That goes to my point that a lot of players don't want to scrutinize their character's morality too closely. Petty crimes 'for fun', bullying, barfights, violently resisting arrest, 'enhanced interrogation', killing anything suspected of 'having it coming', all these things tend to be glossed over because "we're the heroes, we do good stuff all the time, it doesn't really matter'. Good, as long as it's not too inconvenient.
That's more or less what I meant by "accidentally".
Never played an evil character, never want to play an evil character, do not condone evil PCs as either a player or a DM. There is no reason someone can invent for playing an "Evil" PC, in the usual "I want to be a villain but working with the good guys for my own nefarious reasons" sense, that is worth the stress, headache, and hostility that it inevitably brings to the table. even a master-level player working with a master-level DM is risking everything exploding in their faces if one single person nails the wrong Insight check and tumbles to the fact that their paladin is actually the BBEG ahead of the Big Reveal. I've had too many issues with disruption at my table to allow for that kind of crap. Both 'Evil' PCs and chaos-monkey tom****ers who strenuously ignore all the warnings I give during Session Zero and otherwise that actions in the games I run have consequences.
Hell, I've vowed that if I ever run a game again, one of the things I'll say in Session Zero is "actions in the world can and will have consequences, up to and including you-the-player being ejected from my game if you insist on trying to gum up the works and instigate Loony Tunes wankery that throws everybody else out of the session and spikes game night." 'Chaos' is good when it's a character that believes in their own heart and mind over the voice of a distant, absent king. 'Evil' is fine* when it's a bitter old soldier who demands to be paid for his work and has no compunction with killing those who stand against him and his. 'Chaos' is not okay when it's "I wanna turn the town into a circus without telling anybody else", and Evil is most decidedly not okay when it's "I want to be the Villain secretly plotting against the party all campaign long."
I personally never understood the appeal. You get to be anyone you could possibly want with the power to carry out nearly whatever actions you wish. Why would anyone want to be an evil character?
You have to exist in that character's head when you are playing. To me, that sounds pretty miserable. Does anyone have play experience they could use to expand on why that would be fun?
I recognize that there is some freedom in fiction, but I once played a chaotic stupid warlock who swiped a merchant's coin purse because I failed to convince him to give me a discount. I still feel guilty over that and it was almost four years ago.
I personally never understood the appeal. You get to be anyone you could possibly want with the power to carry out nearly whatever actions you wish. Why would anyone want to be an evil character?
You have to exist in that character's head when you are playing. To me, that sounds pretty miserable. Does anyone have play experience they could use to expand on why that would be fun?
I recognize that there is some freedom in fiction, but I once played a chaotic stupid warlock who swiped a merchant's coin purse because I failed to convince him to give me a discount. I still feel guilty over that and it was almost four years ago.
I think the fun is to play an interesting character the same way actors like to play the villain. That said, I would never play an evil character that is intentionally disrupting the game. Also, I am certainly not interested in playing out torture or the likes. Sadly, many evil character fall into the realm of murder hobo or playing "against" the rest of the group and therefore, I can absolute understand why DMs would not allow evil characters at all.
At the moment, I do play a character that I would consider neutral evil in DnD: He was raised in a city where life is cheap and murdering the competition is a "legitimate" way for the ruling caste to advance their plans. Therefore, he would regularly suggest to just kill someone because he would think that is the easiest way to get rid of a problem. However, the rest of the group usually disagrees and he is totally fine to accept the majority vote although their moral reasoning is beyond him (the fear/consequences of getting caught is often a stronger arguement). He is also very fond of the group, because for the first time other people are not just exploiting him and he genuinely considers them his friends. Therefore, he doesn't want to loose them which also means he would do a lot of "evil" things to protect them without hesitation. I think, the fact that he is a little bit dorky also "conceals" his "evil" nature. I really like to play that character ;-)
I think most players i play with call their characters neutral when actually based on their actions they skew more good. Neutral is appealing to players because "haha I can do whatever I want!" but when the chips are down I feel like many players can't bring themselves to follow through on it, especially when faced with people in need, or legitimately cruel enemies.
