I'm asking despite never having come across this before (part of why I'm asking) but I've noticed the general consensus seems to be that any player, playing a character that has any of the following mindsets seems to be a taboo: Evil, Thiefy, chaotic/random, or otherwise disrupts the party outside of combat.
And I don't mean a player who is INTENTIONALLY trying to ruin an experience - Rather, a player who is playing a character that happens to fall into those or similar categories. (I.E> Casting an AoE spell into your party and not caring)
I may be overextending in my thought process, but isn't playing every single game where everyone is for the most part fast-friends, highly cooperative, all have the same or close enough ideals to seek the same end-goal. Basically, where everyone more or less conforms within the lines of good a little boring if it's the ONLY experiences your campaigns have? or on the opposite end, where EVERYONE in the party is pure evil etc - Or to TL;DR isn't having everyone be UNIFORM ""All the time""" boring?
I understand that they can cause chaos if 3/4ths of the party is neutral - lawful, then that EVIL WARLOCK keeps trying to cause trouble, either by trying to kill NPC's who fail to help with what they want and it lands your party in jail, or some~such - doesn't it just give the party a chance to innovate, and overcome a surprise challenge that otherwise wouldn't normally be there? and allow everyone's characters to grow as a whole? to see a side of the story that may never have existed otherwise? as long as the player themselves isn't doing it JUST to be a ****** of course.
I think it can work if the campaign is designed with that in mind, but the motivations and morals of good vs evil alignments are so far apart that it leads to unnecessary friction. Like in business (or any organisation), some differences are necessary for a rich partnership, but when fundamental values are at odds, it's not going to work. I see a party as a lot like that.
I may be overextending in my thought process, but isn't playing every single game where everyone is for the most part fast-friends, highly cooperative, all have the same or close enough ideals to seek the same end-goal. Basically, where everyone more or less conforms within the lines of good a little boring if it's the ONLY experiences your campaigns have? or on the opposite end, where EVERYONE in the party is pure evil etc - Or to TL;DR isn't having everyone be UNIFORM ""All the time""" boring?
The solution to that is to not have shallow characters. The notion that a group of regular, non-psychopathic people that get along has to be boring is silly. People are complex. Social interactions are messy. Relationships take time to build. Everyone's got different motivations, goals, priorities, flaws, fears, and responses to stress and trauma. If you can't tell a good story with good or neutral characters, turning to overtly evil characters is just a lazy way to create conflict.
I understand that they can cause chaos if 3/4ths of the party is neutral - lawful, then that EVIL WARLOCK keeps trying to cause trouble, either by trying to kill NPC's who fail to help with what they want and it lands your party in jail, or some~such - doesn't it just give the party a chance to innovate, and overcome a surprise challenge that otherwise wouldn't normally be there? and allow everyone's characters to grow as a whole? to see a side of the story that may never have existed otherwise? as long as the player themselves isn't doing it JUST to be a ****** of course.
Where do you expect the story to go after the hypothetical party learns the warlock's a murderer? Any sane person would turn the warlock in and cut ties completely.
I think you missed the point of that paragraph. I never said playing non psycho characters was boring, you need to read the whole thing again. I Played Chrono Cross till 2008 (it came out around 98-99) That's roughly 10 solid years playing a SINGLE ps1 RPG. I played it multiple times a year, because I loved it, it had MANY well fleshed-out characters, and a few 'here because' characters. I have seen ALL 12 endings to the game, and knew every corner of every map before I stopped playing it. I knew how/where to do everything in the game. But no matter how well fleshed out a character(s) or story is, eventually you'll get bored of playing the same overall story, with slight variations of overall ideals etc where every party meshes, and has at-least has a 4 page backstory and so on.
My point being, is, shallow or not, is irrelevant, but playing the Shounen protagonist and his entourage of like-minded individuals every time would eventually wear thin. Like eating hotdogs every day of your life - sure, there's turkey dogs, beef dogs, and pork dogs, but in the end, they're all hotdogs - And perhaps trying a burger, or salad once in a while would change it up.
