As the local representative of villains, theoretical and otherwise, I am here to say that evil characters are not bad.
However...
The vast majority of campaigns are designed with good characters in mind, and DMs typically have less experience on how to manage evil characters. Also, many players believe that 'being evil' means 'doing whatever you like'.
What this means is, you're left with characters with little to no motivation to follow the campaign, who puts the party into situations the DM may struggle with/break the DM's story, and does stupid things - like stab that innocent peasant for 5 copper, right in front of the lawful good paladin you're supposedly working with.
Parties can work with mixed alignments, but only if the party has sufficient reason to work together, and the evil character's player is aware of consequences. Evil groups can work well, although it helps to have an anchor to stop them turning on one another. Lawful evil alignments makes this easier, with characters accepting order/structure, as does loyalty to an 'evil' ideal, as opposed to something like material gain or power for the sake of power.
Why does an evil character journey with good/neutral characters? A solid reasoning for this is key. Maybe they think there's treasure, power, or revenge to be gained by aiding them. Perhaps defeating the evil warlord will leave a nice vacancy. Perhaps they don't have a profession they can fall back on outside of fighting/adventuring, and have no substantial family/friends outside of the party - they're there for the ride, but may cut a few corners along the way if they can get away with it. Either way, it's not in their interest to break up with/leave the party.
Evil characters can be amazing, but they definitely require the right player, DM, and campaign. It's also worth remembering there are different levels of 'evil'. Not every 'evil' person is a psychopathic murder machine. 'Pure evil' is an extreme concept, and most 'evil' characters are still likely to have some redeeming characteristics - just like good characters have flaws.
At the end of the day, almost no character thinks that they are evil - mostly, an evil character thinks that they're actually doing good. Their idea of morality may differ, or perhaps they don't even believe in morality, but it's usually pointless to be evil for the sake of being evil.
The reason evil characters can usually exist in a world full of different alignments, is because they can restrain themselves. Even the chaotic ones. Orcs embody chaotic evil, and they're pretty stupid, but they are not stupid evil. Mike Mearls spoke about them recently, and that one of the reasons they survive rather than dying in constant combat, is that they pick their fights. Another take on it, is that a thief never steals from their own neighbourhood.
Don't attack the innocent guy when you know it means the rest of the party will turn against you. Don't steal from your own party if you want to keep working with them.
If your player doesn't understand that, then the chances are they shouldn't be playing an evil character.
As long as it's not disruptive (EG 'chaotic stupid') then why not? All PCs need a reason to be together as a group anyway, an evil character is no different.
As the local representative of villains, theoretical and otherwise, I am here to say that evil characters are not bad.
However...
The vast majority of campaigns are designed with good characters in mind, and DMs typically have less experience on how to manage evil characters. Also, many players believe that 'being evil' means 'doing whatever you like'.
What this means is, you're left with characters with little to no motivation to follow the campaign, who puts the party into situations the DM may struggle with/break the DM's story, and does stupid things - like stab that innocent peasant for 5 copper, right in front of the lawful good paladin you're supposedly working with.
Parties can work with mixed alignments, but only if the party has sufficient reason to work together, and the evil character's player is aware of consequences. Evil groups can work well, although it helps to have an anchor to stop them turning on one another. Lawful evil alignments makes this easier, with characters accepting order/structure, as does loyalty to an 'evil' ideal, as opposed to something like material gain or power for the sake of power.
Why does an evil character journey with good/neutral characters? A solid reasoning for this is key. Maybe they think there's treasure, power, or revenge to be gained by aiding them. Perhaps defeating the evil warlord will leave a nice vacancy. Perhaps they don't have a profession they can fall back on outside of fighting/adventuring, and have no substantial family/friends outside of the party - they're there for the ride, but may cut a few corners along the way if they can get away with it. Either way, it's not in their interest to break up with/leave the party.
Evil characters can be amazing, but they definitely require the right player, DM, and campaign. It's also worth remembering there are different levels of 'evil'. Not every 'evil' person is a psychopathic murder machine. 'Pure evil' is an extreme concept, and most 'evil' characters are still likely to have some redeeming characteristics - just like good characters have flaws.
At the end of the day, almost no character thinks that they are evil - mostly, an evil character thinks that they're actually doing good. Their idea of morality may differ, or perhaps they don't even believe in morality, but it's usually pointless to be evil for the sake of being evil.
The reason evil characters can usually exist in a world full of different alignments, is because they can restrain themselves. Even the chaotic ones. Orcs embody chaotic evil, and they're pretty stupid, but they are not stupid evil. Mike Mearls spoke about them recently, and that one of the reasons they survive rather than dying in constant combat, is that they pick their fights. Another take on it, is that a thief never steals from their own neighbourhood.