Which is kinda uplifting if you think about it. It's like the "in a videogame with no consequences why are you playing the "good" side? Because being mean makes me feel bad" thing.
Perhaps it is time we added another row to the alignment chart, below evil. We could reference it as Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Hobo. It could very well make the chart more relevant than ever before.
Never played an evil character, never want to play an evil character, do not condone evil PCs as either a player or a DM. There is no reason someone can invent for playing an "Evil" PC, in the usual "I want to be a villain but working with the good guys for my own nefarious reasons" sense, that is worth the stress, headache, and hostility that it inevitably brings to the table. even a master-level player working with a master-level DM is risking everything exploding in their faces if one single person nails the wrong Insight check and tumbles to the fact that their paladin is actually the BBEG ahead of the Big Reveal. I've had too many issues with disruption at my table to allow for that kind of crap. Both 'Evil' PCs and chaos-monkey tom****ers who strenuously ignore all the warnings I give during Session Zero and otherwise that actions in the games I run have consequences.
Hell, I've vowed that if I ever run a game again, one of the things I'll say in Session Zero is "actions in the world can and will have consequences, up to and including you-the-player being ejected from my game if you insist on trying to gum up the works and instigate Loony Tunes wankery that throws everybody else out of the session and spikes game night." 'Chaos' is good when it's a character that believes in their own heart and mind over the voice of a distant, absent king. 'Evil' is fine* when it's a bitter old soldier who demands to be paid for his work and has no compunction with killing those who stand against him and his. 'Chaos' is not okay when it's "I wanna turn the town into a circus without telling anybody else", and Evil is most decidedly not okay when it's "I want to be the Villain secretly plotting against the party all campaign long."
It.
Is.
Never.
Worth it.
Eh it's definitely more a different type of game than normal but I'd just point out that Prudence from Oxventure exists. She's evil, she'll be gladly gleeful when an orphanage is destroyed (she didn't do it, it was an unfortunate side-effect of an artifact another character used), she laughs her way through a museums torture exhibit, and when given an opportunity to wish for anything, would wish for Cthulhu to rise and destroy the world.
She's also actually loyal to the team, doesn't get involved in fight but helps break the others out of jail afterwards, and pursues vengeance on the person who set them up.
People CAN actually play an evil character without being a total backstabber who destroys the party. That being said, Oxventure is also a group of folks who work together and have for many years before ever playing D&D. So it's absolutely a thing that requires trust and knowing each other.
I definitely prefer playing the hero, I'd be fine playing an evil character but my concept for an evil character is more "well written Dr. Doom" than "Joker".
So I'd say, it's not worth saying it can never work, just it takes very specific personalities. It's kinda like playing a Malkavian in the old WOD books. Sure 90% or more are probably annoying fishmalks, but the time you get someone with actual skill playing a deep character struggling with their issues, it can be a ton of fun.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
My experience (personal and/or third party) with evil PCs in games fall into a few player categories:
The Edgelord. Cares more about the cosmetics of being evil (and probably has a tragic backstory, etc) than actually being evil. May be difficult to motivate but otherwise tends to be harmless.
The Power Fantasy player. Plays RPGs to beat stuff up, and just attacks anything that obstructs him in any way. Quite disruptive in an RP-heavy game, but pretty harmless in straight up dungeon crawling.
The Roleplayer. Probably plays a noble, knight, or similar person in power, and does things like hanging peasants who give him dirty looks because that's the way things work in a medieval society. Fine if you want to play gritty dark fantasy. Problematic if you're trying to run heroic high fantasy, but can probably be persuaded to play a different character.
The Joker. Specializes in gruesome jokes. Disruptive in any serious game.
The Jerk. Uses being 'evil' as an excuse to be a jerk and then say "I was just playing my character". Get rid of this player if you can.
The Creep. Uses RPGs to play out creepy desires. Get rid of this player.
Evil? No thanks. Morally ambiguous or conflicted? Possibly. Flawed? Absolutely.