(@ the second quote)
You're dealing like a Sith - in absolutes. Just because someone is a 'sane' person doesn't mean they'll run straight to the town guard, and end it with the Warlock. It depends on MANY factors: Ideals, Goals, Personality, NEEDS, when and why it happened, whether it ultimately led to or away from the parties end goal, and on, and on, and on. I mean this in a neutral, not insulting way, but that line of thinking seems very much like tunnel-vision, you're hyper focused on what should be, rather than what could be - and that limits the sort of characters and play-styles you can do if your thinking is that rigid.
For the most part the campaigns Ive run and played in is majority good alignment. With an occasional chaotic neutral rogue/assassins.
We have a rogue in our current campaign that lies to other players all the time. He would loot bodies or investigate rooms before others and lie about what he finds. He also steals from the other players when he takes first watch. It’s actually pretty hilarious because as players we all know he is doing it but we can’t really do anything since our characters in game are oblivious to it. (Bad rolling on our end).
A good group regardless of the types of characters really depends on all the people playing in the campaign. If you make things difficult for others or annoy each other then it will not be fun no matter what alignment your characters are.
With that said, I still probably wouldn’t recommend having evil alignment characters in a party full of good aligned characters. There would be constant conflicts and no DM would want to deal with that. Haha
It mostly has to do with the entire group. A group of evil characters trying to do evil to take over the world is a legitimate approach.
Unless the players can't handle it of course. Lawful evil backstabbing, vs Chaotic Evil powermongering have different outcomes and gameplay. I tend to see how one works better than the other. Works best if they have a patron pushing all of them, so they focus on other goals vs them back stabbing each other.
Of course, "violent delights have violent ends" so when the paladins come looking for their heads...they shouldn't be surprised either.
The things that make evil characters "bad" are not actually inherent to the character being evil. Rather, it is the mismatching of expectations of people participating in the game that cause the problems, and the evil alignment being the detail upon which those expectations differ.
When a group has matching expectations as to what a character being evil means for the group and how the potential points of contention will be handled should they come up, there are no issues unless a player is being intentionally disruptive.
I've always been of the belief that an evil character in a "good" party is not something which inherently cannot be done, it just requires some very particular finesse in roleplaying.
Simply put, as an evil character who finds yourself with traditionally good people, you should view your party as a means to an end - be that end the acquisition of more power, domination of a region, or deposing another evil emperor so you can take their place. Working with the good guys has to make sense for your character, and there needs to be a reason why working with them is helpful to you. Like any other minion or underling, you need to remember that these heroes have certain needs and sensibilities which need to be met. No man rules alone.
Once you have an evil character, viewing the "good" party as a means to an end, now comes playing the part. No matter your personal philosophy and view of the world, you have to constrain yourself for the sake of controlling your newfound pawns. You have to, for a time, submit yourself to their judgement on matters of morality, unless it runs in clear opposition to what is most beneficial for the group, or yourself. Even then, try not to argue much. Your job is to convince that paladin that even though she detects you as evil, you are the sort which is constrained and reasonable, and that she will be perfectly able to control your behavior indefinitely.
Once you have instilled the adventuring party with a false sense of security, you can proceed to work toward your nefarious ends pretty close to unhindered as long as you avoid crossing any clear ethical thresholds that the party would know about, like killing an innocent person because it's convenient.
In short, playing an evil character requires you to be something of a mastermind. Until the party is no longer useful to your ends, you have to play along with their ethics and moral standards to some degree. Why openly create conflict with the band of heroes, when you could use them to actively help further your own nefarious ends?
Occasionally, I am of the opinion that next to a Lawful Evil character, a Chaotic Neutral is usually the more troublesome of the two, even if the Evil one is a worse person overall.
TL;DR: In short, the only way to be "evil" in a good party is to be subtle about it. It is nigh impossible to be an evil murderhobo in a good party, but an evil person is entirely doable.
The goal of D&D is for everyone to have fun. It's difficult for everyone to have fun when the party is working at cross purposes, and any evil character will have a selfish agenda that's opposed to the rest of the party's agendas, even a party that's composed completely of evil characters. It is possible with the right group of people but everyone has to leave any personal feelings behind when their character get's "beaten" by another character.
