Evil or not?

[Kzach]

One of my non-arguable, set in concrete rules as a DM is no evil characters.

I have no interest in running a game for evil characters and no interest in evil as a plot-line.

To me, D&D is about heroic fantasy. You don't have to be a shiny knight or even a do-gooder, but at the end of the day, your primary motivation has to come from WANTING to save the world.

If you play just for loot and power, well... I guess that's acceptable, but really, you could play a CRPG for that and get just as much out of it.

I just don't understand the attraction to playing an evil character. I'm not there, as a DM, to allow a player's vicarious enactment of selfish fantasies or be their vehicle for socially unacceptable behaviour. For that, they can see a shrink.

What is your take on evil in the game?

 

[Psion]

Jot this down--Kzach and I agree on something!

I don't have an absolute prohibition or evil, but have a sufficiently strongly worded caveat on evil PCs that not one player has taken me up on it.

Two major reasons:
1) The way my brain works, I naturally set up situations that assume that characters have some combination of duty or altruism that compels them to act on behalf of others. Lacking that, I need some other compelling motivation to involve them in the game. I ask players who would play such a PC to provide me with such a motivation.
2) I rue intra-party conflict, and evil PCs tend to bring that to the fore IME.

 

[dm4hire]

I disagree. Evil can be quite interesting to play if ran by the right players. The key is it has to be the right players. Just because someone is evil doesn't mean they are evil 24/7, but at key moments is when you find out how evil they really are. Best time for evil to show its face while not hindering or causing problems for the party is dealing with wounded. Evil characters often look pretty confused when questioned about wounded enemies. "Oh, you wanted information from him? Well let me animate him and we'll ask him." Then there's the betrayer which I love the most in a party. Nothing like intrique to make a party come together, except for hunting down and killing the betrayer that left them hanging cold. This last is best with guest players and was featured in a Dragon article awhile ago. Then we can't forget the rogue after finding 1000 gp in a treasure chest. "How much is there?" "Looks like maybe 500 gp, that's 100 each." And then there's the assassin, who's mission is to kill the guy the rest of the party is out to defend and once the mission fails or succeeds for the party still walks away paid one way or another.

Nope evil can be fun. Just need to make sure that it is played appropriately. Yep if played correctly evil PCs want nothing to do with Intra-party conflict. Why would they want their cover blown? At least till it served their purpose they should be happy to keep everything an even keel.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I think that the critical issue concerning evil characters in a party is whether or not they go along with the rest of the group--just like all characters, being a "lone wolf" in a group game can easily lead to problems.

The one campaign I played in where evil was the norm was a two-player Dark Sun jaunt. The other player and I both played evil characters, but we still cooperated consistently.

In most games I run or play in, I'm fine with other players running evil characters. But if your thief steals from my paladin, expect my PC to act in character as well--STAB!

That said, in many games I run I encourage the players to not play evil or Chaotic-Neutral characters. In my experience, it can just be an excuse to be a dick.

 

[shilsen]

To me, D&D is about heroic fantasy.

In my experience, D&D can be about many more things than that, and forcing it to be only about heroic fantasy means one doesn't get to try out a lot of different options. So, to me, D&D is about whatever my group and I choose to make it. Heroic fantasy is only one on that list.

You don't have to be a shiny knight or even a do-gooder, but at the end of the day, your primary motivation has to come from WANTING to save the world.

As above, I think that's a pretty limited way to define characters, and I'd hate to play in a game where my PC's primary motivation has to be wanting to save the world. Sure, it can be, and sometimes is, but I think there can be many other motivations. Heck, I don't even like "save the world" plots that much any more. They're just one among many kinds of plots, and no more objectively interesting than any other. I'm running a campaign now in its 3rd year where the PCs are trying to save the world. And playing in one where the PCs are trying to find out what the god in the box in the paladin's codpiece is. Both games are pretty damn good.

If you play just for loot and power, well... I guess that's acceptable, but really, you could play a CRPG for that and get just as much out of it.

I haven't played many CRPGs and not in a long while, but aren't most CRPGs focused on the good guys who are out to save the world (or their little corner of it)?