As the old saying goes, villains (generally) don't realize they're villains (I'm intentionally leaving out infernal/abyssal types). A-holes on the other hand...
I'm all for being faced with (or giving my players) with tough choices, problems with no best or better outcome (if it serves a purpose to do so), etc.
Evil characters, and for me at least, evil NPCs are not only difficult to do well, they hold little or no appeal for me. Too much evil in the real world already.
Most characters are Good aligned because the game kind of demands it, and because most players are empathetical and that's a Good trait. Even if they mean to be Neutral, they'll usually help people out.
The key issue with Evil characters is that typically, the player wants to be an Evil character in a party of non-evil aligned characters. This means that they feel like they are the dark, edgy one and the other characters have no idea what they are up to. Mwahahahahaha!
Unfortunately, evil characters are kind of sociopathic and struggle to form bonds with other characters and tend to want moments for their secret evil doing to shine - which the other characters won't like. So as soon as the character is unmasked as Evil, that's probably it for their time with the group. The character should be ejected from the party because Evil characters are generally untrustworthy and why would you rely on them to have your back?
Lawful Evil is the only kind of evil character I allow at my table. Some lawyers fall into that category; it's not that they want evil to flourish, or that they want bad people to get away with things. But if they can make a profit at the cost of seeing a murderer go free by twisting facts, harassing and intimidating witnesses and so on, then they will because Evil characters care only for themselves. They may value other party members for what they can do, but they're like the guy in Aliens who tries to transport a face-hugger back to Earth for profit. That kind of character can be pretty fun.
I will probably run a Lawful Evil character at some point in the future, if only because my last PC was intended as Neutral and had to end up being the NG moral centre of the party (he just ended up being that) and it's fun to try something different for a change. The key to it though is keeping that alignment hidden from everyone else in the game for as long as possible, and ensuring that the rest of the party never have to be on the receiving end of the character's shenanigans - all of which are played out in front of the other players, even if their characters aren't present at the time. An example might be that after the party deliver a captured villain back to the town gaol, which the LE PC agrees with, at night he casts a spell through the gaol window to kill the villain off. It changes an outcome but doesn't harm the party or kill off innocents.
I am having a discussion with my DM over if most players prefer good or evil characters . Has there been any polls/studies done over this?
I'd say most players prefer good or neutral characters. Evil alignment is harder to play for some as many fall into the ''murder hobo'' syndrome and think its a free ticket to kill everything on their path, but evil can be much more than psycho-maniac behaviors. Evil can be more nuanced than that, more into manipulations, machinations and other selfishness and personal advancement yet being able to collaborate with others, have emotions or attachments to others etc...
Most players prefer semi good anti heroes. Generally "good" at heart, but with lots of shady gray. The most basic, generic D&D adventurer is an outsider on the "edge" of society that do what needs to be done.
A LOT of players like the idea of playing an "evil" character, but it very often does not work out in game play. A lot of "evil" things make for boring game play. An evil character can kill endless normal NPCs in town, but it's a bit silly and pointless. And evil character can steal endless stuff, from NPCs, but it's silly and pointless.
A typical adventure is full of "not good" things, breaking laws, stealing, sneaking, and lots of out right killing and murder. And that is for a goody two shoes character. So even with an evil character you would not notice much of a difference.
Most of the time I see someone play a evil character is just downright boring murder and stealing for no reason. I think evil characters can be played well when they have a good motive and stick to it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BIG MASSIVE BALLSACK
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's more or less what I meant by "accidentally".
Never played an evil character, never want to play an evil character, do not condone evil PCs as either a player or a DM. There is no reason someone can invent for playing an "Evil" PC, in the usual "I want to be a villain but working with the good guys for my own nefarious reasons" sense, that is worth the stress, headache, and hostility that it inevitably brings to the table. even a master-level player working with a master-level DM is risking everything exploding in their faces if one single person nails the wrong Insight check and tumbles to the fact that their paladin is actually the BBEG ahead of the Big Reveal. I've had too many issues with disruption at my table to allow for that kind of crap. Both 'Evil' PCs and chaos-monkey tom****ers who strenuously ignore all the warnings I give during Session Zero and otherwise that actions in the games I run have consequences.