Put playing an evil character into a real world situation. How well do things work out when two friends pursue the same romantic partner and one of them succeeds? When it's two drunken idiots trying to put a notch in their bed post and they're both trying to pick up the same person for a one night stand at a bar, which is selfish and tends more towards evil than good, the next night they're going out again and trying again with a different woman and the winner is giving the loser a hard time. When someone is dating a person and one of their friends tries to seduce the person they're dating, which is an evil act, if the other one finds out that will usually destroy the friendship forever.
That's why evil characters tend to be looked down on. The end result of an evil character, or an entire party of evil characters, is usually the party dissolving into a fight and if the players aren't all having fun with that fight it can spill over into the relationships between the players.
To me, the 3x3 alignment grid is like a giant graph, with "Playable" written on the very upper left by Lawful Good, then a straight line to "Anti-social" at Chaotic Evil. Yes, this makes Lawful Evil equivalent to Chaotic Good as well as True Neutral. I've seen lots of responsible players take Lawful Evil and run well with the rest of the party. Generally, I've found that the lower right quadrant (CN, NE and CE) is where you have problems crop up.
That said, I don't think that Evil or Chaotic characters are going to be a problem with a good player. Good players make characters that will (barring some unplanned IC interactions) generally get along. Its really the problem players that make Evil/Chaotic characters stand out, because, in my experience, the problem players tend to make those alignments and cause issues, and the character get blamed for it.
My point being, is, shallow or not, is irrelevant, but playing the Shounen protagonist and his entourage of like-minded individuals every time would eventually wear thin.
There's plenty of other stories to be told and team dynamics that can be used that aren't "shounen protagonist and his entourage." And, really, there could still be other stories that make use of that trope well that you'd enjoy. You're just tired of playing Chrono Cross.
You're dealing like a Sith - in absolutes. Just because someone is a 'sane' person doesn't mean they'll run straight to the town guard, and end it with the Warlock. It depends on MANY factors: Ideals, Goals, Personality, NEEDS, when and why it happened, whether it ultimately led to or away from the parties end goal, and on, and on, and on. I mean this in a neutral, not insulting way, but that line of thinking seems very much like tunnel-vision, you're hyper focused on what should be, rather than what could be - and that limits the sort of characters and play-styles you can do if your thinking is that rigid.
Of course I'm dealing in absolutes. Murder is evil. There's no gray area there. Someone that's willing to overlook that to further their own agenda is evil too. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room in a scenario where a bunch of good or neutral characters find out someone in their party is a murderer. This scenario will either split the party or they all accept they're evil too; either way the conflict will be resolved pretty quickly.
Here's really my bottom line: all a good story needs is conflict. You don't need an evil protagonist to create conflict, and someone that's too evil can't coexist by choice in a party of non-evil people.
I voted "Heck no! Not allowed" for a number of reasons. For me, Evil and Chaotic Neutral characters are often dog whistles for players that want to be disruptive to the group. Just look up this thread and you see examples of a player character that is stealing from the other player characters. Other posts indicate that the evil PC think of the other PCs as pawns in his own designs. None of that sounds like a good type of character to have around, you need trust and cohesion as a group to overcome the challenges the DM sets for the party. FOREX, the *evil* Rogue slinks off and pockets a few *small* gems he found in the room before the rest of the party arrives. Okay, fine, whatever the PLAYERS say. Next thing the aforementioned Rogue is pick pocketing the group as they rest. Alright, Okay, FINE the PLAYERS mutter. Next adventure the PCs are confronted by a challenge and start to look for methods to surmount it. The PLAYER of the Wizard says to the PLAYER of the Rogue "You know if your character wasn't being a evil little stealing goblin all the time, I could have afforded to add a spell to my Spell Book that might have gotten us out of this jam."
And that is just a character that is low level evil, add in homocidal, psychopathic/mad slasher evil types and the group is looking at severe cohesion problems IMEX. I have found no evidence in games I have played in for a character to be nice, comfy slippers evil. No, evil will always out itself. The whole house of cards collapses and you end up with a mess at the table. Play good or Neutral characters and save the EVIL for the DM.
I'm asking despite never having come across this before (part of why I'm asking) but I've noticed the general consensus seems to be that any player, playing a character that has any of the following mindsets seems to be a taboo: Evil, Thiefy, chaotic/random, or otherwise disrupts the party outside of combat.