Don't attack the innocent guy when you know it means the rest of the party will turn against you. Don't steal from your own party if you want to keep working with them.
If your player doesn't understand that, then the chances are they shouldn't be playing an evil character.
So many good points that I can only agree and say: It comes down to perspective. Evil characters may know their actions aren't the greatest, but they don't see a reason to stop (i.e. enough consequence, more rewards, morality code, etc.).
A lot of times, the road to being a BBEG is paved with good intentions. There's a archetype out there of the dark, brutal knight taking care of someone weak and innocent. They may slaughter and pillage just for the sake of finding something that eases the other's burden.
I remember playing Bladur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast years ago and two of the earliest companions were a wizard (LE) and rogue (NE). They claimed to be on a mission and needed help to meet a friend in the south. Turns out, that friend was a priestess, and meeting her meant giving her a few more breathing holes. The whole time travelling, the rogue is grumbly with veiled threats ("Sleep lightly, taskmaster" when told to move) while the wizard is borderline psychopathic and stops the player to express his impatience if they are not moving fast enough. Excellent examples of conforming out of necessity: they needed some extra muscle, so they play nice until the deed is done.
Allegorical story: I had a necromancer (mentioned earlier in this thread) who was being a generally overt bad guy. He wasn't slaughtering innocents for fun, but if he saw a direct solution with no consequence, he was the first to jump at it and never look back. He was ambushed with 2 others in a house by vampires (very outmatched) and needed an escape. He threw down Color Spray, blinding half the vampires and his allies, grabbed the friendly collars, then bolted out the door. They weren't happy (in-character), but he looked them in their blind faces and said, "Next time, I'll let them kill you and come back later to make new minions from your husks."
Later, my little necro took a jaunt to the plane of his deity, Nerull. The DM gave me a secret mission from the God of Death and Undeath to kill a party member. We had 3 NPCs, but I was told they wouldn't be favored as much if chosen. Random roll picked the barbarian PC as the target, but killing her would've been too obvious and the group would attack me. It became a fun cat-and-mouse game of following the barbarian, trying to find a way to make it look like an accident. No worries about player fun or feelings, the DM had a contingency if I succeeded. In the end, we came across a trap painting that permanently caught whoever touched it and swapped them for the person currently in the painting. The paladin got trapped and, being the evil necro, I shamelessly said, "Throw in (NPC X)" to everyone's dismay. I pressed the issue and the Barbarian (ironically, since she was my secret target) volun-told my necro and shoved me into the painting. Bad guy becomes the martyr, good girl becomes the opportunistic villain, and good times for all!!
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 voted situationally. The reason for that is, many players can't handle playing an evil character. Being evil, do many players, is a license to be a jerk. I don't need to sit at a table with someone who's going to be a jerk. Period. Why would my character be adventuring with this guy? In a meta sense, the reason is because we're trying to play a game, and everyone gets to choose what the want to be. My character doesn't get to put out an ad, and join up with folks who fit his personality best. So, when making a character, don't make a character that's a jerk.
My current party at one time had a chaos sorc that was sort of a problem. Why the heck would my character adventure with a magic user, that can and did, accidentally hit me with spells? Ooops. It wasn't very funny. As a veteran, the question I asked myself is why would my character knowingly risk his life with someone just as likely to drop a grenade on me as the enemy. If I would not do it, I can't justify my character doing it. Same thing with evil party members. If I caught my buddy stealing from me, he'd be an ex-buddy with a quickness. My character would not hang out with such a person either, without a darned good reason. There has to be some level of trust between characters. To be blunt and frank, most people drawn to evil characters are teenage edgelords, looking to have an excuse to be jerks, and hide behind their 'alignment' saying that's what my character would do.
That said, a properly played evil character can be a valuable and fun addition to the party, providing the player has enough maturity to honor the social contract with the rest of the group. A character who is selfish, and advances his own agenda could be evil. That doesn't mean he needs to be a jerk to the party, he can still be trustworthy and reliable to his party mates while advancing his own ends. He could be cold and callous, and like, nope not going to rescue that farmer's daughter. Too much risk to me, too little reward for me.
I can sign up for playing with a character like that. I can't sign up for one going to screw me over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'll never understand why people want to play evil characters. Then again, I don't understand the attraction of games like Grand Theft Auto either. I want to be the hero, not the villain. The interest people have in doing immoral things just because there are no consequences is, I think, disturbing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
The biggest issue I've run into when I end up in a group with someone who decides they want to be 'evil' and the DM allows it is that they are somehow surprised when the party wants to kick the daylights out of them and/or kill them for whatever bad things they pull.
