How do you all feel about it? I know that it will always come down to the player, but in general do you enjoy this kind of character in your games? Do you find that the player(s) who try it, make an interesting character? Does it generally just devolve into " I kill everything, because (say it together with me) IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO"
It will never come up at my table because I don't GM for evil characters. I don't want to do it, I don't enjoy it, I don't think I'd be very good with it.
At other tables, I've seen all alignments played well and played badly.
Probably the most considerate was a new player in a game who introduced himself and then said, "My character is a lawful evil warlock who is pretending to be a lawful neutral wizard." It was a great start, we could all essentially conspire against our characters.
The charcater in question was evil alignment because there were no lines they would not cross to achieve their goals.
"Evil" is too vague to be meaningful. Any alignment can be played to be disruptive to the game by someone who wants to (consider the classic Lawful Stupid paladin), while the same alignments can be played perfectly fine.
The problem isn't so much an evil character as a player who is uninterested in justifying group cohesion. "It's what my character would do" as a commonplace excuse doesn't hold water, because the player chose to play that character. D&D is a cooperative game, and that means the players need to make characters who have reasons to work with the other characters, and to pursue the group's goals. This doesn't mean you can't have inter-character conflict, just that they shouldn't be making characters who exist to cause it.
This is all something that needs to be discussed at the start of the game, before play begins.
When playing an evil character in a non-evil group, you REALLY have to have an idea of what the evil character wants, and most importantly, why that means its in the best interests of that goal to work with the party.
The reason evil characters have the reputation they do is because people don't consider their characters' goals, and just focus on "being evil," which they imagine looks like the Joker just killing gleefully and trying to destroy anything anyone cares about. If this is the character you want to play, be warned: this is simply not a good character to play in dnd. Aside from being rather uncreative, it's inherently disruptive and disrespectful to the other players.
THAT IS NOT TO SAY that being evil is impossible, or inherently disruptive. An evil character with s better goal than just watching the world burn, ideally has a reason to be in the party, and that reason keeps them for the most part in check for the purposes of the game while still including the fun kind of inter-party drama. These motivations can be anything from "I wanna conquer the world (and therefore want the world to survive the BBEG's plan, which means cooperating with these heroes)" to "I will prove to my father that I'm not weak and will do anything to prove it (and this really powerful paladin will help me!)"
If you put your mind to it, there's way more creative and fun evil character motivations than "kills indiscriminately."
I will admit i have a character i would darn near kill, to be able to explore. A low level thug, with dreams of running his own criminal empire. Play it Lawful Evil, strict moral set of rules about what he will and won't do.
I have ideas for anti villains, but they all seem better suited for NPC's. Vampire Town and Lich Cleric being my personal favorites.
Evil characters can work even in mixed alignment parties when they have a common goal causing them to work together.
Let's look at the TV show THE BOYS and the group who comprise... well, The Boys:
Starlight - Neutral Good (tries to do all the right things, but bends rules)
Butcher - Chaotic Evil (is totally consumed by his desire for revenge, accepts collateral damage, cares nothing for law and order)
Frenchie - Chaotic Neutral (no true agenda, cares nothing for law)
Kimiko - Chaotic Good (good at heart, but driven to chaotic alignment by a system)
Hughie - Neutral Good (wants to do good, appalled at what they do at times)
Mother's Milk - True Netural (driven by past trauma, there are times he'll draw the line, time's he'll break it)
The variation of alignments leads to constant conflict between the characters in the group, even as they largely work towards the same goals (for different reasons).
But, this works with a limited number of evil characters. I take evil to mean "Sociopathic," or in other words they have no true regard for the feelings/emotions of anyone else, and find their own behaviour 100% justifiable as long as it serves their whims - even if it means being a complete hypocrite.
Honestly, this is a desire that I'd tell them that we'd have to have a long chat about. Discuss pretty in depth what they exactly mean by evil, what exactly they want from their character arc. I'd explain that I'm not comfortable with truly evil actions and I'm not going to accept anything that causes PvP (PCvPC is acceptable if both consent and are going to enjoy it). We'd set out rules on what they can and can't do, and a warning that any deviations from the arc that we've approved has to be run by me before we run it.
It all really depends on what they mean by evil (merely being selfish doesn't count) and how they want to play it. If everyone is happy, then sure. That chat would probably put off most people - I'm fairly lax with other character alignments.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
An evil character in any aligned party campaign is not the problem, usually it's more the murder-hobo syndrome. Alignment is more loose in 5E anyways so it's not there to dictate character actions and behaviors.