And I don't mean a player who is INTENTIONALLY trying to ruin an experience - Rather, a player who is playing a character that happens to fall into those or similar categories. (I.E> Casting an AoE spell into your party and not caring) . . .
to see a side of the story that may never have existed otherwise? as long as the player themselves isn't doing it JUST to be a ****** of course.
I'll share an experience I had as a DM.
I ran a campaign many years ago in which the party was comprised of every alignment — mind you, it was 1E, which we then adapted to 2E, which wasn't much a shift, but rather more like an expansion.
One of the players ran a CE Thief (the character class at the time, before Prestige classes and Archetypes). He wrote me a secret note at the start of the campaign that as part of his back story he had been contact by a guild to infiltrate and then defeat the party because of a deal they made with a ranking noble merchant.
Bitter, bitter rivalries and such.
The character adventured with the group of many years, from Level 1 up until Level 10, at which point the campaign shifted from character building to world protecting. Throughout the campaign the character had been sending and receiving communications via Message, secret hand signals, coded letters, and conversations he'd been having with scouts and informants.
His plot was discovered by one of the PCs who had sent along his familiar to spy on the thief. This magic user had long been suspicious of the thief. He sent me a secret note detailing his strategy. He had been gathering intel on the thief for many months, for six character levels. In that time he never discovered the actual plot but learned the thief was not acting in the party's best interest. So, the magic user told the party one night, handing out a secret note to everyone at the Table while the player went out to grab some food in real time. He returns. The party is waiting for him. They wake him up from a dead sleep. They confront him. He almost kills two characters. They're fighting in close quarters and he knows how the characters fight; he's assessed this for a long time.
He escapes that fight, barely, and returns to the guild. He informs them of what transpired, and he is given a new mission. A drow steps forward. A blue dragon steps forward. This trio is tasked with killing the characters before they reach a specific location.
From that moment on in the campaign I was running two separate storylines. It was a lot of work on my end, but it was very rewarding for everyone. The final confrontation was epic.
Don't be afraid to let a player run an evil character. Yes, Table cooperation is important for Adventurers League, but at a Homebrew Table the dynamics are fluid and dependent on good comeraderie before and after the game begins.
We were all friends. No harm done.
Again, it was very satisfying for the players, and for me as well, because in the end I realized something: My group trusted me to let them have some fun. Truly there was no greater reward for me the DM — even better than leveling up a character.
I've always been of the belief that an evil character in a "good" party is not something which inherently cannot be done, it just requires some very particular finesse in roleplaying.
.... A bunch of other stuff ....
TL;DR: In short, the only way to be "evil" in a good party is to be subtle about it. It is nigh impossible to be an evil murderhobo in a good party, but an evil person is entirely doable.
I couldn't agree more, and is exactly the type of character I have in my head to play at some point. I do understand the red flags that a lot of people point out, and the reasons people don't agree to evil characters in a party. But among friends who have been playing together for a while? I know which of my players I trust to play an evil character and which I do not. And they know too.
Once you have an evil character, viewing the "good" party as a means to an end, now comes playing the part. No matter your personal philosophy and view of the world, you have to constrain yourself for the sake of controlling your newfound pawns. You have to, for a time, submit yourself to their judgement on matters of morality, unless it runs in clear opposition to what is most beneficial for the group, or yourself. Even then, try not to argue much. Your job is to convince that paladin that even though she detects you as evil, you are the sort which is constrained and reasonable, and that she will be perfectly able to control your behavior indefinitely.
Once you have instilled the adventuring party with a false sense of security, you can proceed to work toward your nefarious ends pretty close to unhindered as long as you avoid crossing any clear ethical thresholds that the party would know about, like killing an innocent person because it's convenient.
In short, playing an evil character requires you to be something of a mastermind. Until the party is no longer useful to your ends, you have to play along with their ethics and moral standards to some degree. Why openly create conflict with the band of heroes, when you could use them to actively help further your own nefarious ends?
Personal experience, going along with MelodicCodes above. Ran a campaign set in Ravenloft, a naturally dark, gothic setting. The party was, as Ravenloft tends to be, unwilling visitors to the land searching for a way to escape. I happened to be the wild card of the group rolling a Necromancer/Death Cleric in service to Nerrul, the Death God known for a general hatred toward all life.