People who play evil characters seem to often have this idea that it should be without consequence, the same way people who play rogues think they are sneaky and clever. Neither thing is true.
As someone else said earlier, evil is evil.
I'd say play whatever alignment you want, but don't be surprised when the rest of the party has zero time for the shenanigans and ends you if you're evil.
Have we not heard of Richard from Looking for Group? He serves as the extreme-polar end of the morality spectrum in a group with already-questionable morals. Under the context of their known histories, the band of thugs in the comic all seem relatively mild. However, they are hunted by a kingdom that likely sees them as the epitome of evil and has convinced the nation of the same.
Morality is based largely on perspective. Some people seen as "evil" could very easily be just trying to carve out a living or provide for someone else in the only way they know how or are able to.
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
Morality is based largely on perspective. Some people seen as "evil" could very easily be just trying to carve out a living or provide for someone else in the only way they know how or are able to.
"From my perspective, the Jedi are evil" - Anakin Skywalker
(I couldn't resist)
Anyway, Barlow has it right on perspective. The rebellion are traitors to the order/empire. The band of thieves in Sherwood forest must be put down. Those rabble rousing colonist should be taught a lesson by our Redcoats. Moral Relativism is a real dynamic in the world, on many topics today.
We perspectives differently, because we (usually) identify with one them. A great villain is great because they don't believe they are a villain. A great evil pc is...well; not fun for anyone who isn't going down that path at the same time, but that is because they are on opposite sides of some relativism. Raistlin in Dragonlance. Fun to read; but do I want to PLAY with Raistlin? No, because that isn't the side relativism I appreciate.
Having players split across the sides eventually exposes itself as a of a common purpose, or common ground. It is why some of us have horrible memories of the one evil guy in the party; it doesn't fit, and it is usually only satisfying for one player and perhaps the dm. I dislike the evil pc because it breaks the gamer group dynamics, to an us vs. you and sometimes, the group asking the dm to save them. I'd rather set good folks on similar but different goals/objectives to have them work through as RP challenges, or races to the end, or force them through moral quandaries. Just as difficult, without a win lose between the players.
Now playing a group of ALL evil characters is a different case; everyone likes cutting loose, but "These violent delights, have violent ends." They are the ones building the dungeons, hunted by the paladins, denounced by the priests, with underlings/apprentices trying to take over from their lord/master/whatever. If the players are willing to put up with each other in fun; that case can be a great experience.
One approach to managing an "evil" campaign is this; a common belief in righteousness denied, that they could do it better if only people would shut up, listen and do what I say. Where the ends justify the means. Think Loghain Mac Tir, and his supporters in Dragon Age.
Bottom line; it CAN work; but without something binding it all together, it usually doesn't. When it does, it's a blast.
Ehhh... you really can't bring in moral greys and perspectives into D&D. Good and Evil are objective forces in this game, with a description of what said good and evil actually entails and the occasional magic item / power that can confirm such.
And, really, when all is said and done, it doesn't even matter if someone thinks they're good, but really not. The PLAYER knows that they're making an anti-social, selfish type, and that's what matters here. Its a deliberate choice. Creating characters that cause conflict is playable in some groups, and not in others.
To me the moral objectivism in D&D is bug not a feature. I thought 4th Ed did a great thing by stripping out most of the the moral objectivism, although a massive amount of the player base was very upset.
It's the reason I despise the Star Wars universe. It makes some great movies, but it's not a compelling world when everyone is white hat vs black hats. I love when my players have finished killing off all the goblins, the last room is the goblin nursery. What does a party do when they realize that there is a room full of goblin children and unarmed care takers. There is no one left to defend the remains of the shattered tribe. Do they realize they are the monsters too (Last Man on Earth, style)? mercy kill them? Do they leave them to starve?
I find moral objectivism for Outer Planers to be OK. These are immortal creatures: fae, angels, demon, devils. Their alignment IS who they are. I think it's insane to say that mortal creatures should subscribe to it. It's no more real then the myers briggs test. It's good for giving a general guideline of how you want your character to play, but wouldn't and shouldn't bind every last decision. If your character is Lawful Evil she mostly believes that might makes right, but laws and heirachy is important. That doesn't mean that she won't protect those who can't protect themselves... That is part of the law and heirachy they want to enforce... but they have to pay taxes for that protection.
To me, I love playing evil characters. That said most people would never notice my characters are evil, because they are no mustache twirling, tying elf maidens to train tracks, evil. They also are NOT psychopathics that murder people for fun. They only kill for profit or if you made it personal.
