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?
The only evil race are the gnolls. Orcs actually have some rather goodly members thanks to their Mother-Goddess who is focused on protection of the home. Lizardfolk aren't even evil - they're neutral. Troglodytes have a simple society in the Underdark, one of the most vicious eat-or-be-eaten places in the Cosmology, and they're devoted entirely to gathering food. There's no telling what their culture would be like if you transported them to a land of plenty, so labeling them as universally evil is not quite true at this point. Yuan-ti are only evil because of their worship of evil snake gods; those who break away from the worship have been shown to be non-evil canonically - there's even an official novel to that effect. Drow... shouldn't need to even discuss that. Same with grey dwarves. Githyanki are trapped in a space where they can't learn or grow under the dominion of a lich-queen. Bullywolgs are victims of their corrupted medieval society. Kobolds have examples of non-evil members.
I could go on. As far as I know, save gnolls, there's no such thing as "evil races" only bad cultures.
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?
When we start parcelling out what is permissible CHARACTERBEHAVIOR and what isn't, I think, we lose sight of the role the character(s) play in the overall story arc. It's one thing to have a Table with mature adults who want to blend Lord of the Rings with Game of Thrones if for no other reason than medieval times were brutal. If that's the sort of campaign players want I suppose as long as no one is getting hurt and no one is getting triggered from real life experiences, then who am I to say what is and what isn't permissible? The issue I have as a DM is: Convince me that approaching a mistress of the flesh is worth more to you as a sensual fantasy than a long-term in-game NPC contact. We all have our fantasies. Certainly such a character has a place in the moral ambiguity that exists but for what end? Is such a character an ally or foe?
I'll tell you what though, I participate with an Adventurers League group fairly regularly. One of the characters is constantly getting drunk in game. It's annoying. But that's just me. I like a good clean game.
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?
The only evil race are the gnolls. Orcs actually have some rather goodly members thanks to their Mother-Goddess who is focused on protection of the home. Lizardfolk aren't even evil - they're neutral. Troglodytes have a simple society in the Underdark, one of the most vicious eat-or-be-eaten places in the Cosmology, and they're devoted entirely to gathering food. There's no telling what their culture would be like if you transported them to a land of plenty, so labeling them as universally evil is not quite true at this point. Yuan-ti are only evil because of their worship of evil snake gods; those who break away from the worship have been shown to be non-evil canonically - there's even an official novel to that effect. Drow... shouldn't need to even discuss that. Same with grey dwarves. Githyanki are trapped in a space where they can't learn or grow under the dominion of a lich-queen. Bullywolgs are victims of their corrupted medieval society. Kobolds have examples of non-evil members.
I could go on. As far as I know, save gnolls, there's no such thing as "evil races" only bad cultures.
A totally moot point for the scenario and entirely replaced by any other legitimate placeholder. You go into cave X to kill a band of evil Ys. When you get to the end, you realize you have been slaughtering the innocent defenders of a group just trying to get by like everyone else (whatever their means may be). Does this make the party "evil"? Maybe not necessarily, but perception is often reality and now the world may see them as murdering thugs instead of saviors.
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?
When we start parcelling out what is permissible CHARACTERBEHAVIOR and what isn't, I think, we lose sight of the role the character(s) play in the overall story arc. It's one thing to have a Table with mature adults who want to blend Lord of the Rings with Game of Thrones if for no other reason than medieval times were brutal. If that's the sort of campaign players want I suppose as long as no one is getting hurt and no one is getting triggered from real life experiences, then who am I to say what is and what isn't permissible? The issue I have as a DM is: Convince me that approaching a mistress of the flesh is worth more to you as a sensual fantasy than a long-term in-game NPC contact. We all have our fantasies. Certainly such a character has a place in the moral ambiguity that exists but for what end? Is such a character an ally or foe?
I'll tell you what though, I participate with an Adventurers League group fairly regularly. One of the characters is constantly getting drunk in game. It's annoying. But that's just me. I like a good clean game.