My necromancer was Lawful Evil with the intent of claiming Ravenloft/Barovia for his God and becoming the undisputed master (or at least major superpower). The party could never get a good bead on him because, for all his overt preaching about the futility of life and the glory of death, he was mostly benign. The reason was because he didn't want it to be known that he would sell out the party to Strahd in the final conflict in a vie for power, or even betray them after Strahd was dead to take the seat of power. Throughout the whole campaign, he created a lot of unsettling situations like moving into a new town and leaving with a few more servants. Nothing was ever intended to derail the campaign, kill players (prematurely), or kill key NPCs as they were all tools in his machinations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
I don't have problems with these mindsets - they can be really fun rp things with the right groups. However, my concern comes from clashing alignments. If the party consists of all lawful good/neutral good, and someone wants to play chaotic/evil, that's when there is a problem. And the same reversed, if there's an all evil/chaotic party and then a new player wants to roll up a Devotion Paladin... that's not gonna end well.
I think alignment is kind of archaic and outdated to use heavily in 5e, but it DOES help generalize and alleviate these problems. If everybody discusses beforehand that they want to be generally good/evil, then that solves lots of potential problems before they start
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
A friend and I always traded off between a pair of personalities called "Lawful Prick and Chaotic ******bag". Essentially, it was the hyper-zealous paladin/superhero with the preachy monologues about the virtues of justice and saving the world clashing against someone who's concerns typically went as far as, "This needs to not be in my world anymore." Always made for an interesting combo to the unsuspecting party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Chaotic doesn't mean stupid and evil doesn't necessarily mean torture every innocent person you run across. Chaotic isn't random, it's a character that views personal freedom over the laws of society. For instance, a chaotic good character may see a government that practices slavery as something that should be fought against or try to free the slaves, while a lawful good character may feel uncomfortable about the situation, but would follow the law.
Evil is looking after your own personal interests over everyone else. I do think this is harder to pull off in a party and haven't allowed evil characters when I've DM'd. That said, I think it can be pulled off, if the overall goal of the character aligns with that of the party. They are pursuing a goal and need the other characters to achieve their goal. I'm sure there will be some tension between the the party and that player, but a good role player who understands this is a cooperative game can pull it off.
I'm currently playing a neutral chaotic Tabaxi rogue. He doesn't have a good concept of personal possessions. He knows that taking things from his teammates doesn't lead to good working relations, but from others is a different story. The personal possession thing goes both ways. He'll quickly give something away if he's had time to play with it and figure out, especially if someone can use it more than him. He can always pick up something else cool to play with on his adventure. He generally helps his friends, but weighs the personal cost / personal gain when helping others. He'll aid a wounded traveler if the risk to do so is small, but he may also relieve the traveler of an interesting gadget or sparkly gem at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm asking despite never having come across this before (part of why I'm asking) but I've noticed the general consensus seems to be that any player, playing a character that has any of the following mindsets seems to be a taboo: Evil, Thiefy, chaotic/random, or otherwise disrupts the party outside of combat.
And I don't mean a player who is INTENTIONALLY trying to ruin an experience - Rather, a player who is playing a character that happens to fall into those or similar categories. (I.E> Casting an AoE spell into your party and not caring)
I may be overextending in my thought process, but isn't playing every single game where everyone is for the most part fast-friends, highly cooperative, all have the same or close enough ideals to seek the same end-goal. Basically, where everyone more or less conforms within the lines of good a little boring if it's the ONLY experiences your campaigns have? or on the opposite end, where EVERYONE in the party is pure evil etc - Or to TL;DR isn't having everyone be UNIFORM ""All the time""" boring?
I understand that they can cause chaos if 3/4ths of the party is neutral - lawful, then that EVIL WARLOCK keeps trying to cause trouble, either by trying to kill NPC's who fail to help with what they want and it lands your party in jail, or some~such - doesn't it just give the party a chance to innovate, and overcome a surprise challenge that otherwise wouldn't normally be there? and allow everyone's characters to grow as a whole? to see a side of the story that may never have existed otherwise? as long as the player themselves isn't doing it JUST to be a ****** of course.