Their ultimate goal is to gain more power, live a long life, and get rich. That is why they adventure. They do it so they never have to be dirt-farmers. They do it because they want freedom and have answer to as few people as possible. That said they are loyal to their friends and never betray the party. The party is their "family" and you protect your family. They might do random acts of kindness and "good" because they like the celebrity status.
To me the moral objectivism in D&D is bug not a feature. ...
It's the reason I despise the Star Wars universe. It makes some great movies, but it's not a compelling world when everyone is white hat vs black hats. I love when my players have finished killing off all the goblins, the last room is the goblin nursery. What does a party do when they realize that there is a room full of goblin children and unarmed care takers. There is no one left to defend the remains of the shattered tribe. Do they realize they are the monsters too (Last Man on Earth, style)? mercy kill them? Do they leave them to starve?
How does the alignment system in D&D get in the way of the scenario you describe? Unless you're a celestial or a fiend - which player races never are - alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. If their actions are consistently at odds with the label on their character sheet, you change the label on their character sheet and move on.
Because time and time I see DMs taking about how players most always subscribe to thier "alignment" without regards to there being exceptions based on circumstances.
Read through the DM only section of the forum and a lot of posts are about "A player did a thing I think it's out of alignment."
There is a difference between don't a thing and doing lots of things, that's the difference between it being proscribed out described.
Because time and time I see DMs taking about how players most always subscribe to thier "alignment" without regards to there being exceptions based on circumstances.
Read through the DM only section of the forum and a lot of posts are about "A player did a thing I think it's out of alignment."
Ok, but so what? I see questions about Paladin Oaths year after year too. That's not a bug.
The alignment chart and moral objectivity are kind of sacred cows. While there are those of us who don't like it, and feel its an outdated model that caries a lot of flaws, issues, and kind of problematic stances, its something that surveys showed as being wanted by the general fan base (at least those who participated in the survey).
I don't really think we can call it a bug, per say, because its inclusion is very deliberate. But we can definitely call it troublesome and problematic. Honestly, despite being part of the setting, I tend to ignore it when I run and focus more on the ideas/flaws/bonds as well as what gods you follow, or what factions you take part in. I'm not really sure what it adds to the game, and it seems to cause more arguments than anything.
Ehhh... you really can't bring in moral greys and perspectives into D&D. Good and Evil are objective forces in this game, with a description of what said good and evil actually entails and the occasional magic item / power that can confirm such.
And, really, when all is said and done, it doesn't even matter if someone thinks they're good, but really not. The PLAYER knows that they're making an anti-social, selfish type, and that's what matters here. Its a deliberate choice. Creating characters that cause conflict is playable in some groups, and not in others.
I'm not sure how moral gray areas can't be included. In an example mentioned above, what if the party is crusading against goblins (good), but then discovers the children and defenseless goblins trapped in the cave, now left without families or protectors (evil)?
In a classic superhero example, the villain - who is a known manipulator and deceiver - is beaten and about to be killed. They have a personal/existential revelation and plea for mercy. Considering their past, the hero kills the villain, thinking it's a ruse.
War and Trickery clerics and along with Conquest paladins are especially subject to amiguity. A Trickery cleric is something of a holy rogue. War and conquest are, by nature, extremely subjective based on what side your fighting for.
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
A similar situtation happened to me. I was playing a Neutral character. We're in Tomb of Annihilation, we picked up Tabin a gladiator. After we beat him in combat he asked to join us, we explained to him what our quest is and he asked to join us. We load up two canoes with supplies and 'sail' down the river. During our first real fight we wake up to 16 skeletons. I get a high initiative and cast Shield of Faith on Tabin to protect him in combat. Once his iniative comes up he screams "Undead! Oh NO!" and runs away... wasting my spell slot. Luckily our Cleric Turns the Undead and we mop up the 4 skeletons not turned in 2 rounds and quickly head after Tabin.
We find him on the river. He has stolen one of our canoes, with HALF our supplies. Luckily our Warlock had Grasp of Hadar and pulled him out of the canoe. He started calling for help, because he couldn't swim. I was going to finish him off from range, this then started an argument within the party and the GM.
The GM was saying I can't do that because I'm not evil. The party was split 50/50 on the ethics of the action. I pointed out: 1) He is a coward and deserted a battlefrield. An executable offense in many places. 2) He stolen our canoe, which is worth the same as a horse. An executable offense in many places. 3) He stole half our supplies and left us to die in the jungle of Chult. That makes him a bandit and an excutable offense in many places. D&D Also has medival justice system, not a modern one.
