D&D 5E Would You Rather Have a LE or CN party member?

[Zardnaar]

For the 1st time maybe ever I rolled up an evil PC a few weeks ago. A LE Halfling Champion fighter (just hit level 3) that is an urchin and LE.

I'm roleplaying him with an emphasis on the L part of LE. He tithes 50% of the ill gotten loot to the guild he has just joined (50% of guild jobs not adventuring loot and 50% of anything looted in the Guild territory). Out of whats left he tithes 10% to the Church of Mask but the tithe is 10% of everything he gets.

The one evil thing he has done was he killed a captured guard when the Bard had her back turned. The guard died of "natural causes" because quite naturally a dagger in the throat kills you. The reason was the guard was a witness and the Bard did not disguise herself- Rats did.

Rats is not big on murder and mayhem if he kills its part of the job or to cover tracks, he doesn't particularly enjoy it but he is an urchin and had a rough upbringing. He doesn't steal from his friends and he is almost an accountant in terms of his honesty in recovered loot. If he loots a chest for example out of sight the other PCs will get their share down to the last copper piece.

His eventual goal is probably guild master or similar post. Two players don't care as he is not overtly evil, 1 player has her suspicions due to the guard thing (she thought to check on him) but went along with it due to her ass being on the line so to speak.

So good people of ENworld would you want a PC like "Rats" in your party or a CN one?

 

[Horwath]

I think that there will be no problem with any alignment within the party if players do not derail DM's plans for campaign. Too much

And there is no direct PvP combat/stealing/whatever.

It just improves role play of the group. Unless taken too far.

I would in some situations like LE rogue, or CN ranger or LG paladin. Depends on the situation.

Also best anti-heroes are CN

 

[CTurbo]

I know it's a common theme for players to think they can label their character CN so they get get away with basically evil acts but I haven't seen much of this in actual play with one exception of a guy that claimed his War Cleric was CN but he played him obviously evil. This was this guy's first ever character so we got him sorted out. I like playing CN because I like for my characters to be carefree, but that's really more about the C part than the N part I guess. I guess I like N because while I'm not going to go out of my way to commit evil, I don't have to go out of my way to be "good" either lol.

But my most recent character is LG and I play him as annoyingly LG on the verge of LS but not quite. CG is fun too. I had a CG Tabaxi Swashbuckler and he was great.

I've played a LE Paladin and he was a fun character. He mostly behaved himself especially around the group so no one really suspected he was evil. They just thought he was greedy. The most evil thing he did was rob and kidnap a guard, steal what the guard was guarding, and then framed him for the robbery by planting evidence. it was quite epic in the way that it worked out too because he totally got away with it and also without tipping off his friends.

I think true N would be really hard to play. I've never bothered trying to play NG or NE.

CE usually gets a bad rap for being CS but I believe there is a line there somewhere would it could possibly work, it would just be hard.

To answer the original question, I don't think it matters much as long as the players know that their character'r are responsible for their actions and if they get caught being dumb, the're going to pay the price.

 

[Shiroiken]

Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with either as a player. A properly played CN or LE character doesn't have to be disruptive to the game or group. My character may have a preference, depending on my own Lawful/Chaotic stance. A LE character may come down hard on me for being chaotic, for example, and a CN character may annoy my lawful character.

 

[Blue]

The only long term evil character I played was back in AD&D 2nd. Boasis was a petty evil priest of Mask, know for being glib and lazy. He joined a "goodish" party - they were more inspired by gold and glory, but glory came from doing deeps people int he cities would cheer about.

He was petty evil - doing evil things for his own comfort and advancement, not out of a grand scheme to do evil. Animate dead foes to use them as trap detectors. Started a competing thieves guild in a city that already had several, etc. But he didn't betray the party.

He had joined under the guise of a cleric of Shaundankel (sp?), back in 2ed a minor god of traveling in the Realms. After several months when they found out he was a cleric of a god of thieves the party wanted to know why they should trust him. They knew he was supremely lazy, and he pointed out that he coukld have a big score once, and then for the rest of his life work looking over his shoulder to avoid a powerful and vengeful adventuring company with contacts and divination, or just go adventuring a few days a month and make more then that in a handful of adventures while making powerful allies.

The key was that he provided interesting in-character drama while still being aligned with the party enough to move forward and not cause any player drama. It was discussed with the other players before I even made the character.

 

[Mistwell]

I would prefer Rats to a CN one. The CN one gets the whole party killed with routine Leroy Jenkins charges.

 

[Henry]

The real question is “which one can be reasoned with” - on the plus side, the LE character is less likely to be totally out for themselves; however, one can have Lawful zealots who cannot be reasoned with, just as much as one can have a very individualistic character who can at least be made to understand that running off half-cocked gets everyone killed.

On balance, though, the lawful evil guy is more likely to come back for you if you are in trouble.

 

[ccs]

Probably LE.

But it really does depend upon exact character. And the rest of the party. And the campaign/story.

 

[Satyrn]

I would prefer Rats to a CN one. The CN one gets the whole party killed with routine Leroy Jenkins charges.

My gnome battlemaster did one of them Leroy Jenkins charges, drunk on the power and thinking himself invincible after he found a pair of guns. His alignment (NG) had nothing to do with it.


I also find evil is easy to play and fine in a group. I simply don't scheme or act against the friends and allies played by my fellow gamers.

 

[Frankie1969]

It's not that simple. You have to factor in alignment, personality, party composition, and setting.

Two CN characters at my table:

#1: luxury-loving hedonist who constantly seeks enjoyment while quietly amassing power for future havoc.
#2: semi-reformed street criminal who constantly seeks opportunities to swindle authority figures.

This party is directly working for law enforcement, so I had to ask PC #2 to dial it back, whereas PC #1 is no problem at all. In a different world, the reverse might be true.

Likewise, let's compare hypothetical LE #1 who values hierarchy: the weak should kneel to the strong (and strive to become stronger), vs LE #2 who values graft: uphold the letter of the law while twisting its spirit. Each of those motivations could be an insoluble problem that wrecks a party, or it could be a hook that ties them to the plot, depending on the other characters and the campaign design.

The real question is: are you an [MENTION=40136]SS[/MENTION]h01e who spends game time actively disrupting your fellow PCs (when the plot is designed for cooperation)? LE & CN are often capable of that, but I remember LG & CG characters who have done the same (by different means) at tables I've played. The AD&D paladin who demands obedience to their code of conduct. The rascal who is compelled to back-talk (and rob) anyone (including a king) who doesn't immediately agree to the party's every request. Etc...