Occassional Dungeon Master.
I think it can work if the campaign is designed with that in mind, but the motivations and morals of good vs evil alignments are so far apart that it leads to unnecessary friction. Like in business (or any organisation), some differences are necessary for a rich partnership, but when fundamental values are at odds, it's not going to work. I see a party as a lot like that.
The solution to that is to not have shallow characters. The notion that a group of regular, non-psychopathic people that get along has to be boring is silly. People are complex. Social interactions are messy. Relationships take time to build. Everyone's got different motivations, goals, priorities, flaws, fears, and responses to stress and trauma. If you can't tell a good story with good or neutral characters, turning to overtly evil characters is just a lazy way to create conflict.
@ InquisitiveCoder
(First quote)
I think you missed the point of that paragraph. I never said playing non psycho characters was boring, you need to read the whole thing again. I Played Chrono Cross till 2008 (it came out around 98-99) That's roughly 10 solid years playing a SINGLE ps1 RPG. I played it multiple times a year, because I loved it, it had MANY well fleshed-out characters, and a few 'here because' characters. I have seen ALL 12 endings to the game, and knew every corner of every map before I stopped playing it. I knew how/where to do everything in the game. But no matter how well fleshed out a character(s) or story is, eventually you'll get bored of playing the same overall story, with slight variations of overall ideals etc where every party meshes, and has at-least has a 4 page backstory and so on.
My point being, is, shallow or not, is irrelevant, but playing the Shounen protagonist and his entourage of like-minded individuals every time would eventually wear thin. Like eating hotdogs every day of your life - sure, there's turkey dogs, beef dogs, and pork dogs, but in the end, they're all hotdogs - And perhaps trying a burger, or salad once in a while would change it up.
(@ the second quote)
You're dealing like a Sith - in absolutes. Just because someone is a 'sane' person doesn't mean they'll run straight to the town guard, and end it with the Warlock. It depends on MANY factors: Ideals, Goals, Personality, NEEDS, when and why it happened, whether it ultimately led to or away from the parties end goal, and on, and on, and on. I mean this in a neutral, not insulting way, but that line of thinking seems very much like tunnel-vision, you're hyper focused on what should be, rather than what could be - and that limits the sort of characters and play-styles you can do if your thinking is that rigid.
Occassional Dungeon Master.
For the most part the campaigns Ive run and played in is majority good alignment. With an occasional chaotic neutral rogue/assassins.
We have a rogue in our current campaign that lies to other players all the time. He would loot bodies or investigate rooms before others and lie about what he finds. He also steals from the other players when he takes first watch. It’s actually pretty hilarious because as players we all know he is doing it but we can’t really do anything since our characters in game are oblivious to it. (Bad rolling on our end).
A good group regardless of the types of characters really depends on all the people playing in the campaign. If you make things difficult for others or annoy each other then it will not be fun no matter what alignment your characters are.
With that said, I still probably wouldn’t recommend having evil alignment characters in a party full of good aligned characters. There would be constant conflicts and no DM would want to deal with that. Haha
"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."
It mostly has to do with the entire group. A group of evil characters trying to do evil to take over the world is a legitimate approach.
Unless the players can't handle it of course. Lawful evil backstabbing, vs Chaotic Evil powermongering have different outcomes and gameplay. I tend to see how one works better than the other. Works best if they have a patron pushing all of them, so they focus on other goals vs them back stabbing each other.
Of course, "violent delights have violent ends" so when the paladins come looking for their heads...they shouldn't be surprised either.
The things that make evil characters "bad" are not actually inherent to the character being evil. Rather, it is the mismatching of expectations of people participating in the game that cause the problems, and the evil alignment being the detail upon which those expectations differ.
When a group has matching expectations as to what a character being evil means for the group and how the potential points of contention will be handled should they come up, there are no issues unless a player is being intentionally disruptive.
Evil is bad. That's why it's called evil.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I've always been of the belief that an evil character in a "good" party is not something which inherently cannot be done, it just requires some very particular finesse in roleplaying.