My example was not to say that we need sex and drugs to make the game appealing. I meant that if you have a Good character operating in the service of a Good patron, but the servant's views on morality or execution of duties become skewed, are the no longer Good despite their intentions? A mistress running a brothel to bring happiness, a bartender bringing an ocean of alcohol into a tavern of a downtrodden town, the rebels who stage a violent coup against an overlord which kills a few dozen innocents and neutral-minded guards. Are these people evil or at least "less-Good" for doing something that harms some or goes against typical morality in exchange for a higher ideal?
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
Moral relativism and alignments aside, I don’t allow evil characters until I know how well the player RPs a character. Too many players think playing an evil character means you can murder people in the open “because that’s what my character would do.” Playing an evil character in a civilized community requires subtlety and cleverness. If you’re going to murder the merchant who insulted you, at least do it in the dead of night when no one is looking. As a DM, having an evil character in a good group requires an extra level of commitment and planning on my part, so he or she had better be a good player and worth my extra effort.
Moral relativism and alignments aside, I don’t allow evil characters until I know how well the player RPs a character. Too many players think playing an evil character means you can murder people in the open “because that’s what my character would do.” Playing an evil character in a civilized community requires subtlety and cleverness. If you’re going to murder the merchant who insulted you, at least do it in the dead of night when no one is looking. As a DM, having an evil character in a good group requires an extra level of commitment and planning on my part, so he or she had better be a good player and worth my extra effort.
This is a good point. Not every player is going to view "evil" as selfish.
Moral relativism and alignments aside, I don’t allow evil characters until I know how well the player RPs a character. Too many players think playing an evil character means you can murder people in the open “because that’s what my character would do.” Playing an evil character in a civilized community requires subtlety and cleverness. If you’re going to murder the merchant who insulted you, at least do it in the dead of night when no one is looking. As a DM, having an evil character in a good group requires an extra level of commitment and planning on my part, so he or she had better be a good player and worth my extra effort.
This is a good point. Not every player is going to view "evil" as selfish.
This. There's a difference in being 'I'm a murderhobo and don't like elves so I attack the elf merchant' - that gets you very dead , very quickly and playing the long con.
Sympathetic villains are difficult, a character who blurs the line between accidental hero and anti-hero is more interesting than 'hurr durr kill the pesants'.
Also group cohesion, if 4/5 players are LG or NG and there's 1 CE assassin, unless the assassin plays it smart or has an excellent reason to be with this group (geas, overlapping goals, loved one is held hostage) they might as well be an NPC
I think IMHO I think everyone at least once play in a game with no alignments written on any characterseets, just leave it blank everyone at the table. Play the game and see what happens.
I think IMHO I think everyone at least once play in a game with no alignments written on any characterseets, just leave it blank everyone at the table. Play the game and see what happens.
This thread got me thinking something similar: What if alignment was only used to describe others? To some paladins, a Robin Hood-type would be considered a variant of evil, while others would see chaotic good.
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
Here's my 2cp. I've played in many campaigns with secret evil characters, I've played secret evil characters, I've played in all evil campaigns, I've played in openly mixed good and evil campaigns, and I've played a character who had long ago been abducted, and I was effectively playing the BBEG, posing as my character who was being tortured to death for information, for months at a time.
So obviously I can't in good conscience just say "evil characters are bad, mmkay?", it wouldn't jive with what I've done and the fact that some of those campaigns and characters (especially playing as the BBEG) were Really cool, and Really memorable.
However, here's the reality that you need to always keep in mind: All of the characters in a party need to Actually Want to be there, and to be associated with the folks around them. For evil characters, they have the easy side of it. Being associated with good guys gets them in to places they wouldn't otherwise get into, it deflects suspicion, it has many many advantages. For good characters playing with characters who perform openly evil acts, it's not true at all. There is no reason they would want to be associated with the murder hobos / kleptomaniacs / chaotic stupid agents of destruction / assassins / whatevers of the world. If the player thinks "my character wouldn't be here", they're likely not having fun, even if they don't say it. Eventually, their character would just leave. Perhaps they as a player will as well.
So here are my rules for when evil characters are ok, and when they're not:
- Evil characters are ok, if no one knows they're evil and they don't perform evil acts. Super Secret Evil Guys are effectively, from the standpoint of other characters, not actually evil, and what's written on their character sheet ultimately doesn't matter, especially in 5e.
