How can you be (or do things that are) chaotic, naughty or even evil (evil adjacent, maybe), in a way that is fun for everyone at the table? What lines are okay to cross and which ones aren’t?
A popular philosophy for roleplay is the "Yes, and.." and "No, but..." this means that no matter what you do, you should create an opening for someone else to step in and continue the storyline.
For example, as an evil character in a good party, you may wish to commit a crime. There are multiple possible outcomes, (1) You commit the act without consequences, (2) You commit the act and are held responsible for your actions, (3) You are prevented from committing the act, (4) Other.
You know what your party *should* do, so whenever you want your character to act contrary to that, you should present a foil to your own actions. For example, your party may include a sibling who keeps you in check like Thor and Loki. You can telegraph your intentions, so that the other party member can convince you to stop, or beat you to a pulp, before it's too late. It's OK for the characters to have conflicts as long as the players can separate the characters intentions from their own.
Sometimes the players of a good party might actually *want* to do something bad to progress the story more quickly. Just as in the alternative, the good guys can "accidentally" leave you without a chaperone, so that you can act poorly and they can compensate for it after the fact.
The important thing is that you are clearly communicating with your fellow players out of character and are playing as a party, rather than just a group of selfish players.
The most important thing is going to find a party that is capable of the cognitive dissidence necessary to divorce player and character. Lots of folks can’t do that well and will throw a hissy fit if you play anything other than a Good character. If playing with a group where you don’t know if that is the case, ask them before the game begins to try and stave off future drama. Also ask them what alignments they historically have played. If they have played chaotic or evil alignments in the past, they’ll probably be more open to your antics. If they always play the same alignment, they’re probably one of the many players who think there is only one true way to be moral. Those players are quite likely to be stuck in their ways and/or not empathetic to other worldviews, which can make them react negatively toward folks playing other alignments.
Once in game, the important thing is coming up with a reason to stick with your party and work toward the same goal. This can be pretty simple - “I want to kill the demon lord because I want to take his place” or “I want to save the world since I can’t rule it if it is destroyed (and being a hero will get me followers I can use in my quest for power)”. You also should come up with a reason to want to help the other individuals even beyond the quest. This can be something like “they are my best chance at power” or “their heroism amuses me, but we want the same things, and it isn’t like they are not also killing—they just try to justify it.”
The biggest problem is actual conflict. By that, I don't mean disagreement, but doing something that would provoke conflict with another PC, and thereby initiate PvP without mutual consent.
For example, we arrived at the final encounter of a quest, and there were (innocent) women and children present, and I had the concern that another character would quite happily attack them, which my character would take exception to and would intervene - potentially leading to PvP. That would have been a problem, putting me in the situation where I would have to choose between maintaining my character's roleplay and thereby provoking PvP (which often goes afoul), and not staying true to my character. That's an unfair situation to put me in (unless we're both happy with PvP). Now, that's not what happened so it never got to that decision point, but you can see how following the evil alignment might have caused real world contention.
We avoided it by me taking a second out of character to let the player know that my character would not take kindly to attacks on innocents. He then made the choice to avoid that confrontation. I'd have been fine to have the PvP, but he either wasn't or decided it wasn't what his character would have done anyway.
so, my advice?
Decide what kind of things your character will be willing to do. If you're talking about trolling a few NPCs, then it's probably fine. If you are going to be killing innocents, doing things that might upset players or provoke confrontations, then you need to move to the next step.
Establish what kind of characters the other PCs are, and whether your PC is likely to butt heads with them.
Establish whether the other players are happy with PvP and the like.
Warn them that's the character is like, and if they don't like PvP, then give them ways around it. For example, you'll want to vocalise the PC's thoughts and motivations, and provide ways to amicably intervene. For example, if there is a prisoner that your character wants to summarily execute and other PCs consider that murder, then voice your character's feelings. Give them the opportunity to intervene, perhaps by drawing out the description so players have the chance to grab your arm and prevent you from killing them. That doesn't provoke an actual fight and allows your characters to continue being on amicable terms with each other, while allowing all of you to remain true to the characters.
The main point to remember is that this is a team game. You're not the main character, and everyone is meant to be working together to tell a fun story. That's best done with everyone's consent in the progression of events and working together to make the story work. The problem with evil characters is not really that they're evil, but that the players try to impinge on other player's agency and then hide behind the excuse of their alignment when someone complains. If everyone consents to you being an evil devil person, then there is a lot of fun to be had. Just make sure everyone is happy with it.
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.
