Forked Thread: How can I play a teamwork-focused Evil character?

[Noumenon]

Forked from: So that's why you like it

edit: also, playing evil doesn't imply a lack of teamwork any more than playing good guarantees teamwork.

This is good to hear, because the campaign I want to join is an established evil campaign, but I want my next character to be all about teamwork. After being a DM, I have a real yen to play as a "good player" -- someone whose goal every session is to validate the other players' character concepts, and expresses it mechanically by using tons of buff spells and aid anothers. Probably a bard. So what kind of teamwork-supporting archetypes are there for an evil character?

Masterminds believe in teamwork, but the team works for him, not vice versa. Nazi guards are a team, but "just following orders" doesn't seem like a fun character concept. I want to actively help my teammates with buff spells. I could just flavor the character evil by having his buff spells come from little demons that poof in on your shoulder and tell you where to hit, but I'd like something that genuinely seems evil.

There is the lawyer archetype -- someone who signs a contract to help you achieve your evil goals to the utmost of their ability. I suppose I could use bardic lore checks to come up with tricky legal rules to screw people. That's amusing, and it could work great in an urban campaign.

I've been told the campaign setting is a Coruscant-like world-city of eight million people, divided into three factions: lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil. How it hangs together, I don't know.

Another twist might be someone who in addition to helping his companions believes he's helping the people he kills. He could use spells like Cause Fear ("let me help you survive this") or Blindness/Deafness ("you don't wanna see this, trust me").

I could say I'm trying to perfect the ultimate evil warrior so I'm experimenting with the effects of granting extra strength or toughness.

Any other ideas for a buffer/helper/bard teamwork type who nevertheless isn't good?

 

[Mikaze]

I'm half-asleep so if I ramble aimlessly, please forgive.

I've been told the campaign setting is a Coruscant-like world-city of eight million people, divided into three factions: lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil. How it hangs together, I don't know.

Any other ideas for a buffer/helper/bard teamwork type who nevertheless isn't good?

I've only played one evil character before(in a Conan game set in Stygia, and he was enjoyable even if I want to see him get punished for his deeds), but the one rule I would say you have to have to keep a party functional, regardless of alignment, is "Don't $#@! where you eat."

That was how I managed to take the sorcerer's job, and I was working freelance for the party, and wasn't even a full caster. The party was a very convenient means towards my character's ends. He was loyal primarily to himself, his demon, and his cult, but he worked to maintain a good working relationship with the party, because getting deaded would be problematic for his goals. Fear of death and a need for security while still having to engage in adventuring-type stuff is a great way to keep someone in the party.

Loyalty to something greater than themselves(evil god, cult, fiendish patron, philosophy, nation, whatever) among more than one character would go a long way towards establishing a good core for the party to gather around too.

Requesting a personal code of honor, twisted though it may be, may be a good idea too.

And on the player front, make sure everyone is on the same page about how evil they're comfortable with their characters being. Not everyone that enjoys the idea of playing a hammy Vincent Price-ian diabolist is going to be okay with Mr. Babies-On-Spikes.

Every player should think over an answer to the question, "Why is your character evil?" too.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Also remember Evil doesn't mean you're constantly trying to screw over or kill everyone around you.

You can still have loved ones. You can still have trusted friends. Your focus in life is just a bit different.

Perhaps your adventuring group could all be relatives or childhood friends?

 

[Mikaze]

You can still have loved ones. You can still have trusted friends. Your focus in life is just a bit different.

YES.

Heck, watch Taken.

Spoiler

Then imagine if Liam Neeson's character didn't have what restraint he had.

Having something besides yourself that your character is (dangerously) protective of will go a long way towards humanizing him.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I never understood why this was such a huge problem. Just like any other party, if your character shares goals and benefits from working with others to achieve those goals then good/evil is just a matter of thematic focus.

Problems arise when the idea that evil=psychopath takes hold. Evil characters can work together if the individuals are rational. Some good parties have trouble functioning if there is a fanatic obsessive paladin making things difficult for the more rational good characters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think what you need is a common goal or common enemy.

Maybe "Team Evil" has to fight in a world where Good nearly has won?
There are only "Points of Darkness" that have to work together to bring down the vast and benign Empire(s) of Good.
Of course, you might want to explain why they bother to do that? Just because they are evil, or are their maybe economical reasons for it? A nation of Undead might have no way to coexist peacefully, as they need the living to create new spawn, and no Paladin or Cleric in his right mind would allow that. Maybe there just isn't enough food to sustain the Goblin hordes any longer, and they don't want to restrain themselves to the places and population they have, even if humans and elves might be willing to stop their expansion.

They could also work for some "Bigger Evil" that demands them to achieve certain goals, threatening them or someone dear to them if they don't comply and show some results. Remember, the big evil doesn't like lame excuses like "But a Paladin was guarding the gate, we couldn't get through." "We were outnumbered 4:1!" No excuses for failures.

Of course, going this route might destroy any "power fantasies" the players might have hoped to fulfill by playing evil and having no moral restrictions.
So make the "evil" choices work well. You need to create some civil unrest? Poison the wells and blame the Halflings. Want to bring down a Paladin? Don't attach him, take his family hostage. And kill them, even - especially - if he gives into your demands to destroy both his reputation and his will to live.

Put out another "Team Evil" (maybe from the same master or another evil) that wants to achieve similar goals for them, and have the party make intrigues against them. Maybe they even want to bring down their immediate boss to get to the next higher one (more fame, money and power for the party!)