- Evil characters are ok, if everyone is evil or neutral, and everyone is on board with running an evil campaign. There's no drama or strife or conflict there at that point. Well, there likely will be a LOT of drama and strife and conflict, they're all evil, but at least everyone knows what they're getting into at the start, and the expectations are properly landed.
- Evil characters are ok if they add more to the campaign than they detract from it, without hogging the spotlight or making the whole thing all about them.
- Evil characters are NOT ok if the actions they perform are to the detriment of the party, or are actively opposed to other players interests and alignment, to the point where logically and realistically one of the two would just leave the party rather than them continuing to adventure together.
- Evil characters are NOT ok if they are a means of showboating, and spotlight hogging, and hours or days of adventure time or worse real life time are Constantly devoted to bailing them out of jail or otherwise trying to gloss over the consequences of their actions, while no one else ever gets to do what they want to do
- Evil characters are NOT ok if, in short, they take away or detract from the fun of one or more players at the table, if their fun comes at the Expense of others instead of adding to it.
It's tough to know how mature a player is, how effectively they can roleplay an evil character without causing problems, and what their intent is at the start, and it's SO MUCH harder and more annoying to have to have the conversation with the evil character about how they need to change their ways or change characters while they're whinging constantly about "but you said it was OKAAYY...", so many tables just ban them up front. It's easier that way. There is a place for them, sure, and they CAN add something to the campaign, sometimes they can add a lot, but it is SO Easy for them instead to delight the DM and exactly 1 person at the table, while pissing off literally everyone else. It's a group game, the whole group needs to have fun, not just one person.
It depends on how they mesh with the party. If your party consists of Frodo Baggins, Captain America, and Aang, it's' a little weird for Darth Sidious to join. However, if your party is already pretty gray, an evil PC can work out. Also, murderhobos who slaughter everything are never fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For god's sake. Find a hobby or something. Sheesh. Please stop using this font.
I was debating seeing how a Hannibal Lecter/Johan (from Monster) character would play. It would be very difficult to RP, but a non-combat sociopath who delights in using his opponents vices to turn them against their allies or themselves. He/she could fit into any group as as an incredibly charismatic, non-aggressive figure. It would question morality as they would not have a concept of evil, likely focusing on punishing those who had a guilty conscious, and avoid personally inflicting harm on others. I think both the group and world dynamics could be extremely interesting.
Often this is the most conducive evil character for groups as they strive for a perceived "justice" (lawful tendencies), but their execution is greatly differing from what others would pursue. It leads to in-depth character interactions and discussions of right vs. wrong rather than someone simply butchering everyone they see.
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
Darth Sidious might join that party because he can manipulate Frodo, Cap, and Aang to do things that benefit Sidious' long game. Look how long he had Obi-wan mostly dancing to his tune. Being evil doesn't have to mean being a psychopathic murderer. The pyschopaths are generally the small scale ones. The truly evil, are willing to look fair, and play the long game.
- He'd have Frodo throw the ring into the fire (because Sidious can never rule while Sauron is around. That guy's gotta go)
- He'd manipulate Cap; Now that Sauron is gone, what's to stop Gandalf and Elrond from taking over. See how they used the hobbits and nearly got Frodo killed? All to put some guy named Aragorn on the throne? Awfully convenient that an "Heir of Isildur" shows after a few thousand years. Who's to say they are telling the truth? Aragorn has a lot to lose if he gets caught in the lie.
- To Aang: Servant of the secret fire? Wielder of the flame of Anor? Sounds like fire nation stuff to me. And I'll just BET he took down that Balrog. This is a huge setup, Gandalf is trying to sell us out. We cannot allow this to happen. Let me help you throw off the tyranny of the so called "wise"
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.
Darth Sidious might join that party because he can manipulate Frodo, Cap, and Aang to do things that benefit Sidious' long game. Look how long he had Obi-wan mostly dancing to his tune. Being evil doesn't have to mean being a psychopathic murderer. The pyschopaths are generally the small scale ones. The truly evil, are willing to look fair, and play the long game.
- He'd have Frodo throw the ring into the fire (because Sidious can never rule while Sauron is around. That guy's gotta go)
- He'd manipulate Cap; Now that Sauron is gone, what's to stop Gandalf and Elrond from taking over. See how they used the hobbits and nearly got Frodo killed? All to put some guy named Aragorn on the throne? Awfully convenient that an "Heir of Isildur" shows after a few thousand years. Who's to say they are telling the truth? Aragorn has a lot to lose if he gets caught in the lie.
