Evil or not?

[Fallen Seraph]

I am perfectly fine with "evil" PCs in my campaigns, as long as they are played realistically. I don't use alignment in my games anyways so the use of the term evil in this post is more just a general term and not related to any concrete D&D terminology for what constitutes "evil".

I think one big aspect of playing a good, evil character is they aren't generally mindless monsters. They may care for people, may help people, etc. But at the end of the day their goals are far from as noble as some, they aren't even just self-centred but actively disruptive.

An example from one of our campaigns is a PC party. That were actively involved in bringing down a Guild City to put into power a Thieves Guild. While they certainly were not good, doing such acts as; assassinations of innocents, terrorist bombings, theft, etc. They did have emotions and feelings they created relations with people in the city, in the Thieves Guild, they questioned their motives and methods. But in the end they major goal was to bring about the end of a prosperous city to create a den of corruption for their Thieves Guild to rule from.

 

[Trickstergod]

To be fair, I think Mal did so to avoid a problem. The man he pushed into the jet engine just swore that he would track Mal down to the ends of space and kill him. Mal was in a position to remove the threat without any problem. It made his point, certainly, but it also removed the threat of a relentless villain.

Besides. In that same episode, Mal opts to return the medicine he stole from a sick village, rather than collect money for it. If he was Evil, he would've taken the cash and ran.

Mal's quite firmly in the Neutral camp. Probably right-square at True Neutral. Potentially even leaning towards Good, considering how often he gets tripped over things like, oh...rescueing hapless girls, returning much needed medicine, only stealing from those that can really afford it, all of that.

A bit off topic, but still one of those examples that it's entirely possible for someone to do good things and evil things and, you know. Still be playing the same character.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

My take is that I've found both the types of campaign you've singled out as not appropriate/interesting/whatever for your own games, to be perfectly acceptable, and lots of fun, what's more.

I've run a couple of large evil campaigns, a couple of 'very neutral' (rather mercenary) ones, and another evil solo thing that lasted a while, and was possibly the best of all of them. That's apart from those that didn't go so well, way back when, and those that didn't ever happen, or fell apart soon enough (again, way back).

With reasonably mature players (and GM) I really don't see anything wrong with it, and in my experience, it can work just fine. A totally different thing, yes, but still exciting, intriguing and rewarding.

In the end though, I prefer heroic RPG campaigns to be in the majority. They appeal in a way nothing else in this world can. To me, I mean.

And evil or angty anti-hero PCs in my heroic campaigns? #&%@ no.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Except that's not a tabletop game where I can customize my character to my tastes, and I can interact with my friends, in addition to really affecting the world around me. CRPGs are pretty, well, freaking limited.

 

[DracoSuave]

YouTube - I'm EVIL!

 

[jdrakeh]

Generally not up for evil. There are exceptions, though — settings like Necessary Evil and my own Warlock (for the Window) posit worlds where all of the good, just, heroes are dead and gone, having been seen as obvious threats early on by the BBE and, subsequently, having been wisely dispatched early on as part of the BBE's Master Plan.

In situations like this, I find that playing 'evil' characters can be a compelling and different take on bog standard fantasy (or comic book superheroics). For example, here are some example character archetypes from the rough draft of Warlock:

[sblock]Repentent Criminal: A born killer, you’ve spent the better part of your life in the frozen wastes of Hel, mulling over past decisions that you’ve made and wishing that there were some way you could redeem yourself. When the Arcane Underground came to the island, you saw an opportunity to do just that.

You’re still a psychotic maniac but, instead of killing for kicks, today you’re killing to make the world a better place. Whenever you taste the blood of a Compact soldier on your lips, you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The warden was dead on — doing the right thing does feel good.

Evil Arcane Master: When the Silent Compact demanded that all practitioners of the arcane arts surrender their libraries to the Dark Lords, you scoffed — who were these cretins to demand this of you? When you refused to comply with their demands, they sent an entire legion of warriors
to burn your estate to the ground.

If the minions of the Dark Lords had known who they were dealing with, they would have burned you instead of your estate. You might not have your libraries anymore but you still have enough spells to deal with these so-called Dark Lords. You’ll show them a thing or two. Amateurs.[/sblock]

So, evil can be fun but, as always, it's all about the context. That being 'evil' bit as an excuse to act like a socially repugnant moron to undugle otherwise socially unacceptable behavior? I don't let that fly in the campaigns that I run.

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm pretty up front when I DM. No evil characters. You can be unaligned (with good tendencies), or you can be good. You can even be good AND a ruthless destroyer of evil.

For example, I have no problem with zealous crusader paladins who act as judge, jury, and executioner. But I write adventures with the expectation the party will be motivated by such things as helping innocents and saving people.

The other thing I can't abide as either a player or a DM is intra-party fighting or betrayal unless it specifically happens as part of the story. For example, the rogue scouting ahead and secretly pocketing half the treasure cache he found without telling the rest of the group? Not acceptable to me at all.

If you like to play in such games, that's cool, but I hate it and I'd rather not play at all than play in a game where PCs steal from and betray each other.

 

[Prisoner6]

Depending on the campaign, I will ignore alignment altogether. Quality characters (in books and movies, as well as D&D) typically have several, often contradicting, personality traits that make them tick. As such, it can be hard to peg down a character as a particular alignment. I would prefer the players to come up with their own ideas about a PCs morality rather than have them pick from a list of pre-packaged oversimplifications.

Of course the key to making this work is mature players who aren't going to be (unnecessarily) disruptive to the game. In other words, the key issue is not whether evil alignments are playable, but how the players are going to handle them. If the players (or the DM for that matter) can't handle it, then the campaign will be unenjoyable.

 

[Umbran]

Mal's quite firmly in the Neutral camp. Probably right-square at True Neutral.

(Where I come from "True" Neutral denotes a character who is actively seeking balance between the various extremes, rather than someone who just isn't dedicated to one of the extremes)

I think there's a good argument that Mal is Chaotic Good. He's very big on self-determination, even on his own ship, his usual way of dealing with a problem with his crew is to tell them they're always free to walk away. And given that Crow was a bad guy, and a threat, killing him hardly seems morally questionable.

And time after time, his soft heart means he doesn't get away from trouble as soon as he might otherwise. I say he wants to be neutral, but just can't manage it

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think there's a good argument that Mal is Chaotic Good. He's very big on self-determination, even on his own ship, his usual way of dealing with a problem with his crew is to tell them they're always free to walk away. And given that Crow was a bad guy, and a threat, killing him hardly seems morally questionable.

Especially given that Crow was, as I think you mentioned, actually telling Mal he would hunt him down and kill him when he was freed. (Guess what, Crow? Won't be happening.)

Saying that Mal did that to "prove a point" is wrong. Mal did it to protect himself and his crew, and only after offering the guy a really easy way to live, and only after the guy threatened him.

Yes, if you have to put an alignment on him, Mal is Chaotic Good, with the Good part being almost grudging, because he wishes he wasn't. His entire existence is about independence: he was a Browncoat, fighting for the right not to be told what to do by the Alliance; he sticks as much as he can to the Black, again just wanting to be left alone; and in the movie he does everything he can do to keep the oppressive Lawful Evil regime from winning and taking away freedom -- via pacification -- from the entire system.

He even had an indisputably Lawful Evil nemesis in the film, and Mal defeated him because Mal's freedom couldn't be curtailed (due to a blown-away nerve cluster).

If Mal's not Chaotic Good, then Chaotic Good doesn't exist.

Jayne, now ... Jayne is -- or at least was -- Evil. Arguably, he was growing away from Evil. (Speculatively, BTW, Book had already completed that process.)