 

[roguerouge]

If you're a bard focused on making others better, you're set up for the evil sycophant role. Think of yourself as Mr. Smithers: very competent, but loyal to a fault, overly dependent on approval and without a vision. Later on in the campaign, you can start to chafe and develop your own plans for the power plant, but have fun playing Smithers for a while.

 

[Rechan]

The mafia work as a team. Betraying individual members may get you advancement, or may get you shot, but undermining the organization itself gets you killed. The Mafia treats one another as friends and family.

Terrorists work as a team. They treat one another as brothers in arms, all working towards a mission. Betraying one of your members, or working against them, undermines the mission in the first place.

Gangs work as a team. They are "friends", to an extent, loyal to the Gang. In terms of betrayal, see: mafia. They work together because they are all members of the Gang.

Why would an evil character who isn't part of an over-arching organization work with others? Protection (someone watching your back is better than being alone). Assistance (you can't do what it is you want by yourself). They possess skills you don't have.

Evil is a lot more complex than just "I do bad things" or "I take every opportunity that comes to me". Evil can be merely the lack of morals: A mercenary who will do what you ask if you pay him isn't looking to screw over his teammates - he just wants to get paid, and what he does isn't important. Same with an assassin - he kills defenseless people, sometimes innocent, for a paycheck or some other cause. Also consider a total lack of mercy - if a witness sees the crime, you kill the witness because they are a threat to you. That's pragmatic.

Evil can relate to their methods: A necromancer who is, to many, evil by defintion (messing with undead in most games = evil) may have no motivation whatsoever to betray anyone. Just because he messes with souls doesn't mean he's going to steal or kill his teammates. A devil-worshiper or warlock is evil due to who he's sold his soul to, and the goals he's working towards (collecting souls/furthering the ends of devils). An inquisitor is evil because he will go to any means to get what his god/church/whathaveyou requires.

If your goal is to corrupt someone, you want to be their best friend, and give them the encouragement/opportunity to do bad things. Working against them would discourage them from being influenced by you.

Evil can be "We have a prisoner. Interrogate him, then kill him and toss him in a ditch. It's simpler that way." Evil can be "The orphanage is ran by illithids and the puppy farm is overtaken by goblins. So? What's in it for me to care about this?"

Besides. An evil character who wants to engage in murder and theft is best served hanging around with adventurers. Even good guys cut a bloody path and loot the dead.

 

[Noumenon]

I feel like I got more good advice in this thread than I can apply to my one character, but I copied some of it down in case I ever run an evil campaign myself.

Fear of death and a need for security while still having to engage in adventuring-type stuff is a great way to keep someone in the party.

That's an interesting idea -- evil out of fear. Like having to join a gang. Being a helpful fellow who always has a bandage or some ammo handy doesn't really get you that far in a gang though.

It seems like the answer to "why teamwork?" is always "a group helps me achieve my goals better, so I'll help the group." But that's such a common thing even for good players and it doesn't always keep parties together. Whereas "mercenary who will do anything for the money" is more evil-only. I just need to make sure someone hires me for my buffing services specifically, and then my non-evil-looking spells will be clearly in service of an evil goal. That's what I want.

I guess what makes it difficult is that "helper/buffer/healer bard" doesn't sound like someone you'd find in the mafia, or in a gang, or in a terrorist group. I mean, I'm sure they have someone around who can get you a gun or a bandage when you need one, but you don't think of that person as evil. It sounds like a selfless nice person, or an unimportant subordinate.

If you're a bard focused on making others better, you're set up for the evil sycophant role. Think of yourself as Mr. Smithers: very competent, but loyal to a fault, overly dependent on approval and without a vision. Later on in the campaign, you can start to chafe and develop your own plans for the power plant, but have fun playing Smithers for a while.

Thanks for addressing my specific character concept. Smithers, huh? Like why is my character evil? Because he wants approval, and he's getting it from the wrong people, but he'll do anything to get it. (I like the idea of being a subordinate who starts to chafe and later betrays, too.) I'm just not sure how to extend loyal/sycophantic to all the people in the party. Normally I would look to the party's boss. Maybe I should kiss up to a different person every combat -- "this time, you get the buff spell, because you're my new favorite!"

So I looked at all the evil gods in the Players' Handbook, and none of them were just right. Does anyone know any evil gods from other sourcebooks that would be just right for either of my character concepts? Either the lawyer, or the sycophant?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Gangs work as a team. They are "friends", to an extent, loyal to the Gang. In terms of betrayal, see: mafia. They work together because they are all members of the Gang.

Very much so. I've often felt that PCs in rpgs act in an implausibly selfish manner when one compares the way people in the real world, such as gang members or soldiers, act when faced with combat, serious physical danger or an external threat.

Rpgs are not doing a good job at making the players feel like those people feel. Players are together for short periods of time, sometimes they may not know one another very well, but these guys spend most of their lives together.

Hazing, or initiation rituals, are a powerful psychological trick used by organisations to promote loyalty to the group. The thinking is that because one has suffered to join the group then membership must be desirable. It must be worth a lot because you've paid a lot. I wonder if some sort of hazing ritual could help promote loyalty in an rpg, tbh it would probably just backfire. To be clear, I'm talking about hazing the PCs, not the players.

Do you ever notice how so few PC groups have names? It's always really hard coming up with one even in superhero games, where it's a superstrong genre convention. They are practically non-existent in fantasy games such as D&D.

All street gangs have names. All military outfits, even small ones, have names. There is clearly a much stronger group identity here than one finds in the typical PC group.