- To Aang: Servant of the secret fire? Wielder of the flame of Anor? Sounds like fire nation stuff to me. And I'll just BET he took down that Balrog. This is a huge setup, Gandalf is trying to sell us out. We cannot allow this to happen. Let me help you throw off the tyranny of the so called "wise"
You're looking at this backwards. It's not "why would the evil person be in the party". That's always the easy (and selfish) question. It's "why would the others tolerate his presence". Once the game is afoot, there are two possibilities: 1) They trust and go with him, turn against all the goodly folk of the world, and you're playing an evil campaign, even if the players don't know it (which those can be fun); or 2) They figure out his game, and then...? Why would you keep around someone who was actively trying to manipulate you into turning on your allies?
As I said before, everyone in the group needs to want the group to continue for a group game to work. Everyone needs to be having fun. In that situation Darth Sidious is forcing all of the other players to ignore their instincts and personal sense of morality, and is unilaterally dictating the future of the group and their morality, or else forcing a situation where the players would logically not continue with him, and he should not actually be allowed to continue with their party. The evil player may be having fun, as might the DM, but the evil player is also being selfish and putting their fun above the fun of literally everyone else in the group.
Because the villian is doing a good job of hiding his evil tendencies.
In the case above, Darth Sidious is manipulating the people in the party. Their sense of morality is not triggered if the evil character is played well enough. Nothing is being forced. Anakin started off a good guy, if a bit whiny, but Sidious was able to manipulate him. Even obi-wan sensed nothing, nor did Yoda. Evil doesn't have to ruin things for other people; most people simply are not mature enough to play evil without ruining it for others.
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.
Because the villian is doing a good job of hiding his evil tendencies.
In the case above, Darth Sidious is manipulating the people in the party. Their sense of morality is not triggered if the evil character is played well enough. Nothing is being forced. Anakin started off a good guy, if a bit whiny, but Sidious was able to manipulate him. Even obi-wan sensed nothing, nor did Yoda. Evil doesn't have to ruin things for other people; most people simply are not mature enough to play evil without ruining it for others.
Right, but is he REALLY doing a good job of hiding his evil tendencies? Is he REALLY manipulating the people in the party? Or are they eye rolling his feeble attempts and ignoring their sense of morality because again, the alternative is to break up the group and kick him out of the party? Obi-Wan sensed nothing, nor did Yoda, because it was convenient for the plot and it is a story being told. Your players are FAR more likely to sense something being wrong, people are rarely as dumb as evil characters think they are. Evil doesn't *have* to ruin things for other people, it's just that it very often does. You're effectively playing with an ultimatum over their heads at all times with such a character attempting to actively manipulate the other characters into performing evil actions and acting against their own best interest: "Ignore my clumsy attempts at manipulation and go along with this or else I quit and ruin the campaign". Even if that's not the way it would go down if they called you out on it, how are they supposed to expect anything else? What indication have you given that it's ok for them to notice you being blatantly evil and kick you out of the party? How much maturity are you expecting out of them? Even if the other players don't say anything, and you think "oh this is so cool, this really worked, this is awesome!", it's very likely not because they actually didn't notice anything, but because they felt they Couldn't say anything, and all the time you're cackling gleefully over how clever and awesome you are, their enjoyment is being sapped because they are being forced into things they don't want to do by this ultimatum they feel they have over their head, and aren't having fun at all.
Seriously, I'm not describing all evil characters or all campaigns. But I AM describing the "darth sidious" character you described. One who actively attempts to manipulate good characters into performing evil acts or acting against their own self interest as a scheming mastermind type. Put yourself in a good character's shoes for a moment, and assume they DO recognize the manipulation attempts. What would you do? What options would you consider to be satisfactory? What would you consider to be a good, in character way to proceed, which doesn't trash the campaign? Do you recognize what an inherent bind you've been put in by the selfish evil character?
You don't seem to realize you're actually doing exactly what you're describing in your post.
You're forcing your assumed view of the players opinions on the situation, and forcing your assumed view of how they feel/react to it.
