Evil Characters in good campaigns?


log in or register to remove this ad


In the game I'm playing right now we have a
CG Elven Cleric
NG Human Druid
NE Elven Druid
LE Human Rogue/Spymaster
NE Human Necromancer/Palemaster
and the game is working out great. We have a bit of backstory protection, all of characters need each other in the past, and a few have drifted towards evil over time.
Watching the two Druids do anything together is great, they have basically the same skills, but the two approaches are never the same. The cleric is trying to be the moral compass and the necromancer is just creeping everyone out. But we've manage to save the day twice, because it was the right thing to do and we were paid incredibly well.

Of course, I've also seen evil characters who just rude, unhelpful, lazy and kill randomly. Evil can mix with good in a group, if you have the right players. It's really a DM judgement call.
 

Balfin said:
Evil can mix with good in a group, if you have the right players. It's really a DM judgement call.

Exactly. We've had this issue in our group and it's recently come to a head. We're going through RttToEE and the party consists of the following:

CG Human Ranger/Cleric (Kord)
LN Human Cleric (St Cuthbert)
CG Kender Fighter/Rogue
LN Elf Ranger/Rogue
NE Elf Necromancer/Alienist

The player of the necromancer, otherwise an intelligent guy and good roleplayer, decided to flaunt his evil nature before the party. No attempt to hide his alignment, veiled threats and statments about how self-serving he was, etc. The other PCs put up with him because they needed each other and were stuck in the same place, but recently he attacked another PC (if mainly because he was affected by an evil item). No harm was done, and everyone calmed down. We're playing in a few hours and it looks like we'll reach a place where the party could leave the area they're in. There's a fair amount of consensus that the necromancer be asked to leave. The player might take it badly, and whether he does or not, he has to bring in another PC and the party loses all of it's arcane power. All because someone decided that evil is cool (the player did mention that). Not worth it, IMO. And the DM has sworn never to allow evil PCs again.
 
Last edited:

Balfin: What do the evil characters in your campaign do which is actually evil? Surely, if they are in it primarily for the money, they could kill the good characters in order to pursue that money? There would also be some divergence if the PCs stop doing strictly mercenary-type tasks. If, for example, there is a 'quest' that has to be undertaken but has no material incentive, what is to stop a massive party split?

shilsen: I freely admit that evil characters can work with good characters to a short, or even medium-term goal. The fact that the necromancer will in all likelihood be asked to leave is proof that a mixed aligned party cannot work in the *long* term, however.
 

Al said:
shilsen: I freely admit that evil characters can work with good characters to a short, or even medium-term goal. The fact that the necromancer will in all likelihood be asked to leave is proof that a mixed aligned party cannot work in the *long* term, however.

I agree. Interestingly, last session the evil necromancer helped significantly in rescuing the drowning cleric of St. Cuthbert. The cleric was the guy planning to ask the necro to leave, so now he's in a quandary. Maybe the necro will start playing smart evil now & not have to be evicted - who knows?
 

Remove ads

Top