Hell, I've vowed that if I ever run a game again, one of the things I'll say in Session Zero is "actions in the world can and will have consequences, up to and including you-the-player being ejected from my game if you insist on trying to gum up the works and instigate Loony Tunes wankery that throws everybody else out of the session and spikes game night." 'Chaos' is good when it's a character that believes in their own heart and mind over the voice of a distant, absent king. 'Evil' is fine* when it's a bitter old soldier who demands to be paid for his work and has no compunction with killing those who stand against him and his. 'Chaos' is not okay when it's "I wanna turn the town into a circus without telling anybody else", and Evil is most decidedly not okay when it's "I want to be the Villain secretly plotting against the party all campaign long."
It.
Is.
Never.
Worth it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I personally never understood the appeal. You get to be anyone you could possibly want with the power to carry out nearly whatever actions you wish. Why would anyone want to be an evil character?
You have to exist in that character's head when you are playing. To me, that sounds pretty miserable. Does anyone have play experience they could use to expand on why that would be fun?
I recognize that there is some freedom in fiction, but I once played a chaotic stupid warlock who swiped a merchant's coin purse because I failed to convince him to give me a discount. I still feel guilty over that and it was almost four years ago.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I think the fun is to play an interesting character the same way actors like to play the villain. That said, I would never play an evil character that is intentionally disrupting the game. Also, I am certainly not interested in playing out torture or the likes. Sadly, many evil character fall into the realm of murder hobo or playing "against" the rest of the group and therefore, I can absolute understand why DMs would not allow evil characters at all.
At the moment, I do play a character that I would consider neutral evil in DnD: He was raised in a city where life is cheap and murdering the competition is a "legitimate" way for the ruling caste to advance their plans. Therefore, he would regularly suggest to just kill someone because he would think that is the easiest way to get rid of a problem. However, the rest of the group usually disagrees and he is totally fine to accept the majority vote although their moral reasoning is beyond him (the fear/consequences of getting caught is often a stronger arguement). He is also very fond of the group, because for the first time other people are not just exploiting him and he genuinely considers them his friends. Therefore, he doesn't want to loose them which also means he would do a lot of "evil" things to protect them without hesitation. I think, the fact that he is a little bit dorky also "conceals" his "evil" nature. I really like to play that character ;-)
I think most players i play with call their characters neutral when actually based on their actions they skew more good. Neutral is appealing to players because "haha I can do whatever I want!" but when the chips are down I feel like many players can't bring themselves to follow through on it, especially when faced with people in need, or legitimately cruel enemies.
Which is kinda uplifting if you think about it. It's like the "in a videogame with no consequences why are you playing the "good" side? Because being mean makes me feel bad" thing.
Perhaps it is time we added another row to the alignment chart, below evil. We could reference it as Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Hobo. It could very well make the chart more relevant than ever before.
Eh it's definitely more a different type of game than normal but I'd just point out that Prudence from Oxventure exists.
She's evil, she'll be gladly gleeful when an orphanage is destroyed (she didn't do it, it was an unfortunate side-effect of an artifact another character used), she laughs her way through a museums torture exhibit, and when given an opportunity to wish for anything, would wish for Cthulhu to rise and destroy the world.
She's also actually loyal to the team, doesn't get involved in fight but helps break the others out of jail afterwards, and pursues vengeance on the person who set them up.
People CAN actually play an evil character without being a total backstabber who destroys the party.
That being said, Oxventure is also a group of folks who work together and have for many years before ever playing D&D.
So it's absolutely a thing that requires trust and knowing each other.
I definitely prefer playing the hero, I'd be fine playing an evil character but my concept for an evil character is more "well written Dr. Doom" than "Joker".
So I'd say, it's not worth saying it can never work, just it takes very specific personalities.