The party ended up abandoning him in the jungles of Chult with a few days of food. No insecet repellent. I still maintain killing him was the most humane course of action. He tried to rob us and left us to die, that's a lethal action and I respnded with lethal force. Is that an "evil action" and does that make me "evil now"? Because I was protecting my life and property? The GM was being proscriptive about what alignment means to my actions.
Ehhh... you really can't bring in moral greys and perspectives into D&D. Good and Evil are objective forces in this game, with a description of what said good and evil actually entails and the occasional magic item / power that can confirm such.
And, really, when all is said and done, it doesn't even matter if someone thinks they're good, but really not. The PLAYER knows that they're making an anti-social, selfish type, and that's what matters here. Its a deliberate choice. Creating characters that cause conflict is playable in some groups, and not in others.
I'm not sure how moral gray areas can't be included. In an example mentioned above, what if the party is crusading against goblins (good), but then discovers the children and defenseless goblins trapped in the cave, now left without families or protectors (evil)?
In a classic superhero example, the villain - who is a known manipulator and deceiver - is beaten and about to be killed. They have a personal/existential revelation and plea for mercy. Considering their past, the hero kills the villain, thinking it's a ruse.
War and Trickery clerics and along with Conquest paladins are especially subject to amiguity. A Trickery cleric is something of a holy rogue. War and conquest are, by nature, extremely subjective based on what side your fighting for.
The question is do you punish the Paladin because she decides she can't take the chance the villain is lying and this is all a ruse to save their own lives? Is the blood of every man, woman, and child which The Joker kills on the hands of Batman?
I'm not sure how moral gray areas can't be included. In an example mentioned above, what if the party is crusading against goblins (good), but then discovers the children and defenseless goblins trapped in the cave, now left without families or protectors (evil)?
In a classic superhero example, the villain - who is a known manipulator and deceiver - is beaten and about to be killed. They have a personal/existential revelation and plea for mercy. Considering their past, the hero kills the villain, thinking it's a ruse.
War and Trickery clerics and along with Conquest paladins are especially subject to amiguity. A Trickery cleric is something of a holy rogue. War and conquest are, by nature, extremely subjective based on what side your fighting for.
Because we're talking about playing an evil / chaotic / criminal PC. This isn't a "you're a good PC faced with a dilemma!" question. This is a "I'm playing a character that's causing intra-party conflict" question. Your scenario isn't even relevant to the question at hand. You compare this to superheroes facing off villains, when the more appropriate scenario is a group of superheroes with a villain working alongside them!
There's really not a lot of ambiguity even with War or Trickery clerics, nor Conquest paladins. Especially not if the clerics are sworn to non-Good dieties; a cleric of Tempus doesn't care about questions of Good and Evil in the first place! They follow the god of battle, and no matter if they're Goodly or Evil, they all end up in the same place. Waukeen welcomes both honest traders and pirates as her followers, and makes no distinction between them in favor, either in this life or the next. There's a difference between ambiguity and just not caring, and these definitely fall in the latter. Now, a Trickery cleric of Sharess, the goddess of pleasure? She's definitely got ideas on what's good, and it usually involves bringing pleasure to people, and joy to those in sadness. Conquest paladins are definitely LN / LE types in the first place, as per the writers. They don't really strive to do Good in the first place, but more generally to keep things Lawful. The point of a Conquest paladin is to let people play a darker character archetype, after all.
And, if you absolutely must address the scenario, then we establish that goblins aren't an evil-by-nature race in 5th edition, its their culture of slavery under Maglubiyet. The "Good" thing in this case, as suggested by the portfolio of established Goodly dieties, is to bring them out Maglubiyet's culture and have them raised into a different one. Which, ironically, most goblin parents would actually appreciate - most dream of escaping Maglubiyet's rule, but don't know how to. Lawful Neutral tends to be the area we get into gods that support mercy-killing or abandoning them. Using the above Trickery gods for example? Waukeen would likely advocate abandoning or enslaving the goblin kids (she's a goddess of trade, not charity!) while Sharess advocates bringing the children happiness in some way, not propagate more sorrow. And before someone says it, mercy killing is not a mercy, as goblins consider their afterlife to be torture.
Now, where the conflict comes in is when we have people asking if we should follow the dogma of someone more likely to enslave said goblins, or if we're more leaning towards Good gods, and should look to Tymora over Waukeen. There's no question for a majority of questions if something is Good, Neutral or Evil. That said, it should not be assumed that all characters are Good, or care about being Good, and you can have conflict based on which path is better or more appealing for any given group or individual.
