Evil Characters?? Whats your take.

[Kast]

As a player, I don't mind playing the cold-calculating evil type, the kind of character that will do whatever it takes to achieve his or her ends. It's about consolidation of power over whatever domain the character can control. Luckily this concept usually works fine in the D&D PC-party paradigm.

As a DM, I prefer the Heroic good campaigns or the regular guy campaigns to anything that's overtly evil in nature. Maybe that's because I like playing the bad-guy NPCs so much and enjoy it when they get their comeuppance.

 

[Faraer]

Playing an evil character is either an intense, potentially productive, but dangerous investigation if done rigorously, or a tasteless trivialization of evil if done casually.

And evil characters aren't protagonists -- it's a contradiction in terms in the grammar of story -- they're impediments to the hero. An evil protagonist succeeding in the story and reaping the boon would represent the power of the cosmos being bestowed on someone who represents its negation. It's lexically meaningless.

 

[Wombat]

I have rarely seen players able to actually play out truly evil characters. Oh, they may go on a killing rampage for a bit, but they giggle too much and think it is "unfair" if someone does the same thing to them. This is not evil -- this is Chaotic Selfish & Unthinking.

My players have noted that my evil villains (we don't use alignment, but it is still very easy to tell) are highly disturbing because these NPCs are, well, EVIL. When said NPCs get their comeuppance (...assuming they actually do, which is not always the case...) there is a sense, not really of triumph, but of cleansing, the feeling that something that did not belong to the world has been expunged, but that the consequences will take a goodly while to pick through, sort out, and attempt to repair.

Chalk this up to too many readings on history (especially the 20th century) and too much reading of Aquinas and other heavy-hitting theologians. I don't like people "playing" at evil -- if they are going to be evil, let them really do so. Anything else is just a waste of time and too much like a bad cartoon.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I don't allow them in my game. (I only recently began allowing Chaotic Neutral PCs, as my players have become good enough RPers to play them as something other than "insane" or "Diet Coke of evil." Also, the theme of my current game is as much "law versus chaos" as "good versus evil.") I have absolutely no interest in DMing non-heroic PCs; I won't even do it in games like Shadowrun or Cyberpunk2020, although there is more leeway for ruthlessness when I GM those games.

 

[Anax]

We recently had an evil character in our campaign--secretly evil, and fairly well done. Well, for a while, anyway. We were just entering the Vast Swamp (Greyhawk) when we ran into him--and he seemed reasonable, although a bit suicidal. Then we finished things up there and zipped quickly back to Irongate (our druid used Teleport via plants.) And... well, it got ugly. See, there are certain behaviors that are borderline acceptable, like ruthlessly slaughtering the hordes of attacking Bullywugs. There are other behaviors that aren't acceptable, like using some sort of mental power to kill dwarves because "they aren't going to help us" in the middle of a major dwarven city.

At the time it happened, he was out with the druid talking to these folks. The druid kind of stared at him in shock, then transformed into an animal to avoid untimely questioning by the guards. The evil guy then dimension doored out as the guard (and a lynch mob) approached, and made his way back to the inn after altering his appearance.

At which point, the rest of us found out what had happened. Well, a little before, actually. As soon as he walked through the door, my lawful good halfling monk attempted to trip him so she could pointedly ask him questions while holding him down. (Note: Kids, don't try this at home. Halflings are just no good at tripping.) The chaotic good mystic theurge immediately left the room and headed downstairs (to call the guard, as it turns out.) I told Gronk (our I-don't-know-his-alignment-but-I'm-pretty-sure-it's-good) half-orc monk to "hold him" and went down to talk with the mystic. Shortly, the guards showed up, and it turns out that Gronk had let the guy go. (Gronk is... not too bright. He's very friendly, though. Children run up and give him things. It's quite heartwarming. They don't even scream too much when he smiles.)

In any case, to make a long story short, he committed murder, and we told the local equivalent of the Men In Black who did it, and they took him down. It turns out he was an agent for the Scarlet Brotherhood who had been turned without realizing it. (He had been reporting back to the dwarves of Irongate for some time, after they infiltrated his command structure.) They were sad to lose such a valuable resource, but he was just too much of a loose cannon to have running around.

The druid's player was somewhat taken aback by the whole thing, and needed reassurance that "Yes, acting like a SANE PERSON is a prefectly reasonable thing to expect. No matter how much you want to support your comrades in arms, it's perfectly fine not to back them up when they turn out to be a homicidal maniac."

