Just had this come up in a recent party where the group has been playing well together for almost two years. It did not go well. I would definitely bring this up in a session 0 and lay a few ground rules. In my case, the character in question thought the other characters were beneath him, and in particular repeatedly singled out one character (I think without the player realizing the degree to which he was doing it). The player is a good guy, but it understandably made the other guy really unhappy.
I would say that it's important to make sure other players are okay with an evil character and to make clear how the player intends to play their evilness and make sure the other players are okay with that. I would also limit the degree to which his/her evilness can effect the other players, and make sure the consequences of his/her evil fall squarely on his/her shoulders. It's something you'll want to keep a very close eye on as the game progresses. As for myself, it's now on my list of table rules: no evil characters. Just not worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Much that once was is lost. Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear.
It depends on the group you are in and the individual players. I have played with parties where an extremely evil character was the moral bedrock of the party and was the lynchpin that kept them moving toward saving the world. That was a group made up of of lawyers and professional actors—folks who are good at stepping into others’ shoes and at the cognitive dissidence to divorce character conflict from player conflict.
I have also seen parties where someone’s character was not all that evil, but where that little touch of evil caused strife at the player level. That was a group of mostly strangers, where one of the “good” people clearly lived a very sheltered life and cloaked their lack of empathetic intelligence in a problematic interpretation of moral absolutism, and just could not comprehend that there was not always a “good” solution to horrific problems.
As such, this really is not a question anyone can answer for you - whether an evil character is playable is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the other players at the table.
I agree with the others. It’s not really about the character, it’s about the players and if everyone at the table is on board with the idea. I wouldn’t even attempt it unless the group has been together for a few years and knows each other well enough that the person doing has a very good understanding of what buttons not to press. And even then, it would take a thorough Session 0 to discuss with everyone.
This happened once in a party I played in. As long as the evil character doesn’t do evil things to their party members and doesn’t do anything too horrible to any NPCs (I don’t wanna get into details here but I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about) the tension between the evil character and the rest of the party can make for some really good RP. But the evil character’s player also has to understand that the other PCs disliking their character does not reflect their players’ real feelings and not to take it personally. It’s just a game and you’re all friends irl.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they.
It can work if played right. if you play a pragmatic evil with the enemy of my enemy mentality and have goals that do not constantly conflict with the good guys you can have grudging moments. Sort of Magento and Xavier Moments. I am currently running a Blackguard in a campaign and while I am not the only evil character, as there is a chaotic evil rogue in the team, I am lawful evil. I have made myself helpful to the team because it aids me along my quest and also I make it a point not to tell everyone I am a servant of Avernus. Of course, who is going to complain when I am smiting demons or splitting orcs in two.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
It all depends on the character's motivation to work with the party. If it is important to them to work with the party either for the sake of the world, for the sake of their own plans, or because they care for another party member, then they will behave in a way that doesn't force the party to get rid of them.
And remember, "Evil" does not mean "dumb." An evil character knows they exist in the context of a society, and that if they blatantly break the rules of that society, they welcome in consequences from authority but also from the party members around them. Even if an evil character reeeeeeallly reeeeeally wants to just kill the blacksmith instead of paying for a suit of armor, they would know that doing so could lead to jail, execcution, ostracisation, and all other kinds of unpleasentness that they don't have time for.
You can still be cruel, delight in the thought of violence, and enjoy asserting your strength over those weaker than you, without just killing and stealing indescriminately and giving the party reasons to stop travelling with you.
And you can still do evil things, just carefully thought out evil things that you know you can get away with and won't alienate the party. Because you know that you need the party (for whatever reason you decided on when thinking of specifically a motivation that allowed you to work with the party).
Do "evil" things, to prevent an even grater evil. Plotwise it's awesome, dynamics and play maybe not?
Just had this come up in a recent party where the group has been playing well together for almost two years. It did not go well. I would definitely bring this up in a session 0 and lay a few ground rules. In my case, the character in question thought the other characters were beneath him, and in particular repeatedly singled out one character (I think without the player realizing the degree to which he was doing it). The player is a good guy, but it understandably made the other guy really unhappy.
I would say that it's important to make sure other players are okay with an evil character and to make clear how the player intends to play their evilness and make sure the other players are okay with that. I would also limit the degree to which his/her evilness can effect the other players, and make sure the consequences of his/her evil fall squarely on his/her shoulders. It's something you'll want to keep a very close eye on as the game progresses. As for myself, it's now on my list of table rules: no evil characters. Just not worth it.
Much that once was is lost.
Objects in Mirror Image are closer than they appear.
It depends on the group you are in and the individual players. I have played with parties where an extremely evil character was the moral bedrock of the party and was the lynchpin that kept them moving toward saving the world. That was a group made up of of lawyers and professional actors—folks who are good at stepping into others’ shoes and at the cognitive dissidence to divorce character conflict from player conflict.
I have also seen parties where someone’s character was not all that evil, but where that little touch of evil caused strife at the player level. That was a group of mostly strangers, where one of the “good” people clearly lived a very sheltered life and cloaked their lack of empathetic intelligence in a problematic interpretation of moral absolutism, and just could not comprehend that there was not always a “good” solution to horrific problems.
As such, this really is not a question anyone can answer for you - whether an evil character is playable is a decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the other players at the table.
I agree with the others. It’s not really about the character, it’s about the players and if everyone at the table is on board with the idea. I wouldn’t even attempt it unless the group has been together for a few years and knows each other well enough that the person doing has a very good understanding of what buttons not to press.
And even then, it would take a thorough Session 0 to discuss with everyone.
This happened once in a party I played in. As long as the evil character doesn’t do evil things to their party members and doesn’t do anything too horrible to any NPCs (I don’t wanna get into details here but I’m sure you guys know what I’m talking about) the tension between the evil character and the rest of the party can make for some really good RP. But the evil character’s player also has to understand that the other PCs disliking their character does not reflect their players’ real feelings and not to take it personally. It’s just a game and you’re all friends irl.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they.
It can work if played right. if you play a pragmatic evil with the enemy of my enemy mentality and have goals that do not constantly conflict with the good guys you can have grudging moments. Sort of Magento and Xavier Moments. I am currently running a Blackguard in a campaign and while I am not the only evil character, as there is a chaotic evil rogue in the team, I am lawful evil. I have made myself helpful to the team because it aids me along my quest and also I make it a point not to tell everyone I am a servant of Avernus. Of course, who is going to complain when I am smiting demons or splitting orcs in two.
"You are a beginner once, but a student for life." - Firearm Instruction Adage.
It all depends on the character's motivation to work with the party. If it is important to them to work with the party either for the sake of the world, for the sake of their own plans, or because they care for another party member, then they will behave in a way that doesn't force the party to get rid of them.
And remember, "Evil" does not mean "dumb." An evil character knows they exist in the context of a society, and that if they blatantly break the rules of that society, they welcome in consequences from authority but also from the party members around them. Even if an evil character reeeeeeallly reeeeeally wants to just kill the blacksmith instead of paying for a suit of armor, they would know that doing so could lead to jail, execcution, ostracisation, and all other kinds of unpleasentness that they don't have time for.
You can still be cruel, delight in the thought of violence, and enjoy asserting your strength over those weaker than you, without just killing and stealing indescriminately and giving the party reasons to stop travelling with you.
And you can still do evil things, just carefully thought out evil things that you know you can get away with and won't alienate the party. Because you know that you need the party (for whatever reason you decided on when thinking of specifically a motivation that allowed you to work with the party).