OK, I, me personally, have a problem with evil characters. I think they're horrid, and I despise WotC for allowing it's players to be able to choose evil as their alignment. I cannot see why anyone would want to play an evil character, since what I know of evil is the type of person to kill someone who doesn't actually need to die, burn a village for expressing views that oppose their own, and the like. As such, I have an ongoing houserule that states no evil alignments. I generally don't restrict race or class at all, but I always say nonevil. Is this fair for my players, or should I try to open up?
Is this fair?
- Thread starter Aleolus
- Start date
Arkhandus
First Post
It is fair. I usually maintain the same restriction; though not all evil-aligned characters are of the killing-people-at-random-for-no-good-reason sort, they do tend to cause problems most of the time if the group is not running an evil campaign to begin with; and even then they're likely to plot against each other anyway. 
I've allowed an evil drow PC once, and an evil ninja once, but the latter turned out to be trouble so he got the boot. The drow PC didn't backstab the party or do anything particularly evil while he was around, though his motives/goals/background in-character may've been evil.
Evil alignments have been allowed in the game, AFAIK, since 1E. Some people just like playing the villain sometimes. I dunno. I guess it's a way to vent and work off negative impulses harmlessly? Maybe sometimes playing the anti-hero (though usually they're just some shade of neutral). There are different shades of evil, and not all are of the vicious-sadist-jerk type.
Even if the core rules said you couldn't play evil PCs, people would just ignore that restriction whenever they felt like it, as long as the DM didn't care.
I've allowed an evil drow PC once, and an evil ninja once, but the latter turned out to be trouble so he got the boot. The drow PC didn't backstab the party or do anything particularly evil while he was around, though his motives/goals/background in-character may've been evil.
Evil alignments have been allowed in the game, AFAIK, since 1E. Some people just like playing the villain sometimes. I dunno. I guess it's a way to vent and work off negative impulses harmlessly? Maybe sometimes playing the anti-hero (though usually they're just some shade of neutral). There are different shades of evil, and not all are of the vicious-sadist-jerk type.
Even if the core rules said you couldn't play evil PCs, people would just ignore that restriction whenever they felt like it, as long as the DM didn't care.
Ltheb Silverfrond
Explorer
This is a fine stance to take for running a game, but remember not all evil characters are over-the-top archvillains or homicidal maniacs. Most have a reason for why they do what they do. Example - In a game I run currently, one of the players is playing an Assassin. During his back story, at one point in his youth, he was enslaved by a harsh slavemaster. As a result, his character detests slavery. During his years of being a slave, he was brutally punished for lying, and ended up with an acquired habit of never lying. So as a result he is a Lawful Evil assassin that, while he does kill for money as his trade, has strong moral compunctions to him that, given the right motivations, can work as an adventuring PC character and get along with other neutral, or possibly good aligned characters.
You can have an evil player character, or even possibly an evil adventuring party. The motives that drive them are usually different than normal but within reason. One thing that you definitely need though are very mature, serious players for the game. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, or like to goof around and cause chaos, perhaps setting a No-Evil restriction would help to curb their actions. Evil characters are much harder to create than good ones because its difficult to avoid creating the "stone-cold killer" or the "megalomaniac wizard" who have little to no reason to act they way they do, but simply do because it "sounds cool".
In short, if you want to allow your players to play evil, be ready for their possibly over the top ideas, and help curb those ideas into acceptable characters. If you don't think that will work, the No-Evil thing works fine.
You can have an evil player character, or even possibly an evil adventuring party. The motives that drive them are usually different than normal but within reason. One thing that you definitely need though are very mature, serious players for the game. If they just want to kill things and take their stuff, or like to goof around and cause chaos, perhaps setting a No-Evil restriction would help to curb their actions. Evil characters are much harder to create than good ones because its difficult to avoid creating the "stone-cold killer" or the "megalomaniac wizard" who have little to no reason to act they way they do, but simply do because it "sounds cool".
In short, if you want to allow your players to play evil, be ready for their possibly over the top ideas, and help curb those ideas into acceptable characters. If you don't think that will work, the No-Evil thing works fine.