I will absolutely give that there are moral universals that are ubiquitously "evil" (killing, theft, ****, etc.), but what happens when a character such as this falls into your party? What happens if two come in and they start corroborating? Sometimes the players need the help of a known "bad guy" while other times the devil comes with nice words and a white flag.
My only assertion is that universally categorizing everyone and saying "No one can be Evil at all. We are the Good/Goodish guys here to save the world," pigeon-holes everyone into playing the exact same campaign with re-skinned adventurers hundreds of times over. Do people need to push an evil button for release once in a while? No, because then we run into The Purge implying everyone has a psycho-itch to scratch and even genuinely good people want to be bloodthirsty killers once in a while.
What I'm getting at, plain and simple, and has been stated here already, is that sometimes good people have bad people in their midst for the common goal. Sometimes, those bad people are really good people looking for a different benefit from the goal. Other times, there is a genuinely bad person who hits a roadblock and needs the goal as well.
Since the conversation is also out there, what happens if a follower of a Good deity goes rogue based on perceptions? If a cleric of Sharess believes that prostitution abides by their deity's trachings, then a temple doubles as a brothel. Good intentions led a bit astray. Are they still "Good" if they believe themselves to be or their actions helps some and hurt others?
And as for the scenario of goblin-killing and orphans, the argument still stands and the scenario has the same moral quandry in reverse. You have killed numerous goblins and sent them to an eternity of torture, but now have a crop you can take under your wing. Now what if we replace them with any other canonically evil race: orcs, gnolls, lizardmen, troglodytes, etc. Sure, an evil character likely manipulated the good guys and it's tike for some justified revenge. However, how will the next town react when the propaganda mill spins out that they are the murderers that slaughtered helpless women, children, and non-combatants?
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why is evil bad?
Because, it's evil...
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
As the local representative of villains, theoretical and otherwise, I am here to say that evil characters are not bad.
However...
The vast majority of campaigns are designed with good characters in mind, and DMs typically have less experience on how to manage evil characters. Also, many players believe that 'being evil' means 'doing whatever you like'.
What this means is, you're left with characters with little to no motivation to follow the campaign, who puts the party into situations the DM may struggle with/break the DM's story, and does stupid things - like stab that innocent peasant for 5 copper, right in front of the lawful good paladin you're supposedly working with.
Parties can work with mixed alignments, but only if the party has sufficient reason to work together, and the evil character's player is aware of consequences. Evil groups can work well, although it helps to have an anchor to stop them turning on one another. Lawful evil alignments makes this easier, with characters accepting order/structure, as does loyalty to an 'evil' ideal, as opposed to something like material gain or power for the sake of power.
Why does an evil character journey with good/neutral characters? A solid reasoning for this is key. Maybe they think there's treasure, power, or revenge to be gained by aiding them. Perhaps defeating the evil warlord will leave a nice vacancy. Perhaps they don't have a profession they can fall back on outside of fighting/adventuring, and have no substantial family/friends outside of the party - they're there for the ride, but may cut a few corners along the way if they can get away with it. Either way, it's not in their interest to break up with/leave the party.
Evil characters can be amazing, but they definitely require the right player, DM, and campaign. It's also worth remembering there are different levels of 'evil'. Not every 'evil' person is a psychopathic murder machine. 'Pure evil' is an extreme concept, and most 'evil' characters are still likely to have some redeeming characteristics - just like good characters have flaws.
At the end of the day, almost no character thinks that they are evil - mostly, an evil character thinks that they're actually doing good. Their idea of morality may differ, or perhaps they don't even believe in morality, but it's usually pointless to be evil for the sake of being evil.
The reason evil characters can usually exist in a world full of different alignments, is because they can restrain themselves. Even the chaotic ones. Orcs embody chaotic evil, and they're pretty stupid, but they are not stupid evil. Mike Mearls spoke about them recently, and that one of the reasons they survive rather than dying in constant combat, is that they pick their fights. Another take on it, is that a thief never steals from their own neighbourhood.
Don't attack the innocent guy when you know it means the rest of the party will turn against you. Don't steal from your own party if you want to keep working with them.
If your player doesn't understand that, then the chances are they shouldn't be playing an evil character.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
As long as it's not disruptive (EG 'chaotic stupid') then why not? All PCs need a reason to be together as a group anyway, an evil character is no different.
Southampton Guild of Roleplayers
My YouTube (C&C Welcome!)
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 voted situationally. The reason for that is, many players can't handle playing an evil character. Being evil, do many players, is a license to be a jerk. I don't need to sit at a table with someone who's going to be a jerk. Period. Why would my character be adventuring with this guy? In a meta sense, the reason is because we're trying to play a game, and everyone gets to choose what the want to be. My character doesn't get to put out an ad, and join up with folks who fit his personality best. So, when making a character, don't make a character that's a jerk.