If you want to play a character that is routinely doing evil things and want to know what lines the other players and your DM are fine with you crossing and what lines they want you to keep far away from, then I would recommend asking your group what those lines are. Also, evil characters are generally fine as long as they are actually characters. Your characters identity is not that they are evil; they are evil because of their identity. When running a character who is not the stereotypical good guy, remember that your character is a person with feelings and emotions to and that they have bigger goals in life than to just start a PvP with the rest of the party.
What I don't really understand is why you go from Chaotic to Evil? Just because you did something "Chaotic" doesn't mean the action you did was Evil.
Let's use my Chaotic Good Druid as example:
Context: Our Barbarian had a "Rage Hangover" after a fight ended and kept on raging
Me: Nishi opens his second waterskin and makes a movement with his hand, after which the water inside flies out infront of Tane, onto the ground and turns to ice, making the floor all slippery. (casting Shape Water)
Barbarian player: Breaking into a run, hammer in hand, Tane's first step charging forward lands directly on a patch of ice. His leg shoots out from under him and he goes absolutely ass over tea kettle, landing flat on his back, hammer falling to the side. He groans, catches his breath, and after a minute his vision clears. "Ah....ow.....everyone watch their step here.....s'grave ice...."
Me: Nishi bites his lip to not laugh at how silly Tane just looked and, with a movement of his hand, puts the water back into his waterskin. "Not anymore."
Barbarian Player: Tane closes his eyes, and considers just staying where he is.
What I don't really understand is why you go from Chaotic to Evil? Just because you did something "Chaotic" doesn't mean the action you did was Evil.
RIght, Chaotic does not necessarily equal evil. I think being Chaotic and being Evil can both be problematic in certain context, certain campaigns, with certain DM's, Players or Parties, in certain situations.
Even though "Chaotic" has a definition, in D&D, it seems like the examples of Chaotic behaviors can be really varied. I think often chaotic behavior involves humor, merriment, zaniness, inconsistency, flawed reasoning, creativity, thinking outside the box, willingness to go to extremes, willingness to break certain norms, perhaps an openness to at least considering things that require a bit of moral flexibility (definatly some rule breaking, maybe some relatively harmless naughtness).
Session Zero: As a GM I often layout what alignments are ok for a game and what are not.
Evil Actions that are ok: This is harder if you are new to a group or have a new player. So again as a GM I might list things that are ok and not ok for a new player as well as explain what is ok in the game we are running. This can vary by setting and game system.
Evil or not Evil: This can be very depending on the situation and background. The issue I have seen is a player(s) just doing evil things because they think it is entertaining or trying to be entertaining for a select segment of the group.
I generally prefer my groups to work together to solve problems and not create problems inter group. Some of the issues I have seen deal with how people define alignments in their game and how encounter "situations/drama" are created by the GM.
What I don't really understand is why you go from Chaotic to Evil? Just because you did something "Chaotic" doesn't mean the action you did was Evil.
Let's use my Chaotic Good Druid as example:
Context: Our Barbarian had a "Rage Hangover" after a fight ended and kept on raging
Me: Nishi opens his second waterskin and makes a movement with his hand, after which the water inside flies out infront of Tane, onto the ground and turns to ice, making the floor all slippery. (casting Shape Water)
Barbarian player: Breaking into a run, hammer in hand, Tane's first step charging forward lands directly on a patch of ice. His leg shoots out from under him and he goes absolutely ass over tea kettle, landing flat on his back, hammer falling to the side. He groans, catches his breath, and after a minute his vision clears. "Ah....ow.....everyone watch their step here.....s'grave ice...."
Me: Nishi bites his lip to not laugh at how silly Tane just looked and, with a movement of his hand, puts the water back into his waterskin. "Not anymore."
Barbarian Player: Tane closes his eyes, and considers just staying where he is.
Was that action evil? No.
Was ist chaotic (and funny)? Oh yes. 😆
Chaotic and Evil aren't synonyms, and you're correct there...but the way Chaotic is often interpreted is really Evil-Lite. The oft-cited example is a prisoner who is guilty of a capital crime, if it's going to be dangerous to get him back to face the legal system, Lawful would insist on going by the book and getting him back, Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good. Okay I'm being very black-and-white and simplified there, but it's just to illustrate a point. In reality, the Chaotic attitude in this instance is quite selfish and denies others their rights (as well as the public good of having trials) in order to keep oneself (or one's allies) safe. Sounds a little bit like...Evil?
By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil...but the problematic ones often do and the problematic aspects often stem from that aspect. It does make sense to group the two aspects alignment together when talking about alignment and potentially problematic behaviours.
Incidentally, I wouldn't describe Nishi as being Chaotic from your example. Certainly, being a prankster can be associated with being Chaotic...but Lawful doesn't mean Boring and can have a sense of humour too, and pranks are entirely within their nature as well. Perhaps there is a greater context that shows it to have stemmed from his Chaotic nature...but it doesn't really scream Chaotic to me. It is chaotic to be sure, but not Chaotic.