So--I'd say that we accept evil, but it has to be done *well*. And, of course, it's just hard to be evil when you've got party members who are seriously devoted to good. My monk won't lose her class abilities for being evil, but she's just gone through her own bout of temptation and redemption and ended up taking a Vow of Poverty. I haven't quite figured out how to play this new commitment to good, but I think that it would make character interaction... difficult if we were to pick up another evil comrade.

That all said--I think playing the moral and ethical alignments at all is quite hard. I've been mentioning the d20 Modern allegiance system to the other players a lot recently, because I think it provides a more sane model of character motivation--most people just *aren't* that devoted to good or to evil or to law or to chaos. It makes a lot more sense, say, for a character to have an allegiance to "Irongate" or to "The Scarlet Brotherhood" unless they've intentionally made a firm commitment to something greater. Only then should they even register on the alignment scale.

I think this is better than the other alternative for worlds with murky alignment, in which most people just don't have a very *strong* alignment, and therefore you can't really go around smiting people just because they're evil. If a person does evil thoughtlessly, it's still evil, but it's part of the natural order of human life. It shouldn't really register on the "alignment radar". If a being has evil as part of its essence (evil undead, outsiders) or has made a sincere commitment to evil (cleric of an evil deity, or any person who has made a strong commitment to choosing evil *over* good when there's a choice), that's different.

And another entertaining thought is this, from a game I was DMing for a while set in Eberron: in Eberron, it's quite possible to have a corrupt cleric of a good deity (evil character, good deity), or even vice-versa (for a good cleric of an evil deity, I imagine something like a generally evil good of the dead, or of the sea, or of another force routinely interpreted as malevolent. That cleric could be committed to gaining the favor of the evil deity to protect a village--this would be perfectly reasonable for a good fishing community in a world with an evil sea deity.) Anyway, I decided that the rules "detect evil" has for auras of clerics and other people should be interpreted specially. A good cleric of an evil deity would have an evil aura based on their cleric level (they have a connection to an evil deity), but at the same time an aura of good based on their character level (which all normal people have.) In this model, *no* creature that has a choice in its alignment has a very powerful aura of alignment--but a connection to some other force may provide such an aura.

Ramble ramble. All done rambling. Bye.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I never run alignment. The old descriptions never inspired me much; the 3e ones make my skin crawl. PCs show if they're good or evil by their actions, but as long as they're smart, they're welcome in the party.

"Chaotic Stupid" and "Stupid Evil" (and, for that matter, the "Lawful Stupid" paladin) are not acceptable, the character is killed either by his comrades or someone else, and the player is told that if he wishes to play a polarizing character, he had best learn how to play one who is a suitable companion for low-key operatives like the other PCs.

 

[clockworkcrab]

My group is one that doesn't put too much stock in alignment and uses 'moral codes' for the characters instead. Each player has a pretty strong idea of what his character would and wouldn't do. This has guided their response to dilemmas in-game, and I (as the DM) talk with the players periodically to pin where their PCs are in terms of the classical alignment grid. We need this for the adjudication of spell-effects, which is the only real reason we use them at all.

This means the only big rule we have when it comes to evil characters in that they have to have a good reason to work together. Our group is generally good, but we have one character that is of more of an evil bearing. However, this character shares a similar reason to be going after the campaign-wide BBEGs and everything's been working out fine. The good characters view him as making somewhat suspect decisions sometimes, but otherwise it hasn't interfered any.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

My advice is:

Don't allow evil characters unless you have known your players for a long time and know that they can handle this.

 

[pogre]

I barely use alignment, and only because it is tied to certain aspects of the game. I do ban evil characters and chaotic-neutral characters. These folks tend to be disruptive to the party and it means no one can realistically run a Paladin. That does not mean PCs cannot be expedient or do the intelligent thing - in fact I usually let the players define what their vision of their particular alignment is.

I did recently play in an "evil" campaign, but really the guys played it too nice. I tried to get a nice slave ring going and then a drug cartel, but everyone else was interested in killing monsters and taking loot. How is that different?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I allow evil PCs without blinking an eye, but regardless of party alignment, I explain to my players whenever I start a new game that I will not put up with cartoonish Eeeeevil, nor will I endure petty backstabbing or pointless conflict. In a game which contains both Good and Evil characters (or Lawful and Chaotic characters, for that matter), I expect inter-party conflict; however, such conflict has to have dramatic value and has to make sense in-character.

I prefer the Dragonstar and Planescape ideas on alignment-- characters of opposing alignments can, will, and must work together on occasion, but such cooperation always carries a price.

My players almost always tend towards the ruthless, even when playing Good, and I'm willing to permit it as long as they are genuinely trying to work towards good aims. (Within limits, of course. Too much "greater good" and soon there's no moral compass left.)