How do you know that 'No one else is having fun'? Not everyone reacts the exact same way to the same situation. Perhaps they are like "hmm, i as a player know this guy is up to shit, perhaps my guy can find it out and ultimately thwart it by playing along to find out his grand scheme, and toss in a monkey wrench at the perfect moment"
Sometimes there is also suspension of suspicions for the sake of interactions. I've played the evil, hands-wringing, maniacally-laughing bad guy before who doesn't do anything (overtly) more harmful than a cartoon baddie. Other players know full-well there is some larger scheme going on, but their characters aren't that savy because they are working through a different perspective lens. They keep a close eye on the shady guy in their midst, which puts the evil character in check, then the evil character gets creative and finds ways to work their angles without drawing too much attention. Lawful and Neutral evil are the easiest to play this with as they tend to see the benefit in cooperation for the long play. Chaotic evil is tricky to play without simply coming off like some hired muscle.
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've already covered this. If they are having fun, great! I've made multiple posts indicating evil characters CAN be fine. The question I posed to crzyhwk applies to you as well. What if they aren't? You also propose them going along with it and having fun while doing so? What if they don't want to go along with it? What in character option do they have, which doesn't risk destroying the campaign, which is NOT playing along with it?
Can you see how Even If they're otherwise amenable, the fact they are constrained to a single course of actions and are having their decisions made for them by another player because they feel they can't NOT go along with it would be problematic, and potentially sap the fun of the campaign away from them?
Again- I'm NOT saying "evil characters are bad, mmmkay?", at all. And if the other players are into it, it's impossible to go wrong. We had a TON of fun in our all evil character campaign, for example. It's also Possible that a character would have fun being "manipulated" by another player, though in my experience it's the rare person who enjoys having their decisions made for them, who nonetheless chooses to play a role playing game. What I'm saying is, trying to manipulate the other players as an evil character is one of the riskiest actions which is the most likely to sap their fun and constrains their ability to say or do anything and railroads them into the choices of 'eliminate the evil character from the group' or 'go along with whatever the evil guy wants to do'.
When the evil character is just manipulating people Not in the party, stealing things when no one is looking (not even other party members), sneaking off at night to blackmail, or murder their opponents, or whatever else, it's a LOT easier for the players to look the other way, and ignore the 'convenient mysterious circumstances' surrounding obstacles dropping out of their way, or the bonus income their group seems to have, or whatever else. After all, even if they suspect one of their party members has a different idea of morality than they do, they've never done anything bad *to them*. "He's always been nice to me" can be a shield for a LOT of stuff. If instead the evil character is actively attempting to manipulate them, that's right out the window. Do you see why that could be a problem?
Again, not impossible that the other players are into this, and are ok with this. Far more likely they are if you talk to them out of game so they get to feel like co-participants in a story with a larger theme instead of people being forced into the role of 'unwitting rube' or 'person pretending to be an unwitting rube', or else they break up the party, but not impossible. But what if they're not ok with it? What are they supposed to do? What options do you have for them, that aren't 'kick the evil character out of the party' or 'go along with it'?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Nevermind. Agree to disagree, this is way too off topic.
Moral relativism and alignments aside, I don’t allow evil characters until I know how well the player RPs a character. Too many players think playing an evil character means you can murder people in the open “because that’s what my character would do.” Playing an evil character in a civilized community requires subtlety and cleverness. If you’re going to murder the merchant who insulted you, at least do it in the dead of night when no one is looking. As a DM, having an evil character in a good group requires an extra level of commitment and planning on my part, so he or she had better be a good player and worth my extra effort.
Southampton Guild of Roleplayers
My YouTube (C&C Welcome!)
I think IMHO I think everyone at least once play in a game with no alignments written on any characterseets, just leave it blank everyone at the table. Play the game and see what happens.
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
Here's my 2cp. I've played in many campaigns with secret evil characters, I've played secret evil characters, I've played in all evil campaigns, I've played in openly mixed good and evil campaigns, and I've played a character who had long ago been abducted, and I was effectively playing the BBEG, posing as my character who was being tortured to death for information, for months at a time.
So obviously I can't in good conscience just say "evil characters are bad, mmkay?", it wouldn't jive with what I've done and the fact that some of those campaigns and characters (especially playing as the BBEG) were Really cool, and Really memorable.