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.
Session Zero: As a GM I often layout what alignments are ok for a game and what are not.
Evil Actions that are ok: This is harder if you are new to a group or have a new player. So again as a GM I might list things that are ok and not ok for a new player as well as explain what is ok in the game we are running. This can vary by setting and game system.
. . . . . . . . .
I generally prefer my groups to work together to solve problems and not create problems inter group. Some of the issues I have seen deal with how people define alignments in their game and how encounter "situations/drama" are created by the GM.
I think that how a character treats other members of the party (and how players treat other players) might be kind important: loyality, ("honor among thieves", perhaps), not doing things that seriously harm other party members.
I've never really played in a campaign where the characters really prank on each other hard. I've been in one where one of the characters would try to cheat and grift other characters and after about the first time (which was done in a somewhat charming way) that didn't feel fun to be on the receiving end of (more like slightly humiliating and disempowering). I'm not sure if the lack of pranks a function of how well I know and feel comfortable with the other players, or how the other characters interact with each other. I've also never play one where there was lots of exploration, meals, camping and campfires (downtime interactions) and stuff like that. I wonder if that's part of the difference. I guess humor and what is considered funny and acceptable works differently, at differnt tables.
Session Zero: As a GM I often layout what alignments are ok for a game and what are not.
Evil Actions that are ok: This is harder if you are new to a group or have a new player. So again as a GM I might list things that are ok and not ok for a new player as well as explain what is ok in the game we are running. This can vary by setting and game system.
. . . . . . . . .
I generally prefer my groups to work together to solve problems and not create problems inter group. Some of the issues I have seen deal with how people define alignments in their game and how encounter "situations/drama" are created by the GM.
I think that how a character treats other members of the party (and how players treat other players) might be kind important: loyality, ("honor among thieves", perhaps), not doing things that seriously harm other party members.
I've never really played in a campaign where the characters really prank on each other hard. I've been in one where one of the characters would try to cheat and grift other characters and after about the first time (which was done in a somewhat charming way) that didn't feel fun to be on the receiving end of (more like slightly humiliating and disempowering). I'm not sure if the lack of pranks a function of how well I know and feel comfortable with the other players, or how the other characters interact with each other. I've also never play one where there was lots of exploration, meals, camping and campfires (downtime interactions) and stuff like that. I wonder if that's part of the difference. I guess humor and what is considered funny and acceptable works differently, at differnt tables.
I have played in home games and in tournament/convention games and seen game store games, where a small group will have different objectives (polite interpretation) then the rest of the group. In home games this generally can be seen as fun but if it occurs it gets old and players can lose large group cohesion. But if it is done right it can be fun also since it is different.
Speaking for myself after RPing for many years I and most people I played with often looked for more from the story Often this was because we got so used to the system we needed to make changes to keep the game interesting and us engaged. So that means often tracking equipment, $$$, different environment (and playing a PC that started out in one environment and then move to one in which they are less proficient) and other such expanded RP.
I fully agree it is not for everyone and I am glad that most games can be played in many different ways with minor or no rule changes to make things work.
1) Any alignment can be played obnoxiously and that can vary by table so what things as a group are issues for you.
2) Once problem areas are identified then what things are positive for alignments?
3) What are some gray areas? Areas that are between obnoxious and fun or boarder or each.
Then mix what options you have from above and remember that it probably will/can vary from game group to game group and even from system to system.
One area I have often seen an issue in is character from book/TV show/Movie does this so my PC should be able to do that, syndrome. So remember that writers, authors, directors, editors and actors have a say in those situations and how they are portrayed and may not be transferable to your game.
I have played in home games and in tournament/convention games and seen game store games, where a small group will have different objectives (polite interpretation) then the rest of the group. In home games this generally can be seen as fun but if it occurs it gets old and players can lose large group cohesion. But if it is done right it can be fun also since it is different.
So some differences in objectives, M.O. and moral temperament is okay, but too much difference can be a problem?
I've always had the impression that a fun party of adventurers needed to have a certain amount of Chaotic and Evil-Lite, but not too much (and that amount likely varies alot, according to the campaign).
It seems like often, most of the Chaotic and Evil-Lite gets concentrated into one character.
Maybe the player of the Chaotic character hopes that the other players will engage in a bit more Chaos and Evil-Lite to take the pressure off and so the antics can be more evenly distributed, but so the game will still a fun and zanny aspect to it. And maybe all the other player wish that the Chaotic one would tone down the Chaos and Evil-Lite, so that they could have room to express their character's personality more, perhaps even their character's version of Chaotic (and maybe Evil-Lite), without having the whole party completely slip into Chaos or go to the dark side. It seems like communcating about how to stike that balance might be hard, without making it seem like somebody is doing something wrong.