I play a LE Human Paladin of Bane in a FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign composed mainly of good and neutral characters and is not a cause for moral conflict so far. It is vengeful, methodic, machiavelic character having sworn an Oath of Vengeance and minded in defeating Drows that invaded the Dales, working with a party of different individuals to accomplish the same goal.
I suppose it depends on how the character in question fits into the campaign as a whole.
For instance, imagine a LE Cleric of Asmodeus who is working to establish the religion by misrepresenting their faith and casting it as a righteous religion of the people. They can be totally evil when nobody is looking, but in the open and in front of people they are all smiles and good deeds. After all, he is the Lord of Lies and what better way to honor him?
But, this works with a limited number of evil characters. I take evil to mean "Sociopathic," or in other words they have no true regard for the feelings/emotions of anyone else, and find their own behaviour 100% justifiable as long as it serves their whims - even if it means being a complete hypocrite.
That sociopathic disregard for the feelings/emotions of others doesn't even need to be universal. Maybe some of the members of the party, your character just likes (despite their naive, childish notions of moral behavior). Maybe you're just along for the ride because one or two of the party members are one of the few people your evil character holds in genuine regard, and you think they need someone with more "realistic" (read: unscrupulous) sensibilities to ensure they don't get ground down by their own naivetee.
I don't think it's great to be medicalizing good and evil. Or moralizing neurodivergence? Whatever is going on here with this discussion of sociopathy.
Anyway, I often run evil characters in otherwise non-evil parties. Here's my advice: the point shouldn't be to DO evil, but to BE evil. If the party understands that your character thinks that baby should die, that's enough -- you do not have to kill the baby. Especially if someone else would be upset about it.
Here are quick summaries of my successful evil characters from different tables.
NE Bard (finished) - didn't care about the hardships of others - would advise the party to do evil things when they were safer or easier - used his spells to back up and empower the party no matter what.
CE Warlock (ongoing) - career criminal - was understood to behave badly when unsupervised - often suggested immoral and illegal plans, and expressed distaste for honorable ones - worked to avoid bringing consequences down on the party - grumpily bent to peer pressure.
NE Barbarian (ongoing) - money and revenge motives - checked out-of-character with other players and DM before doing anything evil or dangerous - not out to do harm, just driven by bad impulses instead of good ones - conscious of group image.
To be an evil character in a non evil campaign you have to play deceptively.
I think you need to discuss with your DM first if its an absolute no go. It may ruin your relationship with the DM if you play an evil character against their wishes.
However what you have to do is say to your DM, "Hey, how do you feel about evil characters?" If they give a skeptical but accepting green light, say thank you and say you were just curious.
Your DM needs to not be in the know about your evil character. The enemy of the evil character is the accidental reveal, the meta gaming of it and anything in-between.
You, and your fellow players are playing a game about good and evil. They feel they're the good guys, they want and will thwart you if you try to play a straight up evil character, in-spite of their own good intentions and willingness to accept a good character. They will instinctively meta game in ways that ruin the fun of this character concept.
To play an evil character well is to play a deceptive type of DND. It is still well intended and wanting to play as a team and enjoy the camaraderie of the game. However you are there waiting, looking for opportunities.
You look for players whom say, "I wish I could just reroll or play another character." The natural progression is to lead this player's character astray and give them an out. However this is your evil character's golden opportunity to have a flash reveal. A killer amongst the party.
You now have had enough invested roll play and experience with the group that if this goes poorly, you can call it a wash, but if it goes well this is the springboard for you and your group to feel a new way towards evil characters. This is a very intuitive way to play an evil character where no one feels upset and everyone feels like you are really a team player.
You are now out of stealth as it were, and the actively evil portion of play is open. You can start being open in progressing evil plot lines or engaging the DM to feel out how they react now knowing that there is an actively evil player among you. Your experience with the party can now be used as a tool to thwart obvious meta gaming behavior as well you can feel a clock being put on the life span of this character.
This is the time for big cooperation plays with the DM that change the campaign, or change a current plot point. Feel free to ask for retcons where loose plot threads really go back to your character, as well, do not feel as though being "found" is a bad option.
This is your time to enhance a character's moment in the plot of the campaign. You've just given yourself a sort of prize you can hand out to the player that discovers your duplicity, and a twist to someone whom may have been your little buddy during the campaign.