However, here's the reality that you need to always keep in mind: All of the characters in a party need to Actually Want to be there, and to be associated with the folks around them. For evil characters, they have the easy side of it. Being associated with good guys gets them in to places they wouldn't otherwise get into, it deflects suspicion, it has many many advantages. For good characters playing with characters who perform openly evil acts, it's not true at all. There is no reason they would want to be associated with the murder hobos / kleptomaniacs / chaotic stupid agents of destruction / assassins / whatevers of the world. If the player thinks "my character wouldn't be here", they're likely not having fun, even if they don't say it. Eventually, their character would just leave. Perhaps they as a player will as well.
So here are my rules for when evil characters are ok, and when they're not:
- Evil characters are ok, if no one knows they're evil and they don't perform evil acts. Super Secret Evil Guys are effectively, from the standpoint of other characters, not actually evil, and what's written on their character sheet ultimately doesn't matter, especially in 5e.
- Evil characters are ok, if everyone is evil or neutral, and everyone is on board with running an evil campaign. There's no drama or strife or conflict there at that point. Well, there likely will be a LOT of drama and strife and conflict, they're all evil, but at least everyone knows what they're getting into at the start, and the expectations are properly landed.
- Evil characters are ok if they add more to the campaign than they detract from it, without hogging the spotlight or making the whole thing all about them.
- Evil characters are NOT ok if the actions they perform are to the detriment of the party, or are actively opposed to other players interests and alignment, to the point where logically and realistically one of the two would just leave the party rather than them continuing to adventure together.
- Evil characters are NOT ok if they are a means of showboating, and spotlight hogging, and hours or days of adventure time or worse real life time are Constantly devoted to bailing them out of jail or otherwise trying to gloss over the consequences of their actions, while no one else ever gets to do what they want to do
- Evil characters are NOT ok if, in short, they take away or detract from the fun of one or more players at the table, if their fun comes at the Expense of others instead of adding to it.
It's tough to know how mature a player is, how effectively they can roleplay an evil character without causing problems, and what their intent is at the start, and it's SO MUCH harder and more annoying to have to have the conversation with the evil character about how they need to change their ways or change characters while they're whinging constantly about "but you said it was OKAAYY...", so many tables just ban them up front. It's easier that way. There is a place for them, sure, and they CAN add something to the campaign, sometimes they can add a lot, but it is SO Easy for them instead to delight the DM and exactly 1 person at the table, while pissing off literally everyone else. It's a group game, the whole group needs to have fun, not just one person.
It depends on how they mesh with the party. If your party consists of Frodo Baggins, Captain America, and Aang, it's' a little weird for Darth Sidious to join. However, if your party is already pretty gray, an evil PC can work out. Also, murderhobos who slaughter everything are never fun.
I was debating seeing how a Hannibal Lecter/Johan (from Monster) character would play. It would be very difficult to RP, but a non-combat sociopath who delights in using his opponents vices to turn them against their allies or themselves. He/she could fit into any group as as an incredibly charismatic, non-aggressive figure. It would question morality as they would not have a concept of evil, likely focusing on punishing those who had a guilty conscious, and avoid personally inflicting harm on others. I think both the group and world dynamics could be extremely interesting.
Often this is the most conducive evil character for groups as they strive for a perceived "justice" (lawful tendencies), but their execution is greatly differing from what others would pursue. It leads to in-depth character interactions and discussions of right vs. wrong rather than someone simply butchering everyone they see.
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
Darth Sidious might join that party because he can manipulate Frodo, Cap, and Aang to do things that benefit Sidious' long game. Look how long he had Obi-wan mostly dancing to his tune. Being evil doesn't have to mean being a psychopathic murderer. The pyschopaths are generally the small scale ones. The truly evil, are willing to look fair, and play the long game.
- He'd have Frodo throw the ring into the fire (because Sidious can never rule while Sauron is around. That guy's gotta go)
- He'd manipulate Cap; Now that Sauron is gone, what's to stop Gandalf and Elrond from taking over. See how they used the hobbits and nearly got Frodo killed? All to put some guy named Aragorn on the throne? Awfully convenient that an "Heir of Isildur" shows after a few thousand years. Who's to say they are telling the truth? Aragorn has a lot to lose if he gets caught in the lie.