It's also really important to consider your motivation. A chaotic evil character in a mixed-alignment party should still not just act on any murderous instinct that passes through their head, because they should keep in mind they are with the party for a reason-- whether they want something from them, or maybe they just care about one or two of them-- and they're still smart enough to know that certain actions will alienate the other party members past the point of usefulness.
If you expect the party to help you get revenge on the Duke who usurped your father's place and cast you out, then murdering passing puppies isn't going to help your achieve that goal. You can still act like you WANT to do evil, and maybe there are things you can do that dance along the line, but once you have the lawful good paladin in the team's player asking "why do I hang out with the puppy murderer again?" then it's kind of over for your character.
For a truly chaotic cleric, he guides his life on the flip of a coin with opposite choices. Head's he parleys with the orc horde or tails he slaughters them. Heads he attempts to strike the red adult red dragon's wing or tails he talks about a real estate scheme with him on burning out the villagers and selling timeshares.
As some have said above, you can separate evil intentions from evil actions. As long as you telegraph your evil intentions and play along with the party stopping those intentions from becoming actions, you get to RP how terrible you are while not derailing the campaign or forcing your party into an ultimatum situation. As a bonus, the Good characters get some roleplay mileage out of constantly holding you back. It's not too hard to create a "loveable murderous scamp" type character that always wants to kill everything but doesn't fight the party when they prevent them from doing so.
I have played in home games and in tournament/convention games and seen game store games, where a small group will have different objectives (polite interpretation) then the rest of the group. In home games this generally can be seen as fun but if it occurs it gets old and players can lose large group cohesion. But if it is done right it can be fun also since it is different.
So some differences in objectives, M.O. and moral temperament is okay, but too much difference can be a problem?
I've always had the impression that a fun party of adventurers needed to have a certain amount of Chaotic and Evil-Lite, but not too much (and that amount likely varies alot, according to the campaign).
It seems like often, most of the Chaotic and Evil-Lite gets concentrated into one character.
Maybe the player of the Chaotic character hopes that the other players will engage in a bit more Chaos and Evil-Lite to take the pressure off and so the antics can be more evenly distributed, but so the game will still a fun and zanny aspect to it. And maybe all the other player wish that the Chaotic one would tone down the Chaos and Evil-Lite, so that they could have room to express their character's personality more, perhaps even their character's version of Chaotic (and maybe Evil-Lite), without having the whole party completely slip into Chaos or go to the dark side. It seems like communcating about how to stike that balance might be hard, without making it seem like somebody is doing something wrong.
It can be a problem depending on the group and the objectives of the game.
For example I was watching a tournament game of 3.X while waiting for my next MtG game and saw 2 out of 6 players being silly chaotic evil and ended up dyeing, shortly after that the other 4 players died and they did not get a chance to move onto the next game as they did not have enough points. The game was an elimination of players based on a number of things they did and the group did with prizes at the end.
I have also had other experiences in home games and in tournament games I have played in.
I myself prefer to tell people if evil PC's are ok or not ok as well as if running with new players and I think it is necessary what obnoxious alignment play might look like.
IMHO there is a big difference in chaotic actions and evil actions and playing alignments obnoxiously.
I am also glad you have id'ed what you like in game and hope you can have fun.
What I don't really understand is why you go from Chaotic to Evil? Just because you did something "Chaotic" doesn't mean the action you did was Evil.
Let's use my Chaotic Good Druid as example:
Context: Our Barbarian had a "Rage Hangover" after a fight ended and kept on raging
Me: Nishi opens his second waterskin and makes a movement with his hand, after which the water inside flies out infront of Tane, onto the ground and turns to ice, making the floor all slippery. (casting Shape Water)
Barbarian player: Breaking into a run, hammer in hand, Tane's first step charging forward lands directly on a patch of ice. His leg shoots out from under him and he goes absolutely ass over tea kettle, landing flat on his back, hammer falling to the side. He groans, catches his breath, and after a minute his vision clears. "Ah....ow.....everyone watch their step here.....s'grave ice...."
Me: Nishi bites his lip to not laugh at how silly Tane just looked and, with a movement of his hand, puts the water back into his waterskin. "Not anymore."
Barbarian Player: Tane closes his eyes, and considers just staying where he is.
Was that action evil? No.