Simply put, as an evil character who finds yourself with traditionally good people, you should view your party as a means to an end - be that end the acquisition of more power, domination of a region, or deposing another evil emperor so you can take their place. Working with the good guys has to make sense for your character, and there needs to be a reason why working with them is helpful to you. Like any other minion or underling, you need to remember that these heroes have certain needs and sensibilities which need to be met. No man rules alone.
Once you have an evil character, viewing the "good" party as a means to an end, now comes playing the part. No matter your personal philosophy and view of the world, you have to constrain yourself for the sake of controlling your newfound pawns. You have to, for a time, submit yourself to their judgement on matters of morality, unless it runs in clear opposition to what is most beneficial for the group, or yourself. Even then, try not to argue much. Your job is to convince that paladin that even though she detects you as evil, you are the sort which is constrained and reasonable, and that she will be perfectly able to control your behavior indefinitely.
Once you have instilled the adventuring party with a false sense of security, you can proceed to work toward your nefarious ends pretty close to unhindered as long as you avoid crossing any clear ethical thresholds that the party would know about, like killing an innocent person because it's convenient.
In short, playing an evil character requires you to be something of a mastermind. Until the party is no longer useful to your ends, you have to play along with their ethics and moral standards to some degree. Why openly create conflict with the band of heroes, when you could use them to actively help further your own nefarious ends?
Occasionally, I am of the opinion that next to a Lawful Evil character, a Chaotic Neutral is usually the more troublesome of the two, even if the Evil one is a worse person overall.
TL;DR: In short, the only way to be "evil" in a good party is to be subtle about it. It is nigh impossible to be an evil murderhobo in a good party, but an evil person is entirely doable.
PbP characters:
Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King
Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth
Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
The goal of D&D is for everyone to have fun. It's difficult for everyone to have fun when the party is working at cross purposes, and any evil character will have a selfish agenda that's opposed to the rest of the party's agendas, even a party that's composed completely of evil characters. It is possible with the right group of people but everyone has to leave any personal feelings behind when their character get's "beaten" by another character.
Put playing an evil character into a real world situation. How well do things work out when two friends pursue the same romantic partner and one of them succeeds? When it's two drunken idiots trying to put a notch in their bed post and they're both trying to pick up the same person for a one night stand at a bar, which is selfish and tends more towards evil than good, the next night they're going out again and trying again with a different woman and the winner is giving the loser a hard time. When someone is dating a person and one of their friends tries to seduce the person they're dating, which is an evil act, if the other one finds out that will usually destroy the friendship forever.
That's why evil characters tend to be looked down on. The end result of an evil character, or an entire party of evil characters, is usually the party dissolving into a fight and if the players aren't all having fun with that fight it can spill over into the relationships between the players.
Professional computer geek
To me, the 3x3 alignment grid is like a giant graph, with "Playable" written on the very upper left by Lawful Good, then a straight line to "Anti-social" at Chaotic Evil. Yes, this makes Lawful Evil equivalent to Chaotic Good as well as True Neutral. I've seen lots of responsible players take Lawful Evil and run well with the rest of the party. Generally, I've found that the lower right quadrant (CN, NE and CE) is where you have problems crop up.
That said, I don't think that Evil or Chaotic characters are going to be a problem with a good player. Good players make characters that will (barring some unplanned IC interactions) generally get along. Its really the problem players that make Evil/Chaotic characters stand out, because, in my experience, the problem players tend to make those alignments and cause issues, and the character get blamed for it.
There's plenty of other stories to be told and team dynamics that can be used that aren't "shounen protagonist and his entourage." And, really, there could still be other stories that make use of that trope well that you'd enjoy. You're just tired of playing Chrono Cross.
Of course I'm dealing in absolutes. Murder is evil. There's no gray area there. Someone that's willing to overlook that to further their own agenda is evil too. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room in a scenario where a bunch of good or neutral characters find out someone in their party is a murderer. This scenario will either split the party or they all accept they're evil too; either way the conflict will be resolved pretty quickly.
