Unearthed Arcana: Villainous Options

Looking forward to seeing how these turn out.  The flavor on them is generally fun, adding some designs the game was previously lacking.  I have some concerns about the Druid - I think it is one of those designs that seem fun, likely do well in playtesting…. but create problems I actual play given a lot of D&D happens in relative tight quarters where the Druid either cannot shine or impedes the flow of combat.

Not overly concerned about these being “evil” options - frankly, I’ve had far more party dynamic problems from inflexible Lawful Good players than I ever had from an evil aligned character. I do hope the books explore some of the edge cases prior editions did (ex. Dragon Magazine’s creation of good-aligned cults for evil gods in the 4e era) - 5e often reflects the problematic lack of nuance that can cause alignment policing issues.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

5e often reflects the problematic lack of nuance that can cause alignment policing issues.

While I don't use alignment in games I DM, I have a rule "if the genevia convention says it's a warcrime don't." Which is funny because the list of actual warcrimes includes things you would never guess. But players tend to avoid overt evil after I say it, which is my goal as I run Heroic Fantasy. 

Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

5e often reflects the problematic lack of nuance that can cause alignment policing issues.

 

While I don't use alignment in games I DM, I have a rule "if the genevia convention says it's a warcrime don't." Which is funny because the list of actual warcrimes includes things you would never guess. But players tend to avoid overt evil after I say it, which is my goal as I run Heroic Fantasy. 

 Reminds me that the developers of the game Among Us received a warning that they’d breached the Geneva Convention by using the Red Cross symbol on their med kits 

Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

5e often reflects the problematic lack of nuance that can cause alignment policing issues.

 

While I don't use alignment in games I DM, I have a rule "if the genevia convention says it's a warcrime don't." Which is funny because the list of actual warcrimes includes things you would never guess. But players tend to avoid overt evil after I say it, which is my goal as I run Heroic Fantasy. 

 
As someone with a legal study on the Conventions and other aspects of international criminal law, I am not sure that is as effective a prohibition as one might think - you would be surprised at how much horror one can legally get away with!

Joking aside, the single most important rule in character creation is not “play someone who is not too bad” but “you need to make a character that is part of a party.”  It does not matter what the alignment is - I know I would always rather be in a party with a LE character who is a bit too comfortable pulling fingernails… but who shares the party’s goal and uses evil to further the party’s ends than, say, the NG character who wants every member of the party to conform with what they want to do, not what the party as a whole wants to do.  

For every alignment, one can come up with this dynamic - characters that work and those that do not. Alignments are never the problem - breaking the social pact and creating a character antithetical to a party based game is.

That said, D&D does a pretty bad job at explaining this - and always has.  There’s a reason alignment police, strict limitations, murder hobos, etc. have all been problems for decades.  Hoping Wizards spends some time not just making “evil” options, but also “here is how to play Evil in a protagonist party” - that is a lesson many players on both the “never evil” and “murder hobo” side of the coin could use.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from gothicshark >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

5e often reflects the problematic lack of nuance that can cause alignment policing issues.

 

While I don't use alignment in games I DM, I have a rule "if the genevia convention says it's a warcrime don't." Which is funny because the list of actual warcrimes includes things you would never guess. But players tend to avoid overt evil after I say it, which is my goal as I run Heroic Fantasy. 

 
As someone with a legal study on the Conventions and other aspects of international criminal law, I am not sure that is as effective a prohibition as one might think - you would be surprised at how much horror one can legally get away with!

Joking aside, the single most important rule in character creation is not “play someone who is not too bad” but “you need to make a character that is part of a party.”  It does not matter what the alignment is - I know I would always rather be in a party with a LE character who is a bit too comfortable pulling fingernails… but who shares the party’s goal and uses evil to further the party’s ends than, say, the NG character who wants every member of the party to conform with what they want to do, not what the party as a whole wants to do.  

For every alignment, one can come up with this dynamic - characters that work and those that do not. Alignments are never the problem - breaking the social pact and creating a character antithetical to a party based game is.

That said, D&D does a pretty bad job at explaining this - and always has.  There’s a reason alignment police, strict limitations, murder hobos, etc. have all been problems for decades.  Hoping Wizards spends some time not just making “evil” options, but also “here is how to play Evil in a protagonist party” - that is a lesson many players on both the “never evil” and “murder hobo” side of the coin could use.