It's kinda like playing a Malkavian in the old WOD books. Sure 90% or more are probably annoying fishmalks, but the time you get someone with actual skill playing a deep character struggling with their issues, it can be a ton of fun.
Chaotic good.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
It’s almost certainly good. Evil characters are notoriously hard to fit into a heroic game. It’s really hard, but not impossible, for it to work.
good characters tend to at least as a bare minimum not screw each other over actively
I mostly play either Lawful Good or Neutral Good. If I am playing a rogue though I generally choose Neutral.
Fizikal
For the King!
My experience (personal and/or third party) with evil PCs in games fall into a few player categories:
Evil? No thanks. Morally ambiguous or conflicted? Possibly. Flawed? Absolutely.
As the old saying goes, villains (generally) don't realize they're villains (I'm intentionally leaving out infernal/abyssal types). A-holes on the other hand...
I'm all for being faced with (or giving my players) with tough choices, problems with no best or better outcome (if it serves a purpose to do so), etc.
Evil characters, and for me at least, evil NPCs are not only difficult to do well, they hold little or no appeal for me. Too much evil in the real world already.
Edit: fixed spelling
Most characters are Good aligned because the game kind of demands it, and because most players are empathetical and that's a Good trait. Even if they mean to be Neutral, they'll usually help people out.
The key issue with Evil characters is that typically, the player wants to be an Evil character in a party of non-evil aligned characters. This means that they feel like they are the dark, edgy one and the other characters have no idea what they are up to. Mwahahahahaha!
Unfortunately, evil characters are kind of sociopathic and struggle to form bonds with other characters and tend to want moments for their secret evil doing to shine - which the other characters won't like. So as soon as the character is unmasked as Evil, that's probably it for their time with the group. The character should be ejected from the party because Evil characters are generally untrustworthy and why would you rely on them to have your back?
Lawful Evil is the only kind of evil character I allow at my table. Some lawyers fall into that category; it's not that they want evil to flourish, or that they want bad people to get away with things. But if they can make a profit at the cost of seeing a murderer go free by twisting facts, harassing and intimidating witnesses and so on, then they will because Evil characters care only for themselves. They may value other party members for what they can do, but they're like the guy in Aliens who tries to transport a face-hugger back to Earth for profit. That kind of character can be pretty fun.
I will probably run a Lawful Evil character at some point in the future, if only because my last PC was intended as Neutral and had to end up being the NG moral centre of the party (he just ended up being that) and it's fun to try something different for a change. The key to it though is keeping that alignment hidden from everyone else in the game for as long as possible, and ensuring that the rest of the party never have to be on the receiving end of the character's shenanigans - all of which are played out in front of the other players, even if their characters aren't present at the time. An example might be that after the party deliver a captured villain back to the town gaol, which the LE PC agrees with, at night he casts a spell through the gaol window to kill the villain off. It changes an outcome but doesn't harm the party or kill off innocents.
I'd say most players prefer good or neutral characters. Evil alignment is harder to play for some as many fall into the ''murder hobo'' syndrome and think its a free ticket to kill everything on their path, but evil can be much more than psycho-maniac behaviors. Evil can be more nuanced than that, more into manipulations, machinations and other selfishness and personal advancement yet being able to collaborate with others, have emotions or attachments to others etc...
Most players prefer semi good anti heroes. Generally "good" at heart, but with lots of shady gray. The most basic, generic D&D adventurer is an outsider on the "edge" of society that do what needs to be done.
A LOT of players like the idea of playing an "evil" character, but it very often does not work out in game play. A lot of "evil" things make for boring game play. An evil character can kill endless normal NPCs in town, but it's a bit silly and pointless. And evil character can steal endless stuff, from NPCs, but it's silly and pointless.
A typical adventure is full of "not good" things, breaking laws, stealing, sneaking, and lots of out right killing and murder. And that is for a goody two shoes character. So even with an evil character you would not notice much of a difference.
Most of the time I see someone play a evil character is just downright boring murder and stealing for no reason. I think evil characters can be played well when they have a good motive and stick to it
BIG MASSIVE BALLSACK