- To Aang: Servant of the secret fire? Wielder of the flame of Anor? Sounds like fire nation stuff to me. And I'll just BET he took down that Balrog. This is a huge setup, Gandalf is trying to sell us out. We cannot allow this to happen. Let me help you throw off the tyranny of the so called "wise"
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
Because the villian is doing a good job of hiding his evil tendencies.
In the case above, Darth Sidious is manipulating the people in the party. Their sense of morality is not triggered if the evil character is played well enough. Nothing is being forced. Anakin started off a good guy, if a bit whiny, but Sidious was able to manipulate him. Even obi-wan sensed nothing, nor did Yoda. Evil doesn't have to ruin things for other people; most people simply are not mature enough to play evil without ruining it for others.
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
@GiantOctopodes
You don't seem to realize you're actually doing exactly what you're describing in your post.
You're forcing your assumed view of the players opinions on the situation, and forcing your assumed view of how they feel/react to it.
How do you know that 'No one else is having fun'? Not everyone reacts the exact same way to the same situation. Perhaps they are like "hmm, i as a player know this guy is up to shit, perhaps my guy can find it out and ultimately thwart it by playing along to find out his grand scheme, and toss in a monkey wrench at the perfect moment"
It's a dichotomy. Not a one way street.
Occassional Dungeon Master.
Sometimes there is also suspension of suspicions for the sake of interactions. I've played the evil, hands-wringing, maniacally-laughing bad guy before who doesn't do anything (overtly) more harmful than a cartoon baddie. Other players know full-well there is some larger scheme going on, but their characters aren't that savy because they are working through a different perspective lens. They keep a close eye on the shady guy in their midst, which puts the evil character in check, then the evil character gets creative and finds ways to work their angles without drawing too much attention. Lawful and Neutral evil are the easiest to play this with as they tend to see the benefit in cooperation for the long play. Chaotic evil is tricky to play without simply coming off like some hired muscle.
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
@Raiketsu:
I've already covered this. If they are having fun, great! I've made multiple posts indicating evil characters CAN be fine. The question I posed to crzyhwk applies to you as well. What if they aren't? You also propose them going along with it and having fun while doing so? What if they don't want to go along with it? What in character option do they have, which doesn't risk destroying the campaign, which is NOT playing along with it?
Can you see how Even If they're otherwise amenable, the fact they are constrained to a single course of actions and are having their decisions made for them by another player because they feel they can't NOT go along with it would be problematic, and potentially sap the fun of the campaign away from them?
Again- I'm NOT saying "evil characters are bad, mmmkay?", at all. And if the other players are into it, it's impossible to go wrong. We had a TON of fun in our all evil character campaign, for example. It's also Possible that a character would have fun being "manipulated" by another player, though in my experience it's the rare person who enjoys having their decisions made for them, who nonetheless chooses to play a role playing game. What I'm saying is, trying to manipulate the other players as an evil character is one of the riskiest actions which is the most likely to sap their fun and constrains their ability to say or do anything and railroads them into the choices of 'eliminate the evil character from the group' or 'go along with whatever the evil guy wants to do'.
When the evil character is just manipulating people Not in the party, stealing things when no one is looking (not even other party members), sneaking off at night to blackmail, or murder their opponents, or whatever else, it's a LOT easier for the players to look the other way, and ignore the 'convenient mysterious circumstances' surrounding obstacles dropping out of their way, or the bonus income their group seems to have, or whatever else. After all, even if they suspect one of their party members has a different idea of morality than they do, they've never done anything bad *to them*. "He's always been nice to me" can be a shield for a LOT of stuff. If instead the evil character is actively attempting to manipulate them, that's right out the window. Do you see why that could be a problem?
Again, not impossible that the other players are into this, and are ok with this. Far more likely they are if you talk to them out of game so they get to feel like co-participants in a story with a larger theme instead of people being forced into the role of 'unwitting rube' or 'person pretending to be an unwitting rube', or else they break up the party, but not impossible. But what if they're not ok with it? What are they supposed to do? What options do you have for them, that aren't 'kick the evil character out of the party' or 'go along with it'?