 Yeah, building off that, whenever I want to play an evil character, or someone wants to play one in my game, you have to answer the question "why are they with the party? Why are they going along with the good pc's? Why do they care?"

If you don't have a good answer for these questions, don't play an evil character. But there are many ways it can be justified. You can be evil and loyal to a select group of friends. You can be evil but will do anything for your brother. You can be evil but sworn in service to a good master or ideal. There's tons of ways to do it. 

@Caerwyn_Glyndwr @CharelsThePlant

For me, my best character ever from AD&D, and the inspiriation for my main characters in CRPG, MMORPGs, and mutliple TTPGs was a Grey Hawk LE Valley Elf War Mage.  While yes, I have a don't be evil table rule, it's not because I think a good player can't play an Evil charater well, it's because 90% of normal people end up playing Stupid Evil. They end up in PVP, doing things that harm the party, or taking body parts as trophies. I got fed up with this behavior from players so I put my foot down and wont allow it anymore. I also stopped using alignments for anything besides planar crreatures ie devils, demons, and angels and gods.  But even with them I refuse to use Stupid Evil NPCs. 

if you want to play a thief, who steals from anyone anywhere and doesn't share. Fine, No PVP no harming party memebers, no use of alignments in your sheet, and if your character gets caught they might be exicuted. Want to play a Dead 3 scion, and lean into Bhaal. No overt evil acts, else I will smite them. Because I have a 0 tolerance for stupid evil. 

That's what my player would do has a different effect on a campaign when the character is evil. Right campaign it can work, most campaigns you are asking for a problem. Especially when you consider alignments are not from one off mistakes. You have been fairly persistently evil. 

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

given a lot of D&D happens in relative tight quarters where the Druid either cannot shine or impedes the flow of combat

That's the thing about being a druid -- you have plenty of spell options in situations where wild shaping doesn't make sense. They aren't one trick ponies kaiju

 Titan druid unlike moon has a consistently decent wild shape and it all goes back to the attack roll uses the spell attack. The AC is a bit rough though. You will be an obvious target due to your size and you will almost never be missed. Energizing pollen is kind of lame/ Lets say I use a 5th level slot that heals 2d8+25 it can be spread out so if the whole party went down it will have its moment to shine I guess, but it heals about as much as a cure wounds upcast to 3rd level. 

Personally I find an Evil PC is often either personally or narratively problematic. Even when the player isn’t straight up using it as an excuse to treat the sessions like they’re playing GTA, someone genuinely leaning into Evil can rub other players the wrong way if there’s other players looking to play out a typical heroic fantasy. There’s a reason why even in video games where party interactions are stage managed some of the strongly evil/dark leaning party members get a negative player reputation for constantly speaking up to protest whenever the PC goes to start a “please help me/us” side quest- think Morrigan from Dragon Age Origins or Kreia from KotOR 2. It’s not an unreasonable character position, but in a medium where that’s a common beat someone who’s fundamentally opposed to the idea or other common heroic fantasy points- aka D&D’s bread and butter- can wear thin.

And on the narrative side, there is the legitimate “why are they here?” question for narratively focused tables. I’m familiar with the “common threat” and “using the party for their own ends” positions, but there’s issues for each. “Common threat” only works in campaigns with a single overarching plot- not uncommon but not universal either- and both still present the issue of party/player conflict over playstyles. Using the party also comes with the risk that it will either devolve into PvP or at least make the rest of the party feel like they’ve been narratively scammed when it’s revealed at the end.

Much of this can potentially be mitigated with a thorough Session 0, at least in theory- personal experience says it’s easy for people to underestimate how much of a sticky point these things can be. However, that hits a final point- if everything has been properly negotiated so the “Evil” character is not especially offensive or antagonistic, are they even actually Evil as far as the narrative goes? I’m not saying there’s no possibility of an Evil player character ever being played in a way that a mostly non-Evil group can appreciate, but between personal experience and larger observations I think the field is narrower than it can seem, if Evil is going to be a meaningful point of characterization rather than just why their armor is dark and spiky.