Was ist chaotic (and funny)? Oh yes. 😆
Chaotic and Evil aren't synonyms, and you're correct there...but the way Chaotic is often interpreted is really Evil-Lite. The oft-cited example is a prisoner who is guilty of a capital crime, if it's going to be dangerous to get him back to face the legal system, Lawful would insist on going by the book and getting him back, Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good. Okay I'm being very black-and-white and simplified there, but it's just to illustrate a point. In reality, the Chaotic attitude in this instance is quite selfish and denies others their rights (as well as the public good of having trials) in order to keep oneself (or one's allies) safe. Sounds a little bit like...Evil?
By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil...but the problematic ones often do and the problematic aspects often stem from that aspect. It does make sense to group the two aspects alignment together when talking about alignment and potentially problematic behaviours.
Incidentally, I wouldn't describe Nishi as being Chaotic from your example. Certainly, being a prankster can be associated with being Chaotic...but Lawful doesn't mean Boring and can have a sense of humour too, and pranks are entirely within their nature as well. Perhaps there is a greater context that shows it to have stemmed from his Chaotic nature...but it doesn't really scream Chaotic to me. It is chaotic to be sure, but not Chaotic.
Nishi is a young Wood Elf (only 24 years old) so I play him as a very exciteable teenager. Prankster fits him pretty well, also he often acts before he thinks. The example above was just the first thing that popped into my head. (sadly that campaign is on hiatus, so I haven't played him in a long while)
---
"Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good" <-- why would Chaotic say to kill him now? Chaotic does not automatically mean murder-hobo. A Chaotic character could also decide "Huh, you (the prisoner) don't seem like the bad guy to me, I'll find the one who's actually responsible for the crime instead." On the other hand, a Lawful character could go "I don't care if you're guilty or not, the King said you need to be executed and what the King says is the Law!" which does not seem very Good to me.
IMO most PC parties are chaotic -- they're generally inclined towards "solve the problem and don't worry about details such as rules and laws".
For example, suppose there's someone you're pretty sure is a bad guy, and you think there's information about his Evil Plan in his home. Do you:
Break in to find the evidence.
Collect information without breaking in, then take it to the local justice to obtain the local equivalent of a search warrant, and using that, make a legal search.
The vast majority of PCs choose option 1. Which is the chaotic option.
Nishi is a young Wood Elf (only 24 years old) so I play him as a very exciteable teenager. Prankster fits him pretty well, also he often acts before he thinks. The example above was just the first thing that popped into my head. (sadly that campaign is on hiatus, so I haven't played him in a long while)
It's a lovely bit of character devlopment and really adds to the flavour of the character as well as injecting a nice shot of humour into the adventure. However, Chaotic refers to their view of society, law and order. An example of a Chaotic character (if rather generic and bland) is if the law says that you must get the local authority's permission to leave one of the divisions of the kingdoms, then the Chaotic character might chafe against that rule and just go where they want and refuse to request permission from the authority. A Lawful character, by contrast, would probably insist on requesting that permission as a matter of principle.
"Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good" <-- why would Chaotic say to kill him now? Chaotic does not automatically mean murder-hobo.
Read literally the very next sentence after you finished quoting me.
A Chaotic character could also decide "Huh, you (the prisoner) don't seem like the bad guy to me, I'll find the one who's actually responsible for the crime instead."
Sure, if we fundamentally alter the scenario I gave to make the prisoner innocent. Even if we do...this doesn't contradict what I said:
"By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil[...]" - taken from my closing statement of the argument.
On the other hand, a Lawful character could go "I don't care if you're guilty or not, the King said you need to be executed and what the King says is the Law!" which does not seem very Good to me.
Sure, and that is a pretty good example if what.it means to be Lawful. But no one is saying that Lawful=Good and Chaotic=Evil. Instead, reread my closing statement to my argument:
"By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil...but the problematic ones often do and the problematic aspects often stem from that aspect. It does make sense to group the two aspects alignment together when talking about alignment and potentially problematic behaviours."
Chaotic behaviours that can be problematic are often ones that have a degree of Evil incorporated into them excused as being Chaotic - like summarily executing prisoners.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How can you be (or do things that are) chaotic, naughty or even evil (evil adjacent, maybe), in a way that is fun for everyone at the table? What lines are okay to cross and which ones aren’t?
A popular philosophy for roleplay is the "Yes, and.." and "No, but..." this means that no matter what you do, you should create an opening for someone else to step in and continue the storyline.
For example, as an evil character in a good party, you may wish to commit a crime. There are multiple possible outcomes, (1) You commit the act without consequences, (2) You commit the act and are held responsible for your actions, (3) You are prevented from committing the act, (4) Other.