I just don't understand the attraction to playing an evil character.

I do. People play the game for different reasons. And usually they play it for many different reasons simultaneously. Someone may want to play an evil character as a power fantasy. Someone may want to play an evil character to explore a part of the human condition they don't normally engage with. Someone may want to play it as a roleplaying challenge. Someone may want to play it since they really like the blackguard PrC.

I'm not there, as a DM, to allow a player's vicarious enactment of selfish fantasies or be their vehicle for socially unacceptable behaviour. For that, they can see a shrink.

I figure that I'm there as a DM to allow a player's vicarious enactment of many fantasies. Some are selfish, some are altruistic, and some involve pretending to be an elf. I doubt that playing an evil character is any worse, psychologically or otherwise, than pretending to be anything else in the game, esp. since D&D was built around socially unacceptable behaviour (killing things and taking their stuff).

What is your take on evil in the game?

I think it's just as valid a part of the game as most others. As far as characters go, if someone plays an evil character which will fit in with the other characters and not be disruptive, that's just fine by me. The same goes for any character, whether neutral or good.

 

[Kzach]

Hmm, in some ways I think there is a broad definition of evil here.

I don't view stealing off other party members as evil. I view it as disruptive to gameplay if done selfishly, but it can be done still in character and not be evil. The same with betrayal. I'm a big fan of GRRM, and I wouldn't view most of the characters in his novels as evil, just human.

I think there is a significant difference between evil and disruptive play. The two are separate issues AFAIC.

To me evil is things like raping, outright murder, torture, etc. In my campaign setting I extend that to things that affect a person's soul. Necromancy is evil in my setting because it requires that you sacrifice a person and rip their soul from their body and use it to power an undead creature.

But if it was just using negative energy, then there's nothing I see inherently wrong with that. In fact, I even allow poison-use as I don't consider it evil (well, unless it's administered surreptitiously to murder someone).

 

[Kzach]

I think it's just as valid a part of the game as most others. As far as characters go, if someone plays an evil character which will fit in with the other characters and not be disruptive, that's just fine by me. The same goes for any character, whether neutral or good.

Two things.

First, by definition, isn't evil disruptive?

Second, I think this again comes down to a definition of evil. If your definition of evil is simply selfish behaviour, then that's something a little different from my definition.

I don't want to facilitate rape fantasies or let someone act out their murderous thoughts or fetish for torture. Those things to me are evil. Stealing from the paladin is just funny.

 

[Shadeydm]

I have seen a lawful evil PC fit into an adventuring party flawlessly with zero disruption and would probably allow one if I were DMing a pre-4E ruleset game.

 

[Mallus]

First, by definition, isn't evil disruptive?

In the context of an RPG, no.

A party of evil characters can treat one another with in a respectful, convivial manner while still terrorizing the rest of the world. I speak with some experience in this matter. Conversely, a party of altruists engaged in saving the world can fight amongst one another like a sack full of angry cats. Again, I speak with some experience...

What is comes down to is that 'disruptiveness' depends on the personalities of the players involved in the campaign --and their ability to respect one another-- not the alignment of their characters.

If your definition of evil is simply selfish behaviour, then that's something a little different from my definition.

How about the deliberate murder of innocents for personal gain?

I don't want to facilitate rape fantasies or let someone act out their murderous thoughts or fetish for torture.

We draw the line at rape. But acting out murderous thoughts is a cornerstone of the D&D experience.

 

[Byronic]

I would allow Evil, but not disruptive characters.

"I believe in human sacrifices" and "I believe in raping Goblins" are okay, although less forced and more believable subtle (often Lawful Evil) goals are better. "I wish to live forever" or "It is my destiny to rule" are nice ones, even though the Evilness is what they're willing to do to accomplish them.

I don't however like "I killz pEopLe R@ndOmZ f0r n0 ReaSon" chaotic evil or "I want to kill the other party members and steal their loot"

If anyone wants to play an evil character I remind them: Even evil people have friends and teammates that they don't stab in the back for no good reason.