You planned on playing an evil character. It can get messy with how players decide to go though this phase of the game. Try to roll with it and if it turns ugly accept that ugly gruesome end and try to juice it for the drama and prestige you can feel in having tried to pull off an evil character play through.
You chose the path less trodden and hopefully unlocked a new tier of role play in yourself and in your friends.
To be an evil character in a non evil campaign you have to play deceptively.
I think you need to discuss with your DM first if its an absolute no go. It may ruin your relationship with the DM if you play an evil character against their wishes.
However what you have to do is say to your DM, "Hey, how do you feel about evil characters?" If they give a skeptical but accepting green light, say thank you and say you were just curious.
Your DM needs to not be in the know about your evil character. The enemy of the evil character is the accidental reveal, the meta gaming of it and anything in-between.
You, and your fellow players are playing a game about good and evil. They feel they're the good guys, they want and will thwart you if you try to play a straight up evil character, in-spite of their own good intentions and willingness to accept a good character. They will instinctively meta game in ways that ruin the fun of this character concept.
To play an evil character well is to play a deceptive type of DND. It is still well intended and wanting to play as a team and enjoy the camaraderie of the game. However you are there waiting, looking for opportunities.
You look for players whom say, "I wish I could just reroll or play another character." The natural progression is to lead this player's character astray and give them an out. However this is your evil character's golden opportunity to have a flash reveal. A killer amongst the party.
You now have had enough invested roll play and experience with the group that if this goes poorly, you can call it a wash, but if it goes well this is the springboard for you and your group to feel a new way towards evil characters. This is a very intuitive way to play an evil character where no one feels upset and everyone feels like you are really a team player.
You are now out of stealth as it were, and the actively evil portion of play is open. You can start being open in progressing evil plot lines or engaging the DM to feel out how they react now knowing that there is an actively evil player among you. Your experience with the party can now be used as a tool to thwart obvious meta gaming behavior as well you can feel a clock being put on the life span of this character.
This is the time for big cooperation plays with the DM that change the campaign, or change a current plot point. Feel free to ask for retcons where loose plot threads really go back to your character, as well, do not feel as though being "found" is a bad option.
This is your time to enhance a character's moment in the plot of the campaign. You've just given yourself a sort of prize you can hand out to the player that discovers your duplicity, and a twist to someone whom may have been your little buddy during the campaign.
You planned on playing an evil character. It can get messy with how players decide to go though this phase of the game. Try to roll with it and if it turns ugly accept that ugly gruesome end and try to juice it for the drama and prestige you can feel in having tried to pull off an evil character play through.
You chose the path less trodden and hopefully unlocked a new tier of role play in yourself and in your friends.
I disagree a lot with this. Raistlin in Dragonlance wasn't secretly evil. Gollum in LotR wasn't secretly evil. You do not need to be secretly evil to make it work, you just need a reason for why being evil isn't a deal breaker, and for why your evil character would go along with the heroes.
Want a great example of this? Watch the latest Masters of the Universe show on Netflix literally like half the main party of characters are heroes and half are villains, working together for a common interest.
It will never come up at my table because I don't GM for evil characters. I don't want to do it, I don't enjoy it, I don't think I'd be very good with it.
At other tables, I've seen all alignments played well and played badly.
Probably the most considerate was a new player in a game who introduced himself and then said, "My character is a lawful evil warlock who is pretending to be a lawful neutral wizard." It was a great start, we could all essentially conspire against our characters.
The charcater in question was evil alignment because there were no lines they would not cross to achieve their goals.
You beat me to it. I refuse to DM for evil or chaotic neutral PCs. Or players. That leads to the “It’s what my character would do” argument too often and that results in someone getting pissed instead of having fun.
Here's another thought, to add to my prior comment. In most of our adventures, we want to see good triumph over evil. If you're bringing an evil character into such a game -- and you probably are! Please check! -- you should expect your character to lose.
My evil characters get overruled. They get their evil plans thwarted. Their evil opinions get contradicted. They can be stopped without having to be killed, because I'm not trying to get my characters killed. They aren't rabid dogs that will do evil the moment they're let off the leash. I don't actually WANT them to get away with something horrible. So I don't make it too hard or too annoying to keep my evil characters in check. I'm playing the foil, not the antagonist. The DM plays the antagonists.
Now, if your game happens to be one of those rare ones where everyone's scheming against one another... First of all, check and double check, because people sometimes say this and don't realize exactly what it means, and then go with the gods. This advice isn't for you, I guess.