You know what your party *should* do, so whenever you want your character to act contrary to that, you should present a foil to your own actions. For example, your party may include a sibling who keeps you in check like Thor and Loki. You can telegraph your intentions, so that the other party member can convince you to stop, or beat you to a pulp, before it's too late. It's OK for the characters to have conflicts as long as the players can separate the characters intentions from their own.
Sometimes the players of a good party might actually *want* to do something bad to progress the story more quickly. Just as in the alternative, the good guys can "accidentally" leave you without a chaperone, so that you can act poorly and they can compensate for it after the fact.
The important thing is that you are clearly communicating with your fellow players out of character and are playing as a party, rather than just a group of selfish players.
The most important thing is going to find a party that is capable of the cognitive dissidence necessary to divorce player and character. Lots of folks can’t do that well and will throw a hissy fit if you play anything other than a Good character. If playing with a group where you don’t know if that is the case, ask them before the game begins to try and stave off future drama. Also ask them what alignments they historically have played. If they have played chaotic or evil alignments in the past, they’ll probably be more open to your antics. If they always play the same alignment, they’re probably one of the many players who think there is only one true way to be moral. Those players are quite likely to be stuck in their ways and/or not empathetic to other worldviews, which can make them react negatively toward folks playing other alignments.
Once in game, the important thing is coming up with a reason to stick with your party and work toward the same goal. This can be pretty simple - “I want to kill the demon lord because I want to take his place” or “I want to save the world since I can’t rule it if it is destroyed (and being a hero will get me followers I can use in my quest for power)”. You also should come up with a reason to want to help the other individuals even beyond the quest. This can be something like “they are my best chance at power” or “their heroism amuses me, but we want the same things, and it isn’t like they are not also killing—they just try to justify it.”
Know the other players and what their tastes are.
The biggest problem is actual conflict. By that, I don't mean disagreement, but doing something that would provoke conflict with another PC, and thereby initiate PvP without mutual consent.
For example, we arrived at the final encounter of a quest, and there were (innocent) women and children present, and I had the concern that another character would quite happily attack them, which my character would take exception to and would intervene - potentially leading to PvP. That would have been a problem, putting me in the situation where I would have to choose between maintaining my character's roleplay and thereby provoking PvP (which often goes afoul), and not staying true to my character. That's an unfair situation to put me in (unless we're both happy with PvP). Now, that's not what happened so it never got to that decision point, but you can see how following the evil alignment might have caused real world contention.
We avoided it by me taking a second out of character to let the player know that my character would not take kindly to attacks on innocents. He then made the choice to avoid that confrontation. I'd have been fine to have the PvP, but he either wasn't or decided it wasn't what his character would have done anyway.
so, my advice?
The main point to remember is that this is a team game. You're not the main character, and everyone is meant to be working together to tell a fun story. That's best done with everyone's consent in the progression of events and working together to make the story work. The problem with evil characters is not really that they're evil, but that the players try to impinge on other player's agency and then hide behind the excuse of their alignment when someone complains. If everyone consents to you being an evil devil person, then there is a lot of fun to be had. Just make sure everyone is happy with it.
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.
If you want to play a character that is routinely doing evil things and want to know what lines the other players and your DM are fine with you crossing and what lines they want you to keep far away from, then I would recommend asking your group what those lines are. Also, evil characters are generally fine as long as they are actually characters. Your characters identity is not that they are evil; they are evil because of their identity. When running a character who is not the stereotypical good guy, remember that your character is a person with feelings and emotions to and that they have bigger goals in life than to just start a PvP with the rest of the party.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.What I don't really understand is why you go from Chaotic to Evil? Just because you did something "Chaotic" doesn't mean the action you did was Evil.
Let's use my Chaotic Good Druid as example:
Context: Our Barbarian had a "Rage Hangover" after a fight ended and kept on raging
Me: Nishi opens his second waterskin and makes a movement with his hand, after which the water inside flies out infront of Tane, onto the ground and turns to ice, making the floor all slippery. (casting Shape Water)
Barbarian player: Breaking into a run, hammer in hand, Tane's first step charging forward lands directly on a patch of ice. His leg shoots out from under him and he goes absolutely ass over tea kettle, landing flat on his back, hammer falling to the side. He groans, catches his breath, and after a minute his vision clears. "Ah....ow.....everyone watch their step here.....s'grave ice...."
Me: Nishi bites his lip to not laugh at how silly Tane just looked and, with a movement of his hand, puts the water back into his waterskin. "Not anymore."
Barbarian Player: Tane closes his eyes, and considers just staying where he is.
Was that action evil? No.
Was ist chaotic (and funny)? Oh yes. 😆
RIght, Chaotic does not necessarily equal evil. I think being Chaotic and being Evil can both be problematic in certain context, certain campaigns, with certain DM's, Players or Parties, in certain situations.