My current party at one time had a chaos sorc that was sort of a problem. Why the heck would my character adventure with a magic user, that can and did, accidentally hit me with spells? Ooops. It wasn't very funny. As a veteran, the question I asked myself is why would my character knowingly risk his life with someone just as likely to drop a grenade on me as the enemy. If I would not do it, I can't justify my character doing it. Same thing with evil party members. If I caught my buddy stealing from me, he'd be an ex-buddy with a quickness. My character would not hang out with such a person either, without a darned good reason. There has to be some level of trust between characters. To be blunt and frank, most people drawn to evil characters are teenage edgelords, looking to have an excuse to be jerks, and hide behind their 'alignment' saying that's what my character would do.
That said, a properly played evil character can be a valuable and fun addition to the party, providing the player has enough maturity to honor the social contract with the rest of the group. A character who is selfish, and advances his own agenda could be evil. That doesn't mean he needs to be a jerk to the party, he can still be trustworthy and reliable to his party mates while advancing his own ends. He could be cold and callous, and like, nope not going to rescue that farmer's daughter. Too much risk to me, too little reward for me.
I can sign up for playing with a character like that. I can't sign up for one going to screw me over.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I'll never understand why people want to play evil characters. Then again, I don't understand the attraction of games like Grand Theft Auto either. I want to be the hero, not the villain. The interest people have in doing immoral things just because there are no consequences is, I think, disturbing.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
The biggest issue I've run into when I end up in a group with someone who decides they want to be 'evil' and the DM allows it is that they are somehow surprised when the party wants to kick the daylights out of them and/or kill them for whatever bad things they pull.
People who play evil characters seem to often have this idea that it should be without consequence, the same way people who play rogues think they are sneaky and clever. Neither thing is true.
As someone else said earlier, evil is evil.
I'd say play whatever alignment you want, but don't be surprised when the rest of the party has zero time for the shenanigans and ends you if you're evil.
*avatar by @ZomgDae on Twitter*
Have we not heard of Richard from Looking for Group? He serves as the extreme-polar end of the morality spectrum in a group with already-questionable morals. Under the context of their known histories, the band of thugs in the comic all seem relatively mild. However, they are hunted by a kingdom that likely sees them as the epitome of evil and has convinced the nation of the same.
Morality is based largely on perspective. Some people seen as "evil" could very easily be just trying to carve out a living or provide for someone else in the only way they know how or are able to.
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
Ehhh... you really can't bring in moral greys and perspectives into D&D. Good and Evil are objective forces in this game, with a description of what said good and evil actually entails and the occasional magic item / power that can confirm such.
And, really, when all is said and done, it doesn't even matter if someone thinks they're good, but really not. The PLAYER knows that they're making an anti-social, selfish type, and that's what matters here. Its a deliberate choice. Creating characters that cause conflict is playable in some groups, and not in others.
To me the moral objectivism in D&D is bug not a feature.
I thought 4th Ed did a great thing by stripping out most of the the moral objectivism, although a massive amount of the player base was very upset.
It's the reason I despise the Star Wars universe. It makes some great movies, but it's not a compelling world when everyone is white hat vs black hats.
I love when my players have finished killing off all the goblins, the last room is the goblin nursery. What does a party do when they realize that there is a room full of goblin children and unarmed care takers. There is no one left to defend the remains of the shattered tribe. Do they realize they are the monsters too (Last Man on Earth, style)? mercy kill them? Do they leave them to starve?
I find moral objectivism for Outer Planers to be OK. These are immortal creatures: fae, angels, demon, devils. Their alignment IS who they are. I think it's insane to say that mortal creatures should subscribe to it. It's no more real then the myers briggs test.
It's good for giving a general guideline of how you want your character to play, but wouldn't and shouldn't bind every last decision.
If your character is Lawful Evil she mostly believes that might makes right, but laws and heirachy is important. That doesn't mean that she won't protect those who can't protect themselves... That is part of the law and heirachy they want to enforce... but they have to pay taxes for that protection.
To me, I love playing evil characters. That said most people would never notice my characters are evil, because they are no mustache twirling, tying elf maidens to train tracks, evil. They also are NOT psychopathics that murder people for fun. They only kill for profit or if you made it personal.
Their ultimate goal is to gain more power, live a long life, and get rich. That is why they adventure. They do it so they never have to be dirt-farmers. They do it because they want freedom and have answer to as few people as possible.