Maldor
First Post
i like playing evil characters they are just more fun and more beliveable to me i have a hard time seeing people going around killing things for "good" and then taking there stuff
i mean the game is based around mugging. that said PK is never a good thing to have in a game and just becuase your evil doesn't mean your not a person you will likely have people you care for and people who care for you. the main reason that evil characters adventure is for money,power, fame, and other personal goals like vengence (and yes wrath is a sin so vengence is a evil act even when done to a evil person or is called "justics")
on the plus side people who play evil chacters tend to be more proactive no waiting for Mr. plothook to stop by with the lastest in questing no we got are own big plans are emipire isn't going to build itself
but it is reasonable if a bit boring to restict alignment at the begining of the game
i mean the game is based around mugging. that said PK is never a good thing to have in a game and just becuase your evil doesn't mean your not a person you will likely have people you care for and people who care for you. the main reason that evil characters adventure is for money,power, fame, and other personal goals like vengence (and yes wrath is a sin so vengence is a evil act even when done to a evil person or is called "justics")
on the plus side people who play evil chacters tend to be more proactive no waiting for Mr. plothook to stop by with the lastest in questing no we got are own big plans are emipire isn't going to build itself
but it is reasonable if a bit boring to restict alignment at the begining of the game
robberbaron
First Post
I can appreciate your point of view but I don't share it.
Within my group we have had evil characters/campaigns on and off for the past 30 years with little trouble.
Many people seem to have a problem playing evil characters as anything other than total sociopaths. If these include your players then I'd stick to Good.
Within my group we have had evil characters/campaigns on and off for the past 30 years with little trouble.
Many people seem to have a problem playing evil characters as anything other than total sociopaths. If these include your players then I'd stick to Good.
S
shurai
Guest
Maldor said:
Clearly you haven't met any members of the Benevolent Protective Order of Ever-Expanding Circles of Proactive Justice before huh? : ]
More seriously, I think most Good-aligned characters who kill bad things and take their stuff would explain themselves thusly:
"Look, the things were raiding the village during full moons and carrying off the virgins. Am I going to feel bad that I took their stuff after I rooted out and dispatched the unspeakable monstrous little brutes? No!"
More specifically, here's the way my current character, a Chaotic Good travelling mercenary, would put it:
"Look, I gotta have money, because I need to eat. I can live off the land in a pinch, sure, but all it takes is one bad season and I starve. A man needs a few coins to keep the grave-digger away, you follow? And I don't kill good people, I swears I don't, and if I do, it ain't often. I'll break a contract if it don't sit right with me, see, an' I've even done a few jobs for free. Roughin' up crooked tax collectors and stuff. So I don't need no lectures from your or anyone else."
Anyway, speaking of believability, I usually don't believe that Good and Evil characters would really hang out together for prolonged periods of time, mostly because I can't see how they'd stand one another, to say nothing of trust. Otherwise, either the Good characters really aren't Good and should be modified downards by the DM to Neutral, or else the Evil characters aren't really Evil and should likewise be modified upwards to Neutral, or else there is some seriously effective subterfuge going on by someone, somehow, or else no one is doing anything that matters.
So, I generally don't allow Good and Evil characters to mix in my campaigns. It leads to trouble. Often players get annoyed when I change their alignments from Good to Neutral or Evil because they've been jerks for too long. You should see the shock and disbelief when I change things in the other direction, because an Evil character has been doing too many Good things or hasn't been Evil enough to warrant non-Neutrality. : ]
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Aleolus said:
It's fair to set out the ground rules for a campaign with your rationale. I think despising WotC is a bit over the top, though, and is not fair. It's not up to them to allow or disallow the playing of evil characters.
So, it's fair to limit the players' options, but not so fair to hold WotC accountable for how people want to play the game.
Griffith Dragonlake
First Post
QFTNifft said:
I put in place a rule a very long time ago that when a PC turns Evil, I take away the character sheet and they become an NPC. Sometimes you just have to give a player a time out.
Phlebas
First Post
I have the DM rule of 'no evil alignments unless you can persuade me they'd work with a generally good aligned party without them killing / imprisoning / leaving you very quickly'
so far i've only had one convincing rationale (and it was a LE almost LN character concept of a brutal warrior exiled from the evil Northern Kingdom for being too honourable because he should have let the prince win in a duel) and even then the party ended up disliking him intently but couldn't do without his warrior skills. 2nd Ed Game folded a while back due to people moving away and haven't done it since
I tend to get more worried about 'N' characters who believe they can be ruthless with no consequences. Might have to take a lead from some other DM's and start walking their alignments
so far i've only had one convincing rationale (and it was a LE almost LN character concept of a brutal warrior exiled from the evil Northern Kingdom for being too honourable because he should have let the prince win in a duel) and even then the party ended up disliking him intently but couldn't do without his warrior skills. 2nd Ed Game folded a while back due to people moving away and haven't done it since
I tend to get more worried about 'N' characters who believe they can be ruthless with no consequences. Might have to take a lead from some other DM's and start walking their alignments
Similar Threads