Even though "Chaotic" has a definition, in D&D, it seems like the examples of Chaotic behaviors can be really varied. I think often chaotic behavior involves humor, merriment, zaniness, inconsistency, flawed reasoning, creativity, thinking outside the box, willingness to go to extremes, willingness to break certain norms, perhaps an openness to at least considering things that require a bit of moral flexibility (definatly some rule breaking, maybe some relatively harmless naughtness).
Session Zero: As a GM I often layout what alignments are ok for a game and what are not.
Evil Actions that are ok: This is harder if you are new to a group or have a new player. So again as a GM I might list things that are ok and not ok for a new player as well as explain what is ok in the game we are running. This can vary by setting and game system.
Evil or not Evil: This can be very depending on the situation and background. The issue I have seen is a player(s) just doing evil things because they think it is entertaining or trying to be entertaining for a select segment of the group.
I generally prefer my groups to work together to solve problems and not create problems inter group. Some of the issues I have seen deal with how people define alignments in their game and how encounter "situations/drama" are created by the GM.
Chaotic and Evil aren't synonyms, and you're correct there...but the way Chaotic is often interpreted is really Evil-Lite. The oft-cited example is a prisoner who is guilty of a capital crime, if it's going to be dangerous to get him back to face the legal system, Lawful would insist on going by the book and getting him back, Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good. Okay I'm being very black-and-white and simplified there, but it's just to illustrate a point. In reality, the Chaotic attitude in this instance is quite selfish and denies others their rights (as well as the public good of having trials) in order to keep oneself (or one's allies) safe. Sounds a little bit like...Evil?
By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil...but the problematic ones often do and the problematic aspects often stem from that aspect. It does make sense to group the two aspects alignment together when talking about alignment and potentially problematic behaviours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, I wouldn't describe Nishi as being Chaotic from your example. Certainly, being a prankster can be associated with being Chaotic...but Lawful doesn't mean Boring and can have a sense of humour too, and pranks are entirely within their nature as well. Perhaps there is a greater context that shows it to have stemmed from his Chaotic nature...but it doesn't really scream Chaotic to me. It is chaotic to be sure, but not Chaotic.
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.
I think that how a character treats other members of the party (and how players treat other players) might be kind important: loyality, ("honor among thieves", perhaps), not doing things that seriously harm other party members.
I've never really played in a campaign where the characters really prank on each other hard. I've been in one where one of the characters would try to cheat and grift other characters and after about the first time (which was done in a somewhat charming way) that didn't feel fun to be on the receiving end of (more like slightly humiliating and disempowering). I'm not sure if the lack of pranks a function of how well I know and feel comfortable with the other players, or how the other characters interact with each other. I've also never play one where there was lots of exploration, meals, camping and campfires (downtime interactions) and stuff like that. I wonder if that's part of the difference. I guess humor and what is considered funny and acceptable works differently, at differnt tables.
I have played in home games and in tournament/convention games and seen game store games, where a small group will have different objectives (polite interpretation) then the rest of the group. In home games this generally can be seen as fun but if it occurs it gets old and players can lose large group cohesion. But if it is done right it can be fun also since it is different.
Speaking for myself after RPing for many years I and most people I played with often looked for more from the story Often this was because we got so used to the system we needed to make changes to keep the game interesting and us engaged. So that means often tracking equipment, $$$, different environment (and playing a PC that started out in one environment and then move to one in which they are less proficient) and other such expanded RP.
I fully agree it is not for everyone and I am glad that most games can be played in many different ways with minor or no rule changes to make things work.
Back to the OP:
1) Any alignment can be played obnoxiously and that can vary by table so what things as a group are issues for you.
2) Once problem areas are identified then what things are positive for alignments?
3) What are some gray areas? Areas that are between obnoxious and fun or boarder or each.
Then mix what options you have from above and remember that it probably will/can vary from game group to game group and even from system to system.
One area I have often seen an issue in is character from book/TV show/Movie does this so my PC should be able to do that, syndrome. So remember that writers, authors, directors, editors and actors have a say in those situations and how they are portrayed and may not be transferable to your game.
So some differences in objectives, M.O. and moral temperament is okay, but too much difference can be a problem?
I've always had the impression that a fun party of adventurers needed to have a certain amount of Chaotic and Evil-Lite, but not too much (and that amount likely varies alot, according to the campaign).
It seems like often, most of the Chaotic and Evil-Lite gets concentrated into one character.