That said they are loyal to their friends and never betray the party. The party is their "family" and you protect your family.
They might do random acts of kindness and "good" because they like the celebrity status.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Because time and time I see DMs taking about how players most always subscribe to thier "alignment" without regards to there being exceptions based on circumstances.
Read through the DM only section of the forum and a lot of posts are about "A player did a thing I think it's out of alignment."
There is a difference between don't a thing and doing lots of things, that's the difference between it being proscribed out described.
Ok, but so what? I see questions about Paladin Oaths year after year too. That's not a bug.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The alignment chart and moral objectivity are kind of sacred cows. While there are those of us who don't like it, and feel its an outdated model that caries a lot of flaws, issues, and kind of problematic stances, its something that surveys showed as being wanted by the general fan base (at least those who participated in the survey).
I don't really think we can call it a bug, per say, because its inclusion is very deliberate. But we can definitely call it troublesome and problematic. Honestly, despite being part of the setting, I tend to ignore it when I run and focus more on the ideas/flaws/bonds as well as what gods you follow, or what factions you take part in. I'm not really sure what it adds to the game, and it seems to cause more arguments than anything.
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
A similar situtation happened to me.
I was playing a Neutral character. We're in Tomb of Annihilation, we picked up Tabin a gladiator. After we beat him in combat he asked to join us, we explained to him what our quest is and he asked to join us.
We load up two canoes with supplies and 'sail' down the river.
During our first real fight we wake up to 16 skeletons. I get a high initiative and cast Shield of Faith on Tabin to protect him in combat. Once his iniative comes up he screams "Undead! Oh NO!" and runs away... wasting my spell slot.
Luckily our Cleric Turns the Undead and we mop up the 4 skeletons not turned in 2 rounds and quickly head after Tabin.
We find him on the river. He has stolen one of our canoes, with HALF our supplies. Luckily our Warlock had Grasp of Hadar and pulled him out of the canoe. He started calling for help, because he couldn't swim. I was going to finish him off from range, this then started an argument within the party and the GM.
The GM was saying I can't do that because I'm not evil. The party was split 50/50 on the ethics of the action.
I pointed out:
1) He is a coward and deserted a battlefrield. An executable offense in many places.
2) He stolen our canoe, which is worth the same as a horse. An executable offense in many places.
3) He stole half our supplies and left us to die in the jungle of Chult. That makes him a bandit and an excutable offense in many places.
D&D Also has medival justice system, not a modern one.
The party ended up abandoning him in the jungles of Chult with a few days of food. No insecet repellent. I still maintain killing him was the most humane course of action.
He tried to rob us and left us to die, that's a lethal action and I respnded with lethal force. Is that an "evil action" and does that make me "evil now"? Because I was protecting my life and property?
The GM was being proscriptive about what alignment means to my actions.
Is the blood of every man, woman, and child which The Joker kills on the hands of Batman?
I will absolutely give that there are moral universals that are ubiquitously "evil" (killing, theft, ****, etc.), but what happens when a character such as this falls into your party? What happens if two come in and they start corroborating? Sometimes the players need the help of a known "bad guy" while other times the devil comes with nice words and a white flag.
My only assertion is that universally categorizing everyone and saying "No one can be Evil at all. We are the Good/Goodish guys here to save the world," pigeon-holes everyone into playing the exact same campaign with re-skinned adventurers hundreds of times over. Do people need to push an evil button for release once in a while? No, because then we run into The Purge implying everyone has a psycho-itch to scratch and even genuinely good people want to be bloodthirsty killers once in a while.
What I'm getting at, plain and simple, and has been stated here already, is that sometimes good people have bad people in their midst for the common goal. Sometimes, those bad people are really good people looking for a different benefit from the goal. Other times, there is a genuinely bad person who hits a roadblock and needs the goal as well.
Since the conversation is also out there, what happens if a follower of a Good deity goes rogue based on perceptions? If a cleric of Sharess believes that prostitution abides by their deity's trachings, then a temple doubles as a brothel. Good intentions led a bit astray. Are they still "Good" if they believe themselves to be or their actions helps some and hurt others?
And as for the scenario of goblin-killing and orphans, the argument still stands and the scenario has the same moral quandry in reverse. You have killed numerous goblins and sent them to an eternity of torture, but now have a crop you can take under your wing. Now what if we replace them with any other canonically evil race: orcs, gnolls, lizardmen, troglodytes, etc. Sure, an evil character likely manipulated the good guys and it's tike for some justified revenge. However, how will the next town react when the propaganda mill spins out that they are the murderers that slaughtered helpless women, children, and non-combatants?
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