This most likely involved other rituals with the dead body (thankfully off screen).

She would have not the slightest hesitation of killing a character or leaving a character to die if he or she came in way of the holy mission.

-Angel Tears

 

[Mallus]

Umm {Umbran?}...no

Evil is about more than personal profit and convenience. Evil actually preferrs taking a nastier course when it can. Evil goes out of it's way to hurt people.

Evil is as evil does...

Good characters aren't allowed to slack off on being good because it's inconvenient - if they stop acting good, you note the change in their alignment. Similarly for Evil. You gotta walk the walk, not just think the talk to yourself.

I beg to disagree...

1) If a characters pursuit of personal profit and convenience also involves a wanton disregard for the safety and/or continued existence of others, then that qualifies as evil in my book. Would a hypothetical {and quite professional --think the Jean Reno/Natalie Portman film} assasin be non-evil? So long as he were only in the business for the money? What about someone dealing crack cocaine to schoolchildren? From what I understand very few dealers practice their trade for the sheer joy of getting kids high and {potentially} ruining their lives. Beyond a certain point {and where that point lies is another topic for debate} actions performed out of self-interest acquire a moral component.

2) Exactly. But 'doing evil' consists of a lot more than acting like a diabolical fiend. You seem to be putting a pretty steep requirement on evil. By not labelling more minor acts of evil as umm, evil, aren't you effectivly re-arranging your moral framework, decriminalizing evil, in a manner of speaking...

And on the issue of consistent behavior: would a serial rapist --with several victims spread out of the course of years-- not count as evil, seeing as the bulk of the time he spent as a regulalr law-abiding citizen? Its not about how often you do evil, in the end its about what you do...

3) But good is harder than evil. Isn't that Judeo-Christian morality in a nutshell? Evil, moral weakness, is portrayed typically as a passive act {at the core}, a surrender to temptation that gives way to action. One struggles to lead the virtuous life, not the other way around....

 

[Savage Wombat]

If I ever get around to running the campaign I designed for the Setting Submission Contest, I will expect evil PCs. That's because the point of the setting is the conflict between the ones who would preserve the world, and those who would destroy it - and there are members of all alignments on both sides.

As a side note, I thought today that I would make it clear that the "evil" members of the Preserver faction are not, to use Monte's term, "vile". They lust for power and control, and often enjoy the use of brute force - but they don't torture babies for sport. "Vile" behavior would be the bastion of those who worship demons - and demons are beyond the pale from everyone's point of view.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Umm {Umbran?}...no

1) If a characters pursuit of personal profit and convenience also involves a wanton disregard for the safety and/or continued existence of others, then that qualifies as evil in my book.

Please read what I wrote again. Specifically, "Evil can be self-serving (for profit or gain of some sort), but it doesn't need to be so." The fact that I then go on to discuss non-self-serving evil more doesn't negate that statement.

2) Exactly. But 'doing evil' consists of a lot more than acting like a diabolical fiend. You seem to be putting a pretty steep requirement on evil. By not labelling more minor acts of evil as umm, evil, aren't you effectivly re-arranging your moral framework, decriminalizing evil, in a manner of speaking...

Odd. I went out of my way to not mention any specific acts at all. Take a look - do I mention specific crimes? I think figuring out the moral quality of specific acts is up to the DM. I stayed to general terms about "harming" or "being generous" and such. How can you say that I'm not labelling minor acts as evil, when I don't mention any?

And on the issue of consistent behavior: would a serial rapist --with several victims spread out of the course of years-- not count as evil, seeing as the bulk of the time he spent as a regulalr law-abiding citizen? Its not about how often you do evil, in the end its about what you do...

This is one reason that I didn't get into specific acts. We cannot base our approach on only the small number of specific acts we can discuss here.

Eventually, when considering a game in which there are moral absolutes, we run into conflicts using real-world specific examples. In the real world, we don't have absolutes - and so no matter how I respond to the rapist, someone will disagree with me.

I could say, "Yes, he's evil", but then I'm not recognizing the possibility of change and reform, and I'm saying that one act can damn a person, no matter what else they ever do. I could say, "No, he isn't fully evil", and look like a shmuck. On top of that, someone who knows more about criminal psychology than I might pipe up and say that there's Evil, and then there's neutral people with a broken mind.

I don't see getting into all that as constuctive. So, I'll just stand by the generalities.

3) But good is harder than evil. Isn't that Judeo-Christian morality in a nutshell? Evil, moral weakness, is portrayed typically as a passive act {at the core}, a surrender to temptation that gives way to action.

I think you're over-simplifying Judeo-Christian morality. Surrender to temptation is not passive - it includes a conscious (active) choice. To do evil, one must exert the will and choose to act (or not act, as the case may be). This is what separates evil from merely doing harm accidentally.

 

[Mallus]

You know something Umbram...

...you're right. I didn't read your post carefully and responded in a scattershot fashiom. Thats's no way to enter a civil discussion, my apologies.

I still disagree with your assertion that evil character needs to "tow the line" or be drummed out the evil corps. This is probably just a reflection of my personal conception of evil in terms of boundries. A good person will not {well usually} go beyond a certain point. An evil person will. Evil as "What is ultimately permissble to my own conscience?" rather than "Now who do I victimize next".

Also, to me, intent matters greatly, so the dividing line between evil and non-evil can be as simple as presence of remorse... What a character just thinks to themselves does matter.

Hmmm, what the hell does this have to do with gaming? Well...

In my games, I like having so-called nominally evil characters. By requiring evil characters to persistantly act in an antisocial manner the end result is flattter, more predictable characterizations, less drama, ultimately, a less rich game. And no evil PC's allowed.

 

[Ravellion]

they play chaotic stupid, not evil.

Or they do play Smart Evil, and eventually get rid of a good aligned PC who was a bit too much of a problem by handing him over to their common enemy in trade for his own amnesty. And gloats about it.

That actually happened, and it did create a big player vs player conflict, I can tell you that. the campaign didn't survive it either.

Rav