Evil PCs?

[FreeTheSlaves]

Somehow they go nuts. I reckon it has something to do with having 'evil' written on their character sheet.

The player tries to play a hard-edge antihero but at some point they have a brainfart. A hairbrained opportunity for doing evil comes up and they fail to resist the temptation to do it, no matter how inane.

Maybe they want to justify that word on the character sheet and fear losing it if they don't kick puppies.

Anyway before you know it they've burnt bridges that lead to the adventure and the charcter has to be ditched for whatever reason.

It would be refreshing to see a sane evil character... or simply play a one-off hairbrained evil adventure.

 

[Darklone]

I did have evil characters in some groups and it worked. The low profile criminal type trying to make a fortune. Killing, torturing, stealing... but never without a reason and never if there was an easier way.

 

[molonel]

In my experience as a DM having an all-evil party is fun as a one-shot or short lived campaign. Having one or a small minority of evil characters in a party is not fun at all. Consistently it ends up in one of two scenarios: The players of the Non-Evil characters have their characters 'turn a blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evil activities which to me utterly kills the suspension of disbelief. Or the characters end up turning on each other. I've watched two evil characters consipire and succeed in killing the paladin. The paladin player got so upset he quit the campaign. Frankly I don't blame him at all and blame myself for allowing it. And later when two other players killed the LG monk I quit the campaign. Yes, I the DM quit running the campaign. I couldn't control the immature players in my campaign but what's worse was at that time there were no other players to play with. My choice was GM with players I didn't like or to not GM at all. I chose the latter.

Two years later in a different city with a new set of friends I start to GM again. One of my conditions was that Evil PCs would not be allowed. Furthermore, when a PC turns Evil he becomes an NPC. The players accepted that and we had fun. Some years later in a new city with a new party, I laid down the same law and everyone agreed. Fun was had by all. In my most recent game I laid down the no Evil law and the players agreed. However in the course of the game one of the players kept running his CN character in Evil ways. I reminded him that his character would become an NPC once he became evil. But he kept on committing Evil acts and the other players would 'turn a blind eye and a deaf ear' regardless of their character's alignment. I quit the campaign. Life is too short to play with people who don't respect you or the game.

Bottom line is that we're all adults here. We've come together to play a game and have fun. There is an implicit assumption that we can trust each other to play the game by the rules and that the PCs can rely on each other to do their part for the team. There isn't time to roleplay out how a party comes together or even to reject a party member. Either play the game the way we the players like it to be played or go play in another campaign. No hard feelings. To each his own, et cetera.

In summary, my recommendation is do not allow Evil PCs unless running a one-shot with an all Evil party.

Although I see this as an extreme set of examples, and disagree with the overall statement for all groups, I think this post is a valid cautionary commentary on allowing evil PCs in your game. And I fully and completely agree with the statement, "Life is too short to play with people who don't respect you or the game."

 

[Endur]

In summary, my recommendation is do not allow Evil PCs unless running a one-shot with an all Evil party.

Agree 100%. Its the only way to avoid player vs. player friction.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I do not allow evil characters in my games, and am very strict about CN guys too.

One reason I keep this policy is that most of the people I see in this thread and many many otehrs who support evil were the evil character themselves. I rarely see those who were fellow players supporting such a choice. To me an all-evil campaign could work, but it is jsut not what I wantto run or play in. A mostly good game with one evil character is a recipe for the evil guy to have fun atthe expense of the rest of the players.

 

[JRR_Talking]

to be honest i much prefer evil to choatic, especially CN

ran a recent campaighn from 1st t0 9th where everyone was in the L-N-E axis of alignments and it worked well

the game isnt written for 4 CE alignments in a party. if u want that play monopoly or risk

or another rpg

D&D 3.5 isnt really geared for certain PC alignments so beware. Expect a lot more in character disagreements, PCs killing each other. it suddenly aint so much a team game anymore

John

 

[TarionzCousin]

All Evil PC Campaign

I was a player in a two-player Evil campaign. It worked out very well because the DM was much more evil than either of us were.

It was nice being able to do anything to accomplish our goals. It sucked when the town priests used Speak With the Dead and Detect Evil spells to determine not only who was guilty of the murder (an NPC) but who the town should evict (Us innocent but evil PC's, of course).

 

[Crothian]

evil is for villains and monsters - player's handbook

The villian is the hero of his own story

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I generally think that evil characters are okay, so long as they're a relatively sane sort of evil. An evil character doesn't have to rape, murder, steal and torture. He just has to be willing to do so if it becomes necessary. A good character never allows those as options, and a neutral character might be squeamish about it, but for an evil character, "business is business." He probably won't go out of his way to be eeevil. He just won't flinch when he has to snap the neck of the six year old who saw him leaving the scene of the crime. He might mutter a "sorry, kid," but the defining characteristic of evil characters is, IMO, always taking the path that provides the greatest benefit, regardless of ethical issues.

I've played in over-the-top eeevil campaigns, and I've played in games where there was one evil guy who didn't try to kill the party, didn't leave burning villages in his wake, and didn't draw undue attention to his lack of ethical motivation. In most cases the character in question was just a cold, cold man who wouldn't lift a finger to help his mother reconnect the battery on her pacemaker if it got in the way of his enjoyment of a really good sandwich.

I played an evil character once whose whole schtick was that he attached himself to another party member who he perceived to be in charge of the group, and tried to become the favoured lackey...his understanding of group dynamics was limited to his experiences with street gangs. He'd always be saying things like, "is this guy giving you trouble, Boss? You want me to break his kneecaps?" I think that the other party members thought it was kind of funny, but he was dead serious, and had they ever said "sure, go ahead," he'd have gone about gimping the poor sod in question with brutal efficiency and pride in a job well done. However, he was a real team player, eager to prove his worth, and loyal to a fault. The other party members were all good alignments, but there was never any friction because he wasn't a total moron.

 

[Aaron L]

We don't put any restrictions on people playing Evil characters.


Of course, the characters have to live with the consequences of their actions.