I think a lot of it really does come down to the question of "what kind of evil, is your evil character?" Like i get being the foil, and having your plans blow up in your face, assuming you went into the game with that "being the plan". But I would be so pissed if it went in wanting my evil character to "win", and the DM/other players just foiled me at every turn. But again it's all about what you are trying to achieve. Like clearly if i'm playing the evil person who just wants to do evil for the sake of doing evil, then the DM and the party should be foiling me, I brought the wrong character into a game where they don't fit. But if i'm playing the evil character with more reasonable goals (think JJBA part 5 or the Yakuza series) and the DM and party are foiling me at every turn... well then we have a different kind of problem.
The goal of the game is to enjoy time spent with others.
A character of any alignment can serve the needs of the party, if that character has significant reason to do so. It's the player who decides how cooperative, or disruptive, that character will be within the campaign.
If a player insists on running a character with a hair trigger temper, who just so happens to feel compelled to kill someone/something at random intervals, and who's goal is to destroy all life they can, in person, while watching the life drain from their victim's eyes, then perhaps the DM should tell the player, "No". That might be fun for the player, though I've personally never understood the 'fun' in being a disruptive influence on others, but everyone else at the table will be less than happy. Yes, an extreme example, but I've experienced players who will do this if given the chance. They are usually not invited to return.
As an author, I find the driving forces behind evil deeds very effective in creating an enjoyable plot. As both player and DM, some of my favorite PCs were not nice. It was the way the players ran them that made them fun and memorable. My personal limit as a DM? I have no interest in running an evil character free-for-all campaign. 'Slay, steal, burn, grab treasure, do it again' is no fun for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How do you all feel about it? I know that it will always come down to the player, but in general do you enjoy this kind of character in your games? Do you find that the player(s) who try it, make an interesting character? Does it generally just devolve into " I kill everything, because (say it together with me) IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO"
It will never come up at my table because I don't GM for evil characters. I don't want to do it, I don't enjoy it, I don't think I'd be very good with it.
At other tables, I've seen all alignments played well and played badly.
Probably the most considerate was a new player in a game who introduced himself and then said, "My character is a lawful evil warlock who is pretending to be a lawful neutral wizard." It was a great start, we could all essentially conspire against our characters.
The charcater in question was evil alignment because there were no lines they would not cross to achieve their goals.
"Evil" is too vague to be meaningful. Any alignment can be played to be disruptive to the game by someone who wants to (consider the classic Lawful Stupid paladin), while the same alignments can be played perfectly fine.
The problem isn't so much an evil character as a player who is uninterested in justifying group cohesion. "It's what my character would do" as a commonplace excuse doesn't hold water, because the player chose to play that character. D&D is a cooperative game, and that means the players need to make characters who have reasons to work with the other characters, and to pursue the group's goals. This doesn't mean you can't have inter-character conflict, just that they shouldn't be making characters who exist to cause it.
This is all something that needs to be discussed at the start of the game, before play begins.
I feel this may be relevant and informative:
When playing an evil character in a non-evil group, you REALLY have to have an idea of what the evil character wants, and most importantly, why that means its in the best interests of that goal to work with the party.
The reason evil characters have the reputation they do is because people don't consider their characters' goals, and just focus on "being evil," which they imagine looks like the Joker just killing gleefully and trying to destroy anything anyone cares about. If this is the character you want to play, be warned: this is simply not a good character to play in dnd. Aside from being rather uncreative, it's inherently disruptive and disrespectful to the other players.
THAT IS NOT TO SAY that being evil is impossible, or inherently disruptive. An evil character with s better goal than just watching the world burn, ideally has a reason to be in the party, and that reason keeps them for the most part in check for the purposes of the game while still including the fun kind of inter-party drama. These motivations can be anything from "I wanna conquer the world (and therefore want the world to survive the BBEG's plan, which means cooperating with these heroes)" to "I will prove to my father that I'm not weak and will do anything to prove it (and this really powerful paladin will help me!)"
If you put your mind to it, there's way more creative and fun evil character motivations than "kills indiscriminately."
I will admit i have a character i would darn near kill, to be able to explore. A low level thug, with dreams of running his own criminal empire. Play it Lawful Evil, strict moral set of rules about what he will and won't do.
I have ideas for anti villains, but they all seem better suited for NPC's. Vampire Town and Lich Cleric being my personal favorites.