I voted "Heck no! Not allowed" for a number of reasons. For me, Evil and Chaotic Neutral characters are often dog whistles for players that want to be disruptive to the group. Just look up this thread and you see examples of a player character that is stealing from the other player characters. Other posts indicate that the evil PC think of the other PCs as pawns in his own designs. None of that sounds like a good type of character to have around, you need trust and cohesion as a group to overcome the challenges the DM sets for the party. FOREX, the *evil* Rogue slinks off and pockets a few *small* gems he found in the room before the rest of the party arrives. Okay, fine, whatever the PLAYERS say. Next thing the aforementioned Rogue is pick pocketing the group as they rest. Alright, Okay, FINE the PLAYERS mutter. Next adventure the PCs are confronted by a challenge and start to look for methods to surmount it. The PLAYER of the Wizard says to the PLAYER of the Rogue "You know if your character wasn't being a evil little stealing goblin all the time, I could have afforded to add a spell to my Spell Book that might have gotten us out of this jam."
And that is just a character that is low level evil, add in homocidal, psychopathic/mad slasher evil types and the group is looking at severe cohesion problems IMEX. I have found no evidence in games I have played in for a character to be nice, comfy slippers evil. No, evil will always out itself. The whole house of cards collapses and you end up with a mess at the table. Play good or Neutral characters and save the EVIL for the DM.
Personal experience, going along with MelodicCodes above. Ran a campaign set in Ravenloft, a naturally dark, gothic setting. The party was, as Ravenloft tends to be, unwilling visitors to the land searching for a way to escape. I happened to be the wild card of the group rolling a Necromancer/Death Cleric in service to Nerrul, the Death God known for a general hatred toward all life.
My necromancer was Lawful Evil with the intent of claiming Ravenloft/Barovia for his God and becoming the undisputed master (or at least major superpower). The party could never get a good bead on him because, for all his overt preaching about the futility of life and the glory of death, he was mostly benign. The reason was because he didn't want it to be known that he would sell out the party to Strahd in the final conflict in a vie for power, or even betray them after Strahd was dead to take the seat of power. Throughout the whole campaign, he created a lot of unsettling situations like moving into a new town and leaving with a few more servants. Nothing was ever intended to derail the campaign, kill players (prematurely), or kill key NPCs as they were all tools in his machinations.
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
I don't have problems with these mindsets - they can be really fun rp things with the right groups. However, my concern comes from clashing alignments. If the party consists of all lawful good/neutral good, and someone wants to play chaotic/evil, that's when there is a problem. And the same reversed, if there's an all evil/chaotic party and then a new player wants to roll up a Devotion Paladin... that's not gonna end well.
I think alignment is kind of archaic and outdated to use heavily in 5e, but it DOES help generalize and alleviate these problems. If everybody discusses beforehand that they want to be generally good/evil, then that solves lots of potential problems before they start
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
A friend and I always traded off between a pair of personalities called "Lawful Prick and Chaotic ******bag". Essentially, it was the hyper-zealous paladin/superhero with the preachy monologues about the virtues of justice and saving the world clashing against someone who's concerns typically went as far as, "This needs to not be in my world anymore." Always made for an interesting combo to the unsuspecting party.
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Chaotic doesn't mean stupid and evil doesn't necessarily mean torture every innocent person you run across. Chaotic isn't random, it's a character that views personal freedom over the laws of society. For instance, a chaotic good character may see a government that practices slavery as something that should be fought against or try to free the slaves, while a lawful good character may feel uncomfortable about the situation, but would follow the law.
Evil is looking after your own personal interests over everyone else. I do think this is harder to pull off in a party and haven't allowed evil characters when I've DM'd. That said, I think it can be pulled off, if the overall goal of the character aligns with that of the party. They are pursuing a goal and need the other characters to achieve their goal. I'm sure there will be some tension between the the party and that player, but a good role player who understands this is a cooperative game can pull it off.
I'm currently playing a neutral chaotic Tabaxi rogue. He doesn't have a good concept of personal possessions. He knows that taking things from his teammates doesn't lead to good working relations, but from others is a different story. The personal possession thing goes both ways. He'll quickly give something away if he's had time to play with it and figure out, especially if someone can use it more than him. He can always pick up something else cool to play with on his adventure. He generally helps his friends, but weighs the personal cost / personal gain when helping others. He'll aid a wounded traveler if the risk to do so is small, but he may also relieve the traveler of an interesting gadget or sparkly gem at the same time.