Sorry, got a touch long-winded. I like the concept of the villainous subclasses, but I’m not sure trying to pitch Evil as an easily viable character choice would be a good idea for a 5e book.

The big issue is that people rarely want to play nuanced evil characters, they tend to play Evil McKittenSquasher.  They don't want to play, say, Minthara from Baldur's Gate 3 who's irredeemably evil but also capable of forming genuine connections to other people and having real friendships and actually values being part of a team.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

The big issue is that people rarely want to play nuanced evil characters, they tend to play Evil McKittenSquasher.  They don't want to play, say, Minthara from Baldur's Gate 3 who's irredeemably evil but also capable of forming genuine connections to other people and having real friendships and actually values being part of a team.

 
Part of the issue there is that it’s a difficult needle to thread during live play- it can easily feel like someone’s trying to get buddy-buddy even though they’re clearly not compatible with other party members or that they’re just periodically going some flavor of antisocial personality based on the player’s whims. Hardcore evil but still respected takes a lot of fine narrative-crafting in stories, and sometimes a certain willingness to gloss over past events from before it was decided the individual was going to become nuanced. It’s hard to make it arise organically and feel authentic in an improv context.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

The big issue is that people rarely want to play nuanced evil characters, they tend to play Evil McKittenSquasher.  They don't want to play, say, Minthara from Baldur's Gate 3 who's irredeemably evil but also capable of forming genuine connections to other people and having real friendships and actually values being part of a team.

 
Part of the issue there is that it’s a difficult needle to thread during live play- it can easily feel like someone’s trying to get buddy-buddy even though they’re clearly not compatible with other party members or that they’re just periodically going some flavor of antisocial personality based on the player’s whims. Hardcore evil but still respected takes a lot of fine narrative-crafting in stories, and sometimes a certain willingness to gloss over past events from before it was decided the individual was going to become nuanced. It’s hard to make it arise organically and feel authentic in an improv context.

 Yeah, nobody should expect Baldur's Gate 3 level of depth of character, but players often fail to understand that it's possible to have an evil character who has more to their personality than "muahaha, I'm evil!"

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues>>

I like the concept of the villainous subclasses, but I’m not sure trying to pitch Evil as an easily viable character choice would be a good idea for a 5e book.

I agree with this sentiment - playing evil should not be pitched as an easily viable character choice.  A lot of the concerns you raise are valid - playing evil is hard, and I certainly would not trust every player to play evil without being a problem, a joke, or just kind of a charachter the player does not vibe with.

What Wizards should have though is a guide on how to play Evil without being s problem charachter - something designed to both make the “Evil should not be played” crowd more comfortable with the idea that Evil aligned characters can possible work… and something warning the player against murder hoboing or other problematic behaviors. 

At no point, I think, should they ever say it is easy to do - it certainly is not.  Nor do I think anyone wants Wizards to imply it is easy or something anyone can do. But it would be nice to see some official pointers on how to make viable characters and mitigate harms - that kind of content could help a lot of tables.

I’m not sure a thorough roleplaying guide is a good idea, especially one tackling a concept like “being Evil”; seems like a lot of room them to either actually put a foot wrong or get quote mined into looking like they did.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I’m not sure a thorough roleplaying guide is a good idea, especially one tackling a concept like “being Evil”; seems like a lot of room them to either actually put a foot wrong or get quote mined into looking like they did.

 
This kind of post kind of proves my point. There exists a clear bias against Evil characters that is unfair to those who can pull them off.  An official recognition of the viability might not cure the bias in some, but it will at least show Wizards stands by their players, even if some in the community do not.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

I’m not sure a thorough roleplaying guide is a good idea, especially one tackling a concept like “being Evil”; seems like a lot of room them to either actually put a foot wrong or get quote mined into looking like they did.

 
This kind of post kind of proves my point. There exists a clear bias against Evil characters that is unfair to those who can pull them off.  An official recognition of the viability might not cure the bias in some, but it will at least show Wizards stands by their players, even if some in the community do not.

 I'm not sure that it is necessary to hold any bias toward evil characters to be concerned that publishing a book or guide about playing them could prove problematic, especially given the small but very vocal contingent of 'WotC are evil' types out there. I'm not saying that WotC couldn't do it, but I don't think holding that concern is equivalent to a belief that evil characters are bad.