Evil characters can work even in mixed alignment parties when they have a common goal causing them to work together.
Let's look at the TV show THE BOYS and the group who comprise... well, The Boys:
The variation of alignments leads to constant conflict between the characters in the group, even as they largely work towards the same goals (for different reasons).
But, this works with a limited number of evil characters. I take evil to mean "Sociopathic," or in other words they have no true regard for the feelings/emotions of anyone else, and find their own behaviour 100% justifiable as long as it serves their whims - even if it means being a complete hypocrite.
Honestly, this is a desire that I'd tell them that we'd have to have a long chat about. Discuss pretty in depth what they exactly mean by evil, what exactly they want from their character arc. I'd explain that I'm not comfortable with truly evil actions and I'm not going to accept anything that causes PvP (PCvPC is acceptable if both consent and are going to enjoy it). We'd set out rules on what they can and can't do, and a warning that any deviations from the arc that we've approved has to be run by me before we run it.
It all really depends on what they mean by evil (merely being selfish doesn't count) and how they want to play it. If everyone is happy, then sure. That chat would probably put off most people - I'm fairly lax with other character alignments.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
An evil character in any aligned party campaign is not the problem, usually it's more the murder-hobo syndrome. Alignment is more loose in 5E anyways so it's not there to dictate character actions and behaviors.
I play a LE Human Paladin of Bane in a FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign composed mainly of good and neutral characters and is not a cause for moral conflict so far. It is vengeful, methodic, machiavelic character having sworn an Oath of Vengeance and minded in defeating Drows that invaded the Dales, working with a party of different individuals to accomplish the same goal.
I suppose it depends on how the character in question fits into the campaign as a whole.
For instance, imagine a LE Cleric of Asmodeus who is working to establish the religion by misrepresenting their faith and casting it as a righteous religion of the people. They can be totally evil when nobody is looking, but in the open and in front of people they are all smiles and good deeds. After all, he is the Lord of Lies and what better way to honor him?
That sociopathic disregard for the feelings/emotions of others doesn't even need to be universal. Maybe some of the members of the party, your character just likes (despite their naive, childish notions of moral behavior). Maybe you're just along for the ride because one or two of the party members are one of the few people your evil character holds in genuine regard, and you think they need someone with more "realistic" (read: unscrupulous) sensibilities to ensure they don't get ground down by their own naivetee.
I don't think it's great to be medicalizing good and evil. Or moralizing neurodivergence? Whatever is going on here with this discussion of sociopathy.
Anyway, I often run evil characters in otherwise non-evil parties. Here's my advice: the point shouldn't be to DO evil, but to BE evil. If the party understands that your character thinks that baby should die, that's enough -- you do not have to kill the baby. Especially if someone else would be upset about it.
Here are quick summaries of my successful evil characters from different tables.
NE Bard (finished) - didn't care about the hardships of others - would advise the party to do evil things when they were safer or easier - used his spells to back up and empower the party no matter what.
CE Warlock (ongoing) - career criminal - was understood to behave badly when unsupervised - often suggested immoral and illegal plans, and expressed distaste for honorable ones - worked to avoid bringing consequences down on the party - grumpily bent to peer pressure.
NE Barbarian (ongoing) - money and revenge motives - checked out-of-character with other players and DM before doing anything evil or dangerous - not out to do harm, just driven by bad impulses instead of good ones - conscious of group image.
To be an evil character in a non evil campaign you have to play deceptively.
I think you need to discuss with your DM first if its an absolute no go. It may ruin your relationship with the DM if you play an evil character against their wishes.
However what you have to do is say to your DM, "Hey, how do you feel about evil characters?" If they give a skeptical but accepting green light, say thank you and say you were just curious.
Your DM needs to not be in the know about your evil character. The enemy of the evil character is the accidental reveal, the meta gaming of it and anything in-between.
You, and your fellow players are playing a game about good and evil. They feel they're the good guys, they want and will thwart you if you try to play a straight up evil character, in-spite of their own good intentions and willingness to accept a good character. They will instinctively meta game in ways that ruin the fun of this character concept.
To play an evil character well is to play a deceptive type of DND. It is still well intended and wanting to play as a team and enjoy the camaraderie of the game. However you are there waiting, looking for opportunities.
You look for players whom say, "I wish I could just reroll or play another character." The natural progression is to lead this player's character astray and give them an out. However this is your evil character's golden opportunity to have a flash reveal. A killer amongst the party.