Maybe the player of the Chaotic character hopes that the other players will engage in a bit more Chaos and Evil-Lite to take the pressure off and so the antics can be more evenly distributed, but so the game will still a fun and zanny aspect to it. And maybe all the other player wish that the Chaotic one would tone down the Chaos and Evil-Lite, so that they could have room to express their character's personality more, perhaps even their character's version of Chaotic (and maybe Evil-Lite), without having the whole party completely slip into Chaos or go to the dark side. It seems like communcating about how to stike that balance might be hard, without making it seem like somebody is doing something wrong.
It's also really important to consider your motivation. A chaotic evil character in a mixed-alignment party should still not just act on any murderous instinct that passes through their head, because they should keep in mind they are with the party for a reason-- whether they want something from them, or maybe they just care about one or two of them-- and they're still smart enough to know that certain actions will alienate the other party members past the point of usefulness.
If you expect the party to help you get revenge on the Duke who usurped your father's place and cast you out, then murdering passing puppies isn't going to help your achieve that goal. You can still act like you WANT to do evil, and maybe there are things you can do that dance along the line, but once you have the lawful good paladin in the team's player asking "why do I hang out with the puppy murderer again?" then it's kind of over for your character.
For a truly chaotic cleric, he guides his life on the flip of a coin with opposite choices. Head's he parleys with the orc horde or tails he slaughters them. Heads he attempts to strike the red adult red dragon's wing or tails he talks about a real estate scheme with him on burning out the villagers and selling timeshares.
As some have said above, you can separate evil intentions from evil actions. As long as you telegraph your evil intentions and play along with the party stopping those intentions from becoming actions, you get to RP how terrible you are while not derailing the campaign or forcing your party into an ultimatum situation. As a bonus, the Good characters get some roleplay mileage out of constantly holding you back. It's not too hard to create a "loveable murderous scamp" type character that always wants to kill everything but doesn't fight the party when they prevent them from doing so.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It can be a problem depending on the group and the objectives of the game.
For example I was watching a tournament game of 3.X while waiting for my next MtG game and saw 2 out of 6 players being silly chaotic evil and ended up dyeing, shortly after that the other 4 players died and they did not get a chance to move onto the next game as they did not have enough points. The game was an elimination of players based on a number of things they did and the group did with prizes at the end.
I have also had other experiences in home games and in tournament games I have played in.
I myself prefer to tell people if evil PC's are ok or not ok as well as if running with new players and I think it is necessary what obnoxious alignment play might look like.
IMHO there is a big difference in chaotic actions and evil actions and playing alignments obnoxiously.
I am also glad you have id'ed what you like in game and hope you can have fun.
Nishi is a young Wood Elf (only 24 years old) so I play him as a very exciteable teenager. Prankster fits him pretty well, also he often acts before he thinks. The example above was just the first thing that popped into my head. (sadly that campaign is on hiatus, so I haven't played him in a long while)
---
"Chaotic says kill him now and keep others safe, for the greater good" <-- why would Chaotic say to kill him now? Chaotic does not automatically mean murder-hobo. A Chaotic character could also decide "Huh, you (the prisoner) don't seem like the bad guy to me, I'll find the one who's actually responsible for the crime instead."
On the other hand, a Lawful character could go "I don't care if you're guilty or not, the King said you need to be executed and what the King says is the Law!" which does not seem very Good to me.
IMO most PC parties are chaotic -- they're generally inclined towards "solve the problem and don't worry about details such as rules and laws".
For example, suppose there's someone you're pretty sure is a bad guy, and you think there's information about his Evil Plan in his home. Do you:
The vast majority of PCs choose option 1. Which is the chaotic option.
It's a lovely bit of character devlopment and really adds to the flavour of the character as well as injecting a nice shot of humour into the adventure. However, Chaotic refers to their view of society, law and order. An example of a Chaotic character (if rather generic and bland) is if the law says that you must get the local authority's permission to leave one of the divisions of the kingdoms, then the Chaotic character might chafe against that rule and just go where they want and refuse to request permission from the authority. A Lawful character, by contrast, would probably insist on requesting that permission as a matter of principle.
Read literally the very next sentence after you finished quoting me.
Sure, if we fundamentally alter the scenario I gave to make the prisoner innocent. Even if we do...this doesn't contradict what I said:
"By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil[...]" - taken from my closing statement of the argument.
Sure, and that is a pretty good example if what.it means to be Lawful. But no one is saying that Lawful=Good and Chaotic=Evil. Instead, reread my closing statement to my argument:
"By no means are all expressions of Chaotic evil or tinged with evil...but the problematic ones often do and the problematic aspects often stem from that aspect. It does make sense to group the two aspects alignment together when talking about alignment and potentially problematic behaviours."
Chaotic behaviours that can be problematic are often ones that have a degree of Evil incorporated into them excused as being Chaotic - like summarily executing prisoners.
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.