You now have had enough invested roll play and experience with the group that if this goes poorly, you can call it a wash, but if it goes well this is the springboard for you and your group to feel a new way towards evil characters. This is a very intuitive way to play an evil character where no one feels upset and everyone feels like you are really a team player.
You are now out of stealth as it were, and the actively evil portion of play is open. You can start being open in progressing evil plot lines or engaging the DM to feel out how they react now knowing that there is an actively evil player among you. Your experience with the party can now be used as a tool to thwart obvious meta gaming behavior as well you can feel a clock being put on the life span of this character.
This is the time for big cooperation plays with the DM that change the campaign, or change a current plot point. Feel free to ask for retcons where loose plot threads really go back to your character, as well, do not feel as though being "found" is a bad option.
This is your time to enhance a character's moment in the plot of the campaign. You've just given yourself a sort of prize you can hand out to the player that discovers your duplicity, and a twist to someone whom may have been your little buddy during the campaign.
You planned on playing an evil character. It can get messy with how players decide to go though this phase of the game. Try to roll with it and if it turns ugly accept that ugly gruesome end and try to juice it for the drama and prestige you can feel in having tried to pull off an evil character play through.
You chose the path less trodden and hopefully unlocked a new tier of role play in yourself and in your friends.
I can't disagree with this post strongly enough. Holy moly.
I disagree a lot with this. Raistlin in Dragonlance wasn't secretly evil. Gollum in LotR wasn't secretly evil. You do not need to be secretly evil to make it work, you just need a reason for why being evil isn't a deal breaker, and for why your evil character would go along with the heroes.
Want a great example of this? Watch the latest Masters of the Universe show on Netflix literally like half the main party of characters are heroes and half are villains, working together for a common interest.
You beat me to it. I refuse to DM for evil or chaotic neutral PCs. Or players. That leads to the “It’s what my character would do” argument too often and that results in someone getting pissed instead of having fun.
Professional computer geek
"It's what my character would do though"
Here's another thought, to add to my prior comment. In most of our adventures, we want to see good triumph over evil. If you're bringing an evil character into such a game -- and you probably are! Please check! -- you should expect your character to lose.
My evil characters get overruled. They get their evil plans thwarted. Their evil opinions get contradicted. They can be stopped without having to be killed, because I'm not trying to get my characters killed. They aren't rabid dogs that will do evil the moment they're let off the leash. I don't actually WANT them to get away with something horrible. So I don't make it too hard or too annoying to keep my evil characters in check. I'm playing the foil, not the antagonist. The DM plays the antagonists.
Now, if your game happens to be one of those rare ones where everyone's scheming against one another... First of all, check and double check, because people sometimes say this and don't realize exactly what it means, and then go with the gods. This advice isn't for you, I guess.
I think a lot of it really does come down to the question of "what kind of evil, is your evil character?" Like i get being the foil, and having your plans blow up in your face, assuming you went into the game with that "being the plan". But I would be so pissed if it went in wanting my evil character to "win", and the DM/other players just foiled me at every turn. But again it's all about what you are trying to achieve. Like clearly if i'm playing the evil person who just wants to do evil for the sake of doing evil, then the DM and the party should be foiling me, I brought the wrong character into a game where they don't fit. But if i'm playing the evil character with more reasonable goals (think JJBA part 5 or the Yakuza series) and the DM and party are foiling me at every turn... well then we have a different kind of problem.
The goal of the game is to enjoy time spent with others.
A character of any alignment can serve the needs of the party, if that character has significant reason to do so. It's the player who decides how cooperative, or disruptive, that character will be within the campaign.
If a player insists on running a character with a hair trigger temper, who just so happens to feel compelled to kill someone/something at random intervals, and who's goal is to destroy all life they can, in person, while watching the life drain from their victim's eyes, then perhaps the DM should tell the player, "No". That might be fun for the player, though I've personally never understood the 'fun' in being a disruptive influence on others, but everyone else at the table will be less than happy. Yes, an extreme example, but I've experienced players who will do this if given the chance. They are usually not invited to return.
As an author, I find the driving forces behind evil deeds very effective in creating an enjoyable plot. As both player and DM, some of my favorite PCs were not nice. It was the way the players ran them that made them fun and memorable. My personal limit as a DM? I have no interest in running an evil character free-for-all campaign. 'Slay, steal, burn, grab treasure, do it again' is no fun for me.