I think it highly depends on your definition of good and evil as well as how you interpret those terms in the alignment chart. Personally I highly disagree with the ideas of objective morality and much prefer subjective morality as a way of thinking.
All that said, I love to play evil characters. Evil, not being "I'm going to betray my friends and destroy the world" but evil in a "I'm going to do things without a concern for morality." This is notably different from chaotic as "I'm going to do whatever I can get away with." So maybe my evil character will kill someone accidentally with a cloud kill and think, "Well, who cares." Or my evil character will try to force their ideals on another and if they don't agree they will be enlightened via being killed. Characters like these can fit into most campaign settings and group compositions assuming that the Player is willing and able to work with the group to not take center stage. Not every evil character needs to be cartoonishly evil, and not every cartoonishly evil character needs to be the center of attention.
After all of that. There is certainly a time and a place for an evil character, but saying that evil characters shouldn't be allowed at all is restricting 1/3rd of the given alignment chart (even if the alignment chart is poopy) is the same as saying that 4 of the 12(13 with artificer) classes shouldn't be allowed.
I strongly agree. I would allow some of my more experienced players to play an evil character, but only if they worked alongside the heroes and were simply selfish and manipulative, not traitorous and bloodthirsty. A bit like Littlefinger in Game of Thrones, except without that...one thing he did for Ned. But if you’re running a classic LotR game, which a lot of games are, even a reasonable evil guy has no place among the heroes.
Boromir, Gollum, and Saruman the White, there are several that spring to mind.
The question is no 'should evil characters be allowed in any campaign' but 'is this specific campaign suitable for evil characters'. Saltmarsh is a perfect example, the group could be good aligned clerics and paladins taking down a pirate ring, or they could be miscreants looking to take over the operation and gain a new hideout. It is entirely subjective and will vary massively from group to group, campaign module or homebrew setting.
Hey, don’t knock my boy Boromir! I wouldn’t consider him Evil. (I totally agree with your post though.) :-)
Hey, don’t knock my boy Boromir! I wouldn’t consider him Evil. (I totally agree with your post though.) :-)
Yeah Boromir is a bit of a reach, but I saw his character as a want to be ego maniac, arrogant and completely over confident. Then he used deception and trickery, tried to steal the ring etc. He did redeem himself before dying but for quite a while he showed some subjectively evil characteristics.It would have made for an interesting 'alternate ending' storyline if he had succeeded and took the ring to Gondor.
Hey, don’t knock my boy Boromir! I wouldn’t consider him Evil. (I totally agree with your post though.) :-)
Yeah Boromir is a bit of a reach, but I saw his character as a want to be ego maniac, arrogant and completely over confident. Then he used deception and trickery, tried to steal the ring etc. He did redeem himself before dying but for quite a while he showed some subjectively evil characteristics.It would have made for an interesting 'alternate ending' storyline if he had succeeded and took the ring to Gondor.
I’m not sure morality is as easily determined as that when there’s an artefact with a corrupting influence involved, but we’re all allowed our own interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Before players make evil characters... i always ask them, why would you want to be evil ? whats being evil to you ? more often then not, people think killing makes you evil and thats it...
i asked friends who were playing evil campaigns... i asked them to join and they were happy to have me... but i asked a question before i made my minotaur character... do you guys/girls have a problem with taboos in society, aka hang man or violence to women in all ways possible for exemple ? i said i don't want to traumatise any of you by punching something that is too close to your comfort. then all said nope, not a problem at all... i said ok... 3 sessions later i have to change character... they were all uncomfortable with him. i was using mental disorders to generate flaws to my character. and playing those made them realise that what makes an evil character isn't the act of killing... its everything else ! the lack of morality, the lack of emotions for one being. the lack of many things a normal human is considered to have...
so if your players only to murder stuff up, they don't need to be evil for that. being evil is not just the act of murdering someone, and i'd say by experience that 99% of the players who want to play evil, only want to murder things up. heres the catch, the real problem is from the group not the person playing evil...
exemple... all players goes to sleep during the night, i ask the fated question... do any of you do things during the night ? all says nope, but one player does... he start sneaking up in houses casting silence while he murders the whole familly that lives there. then do sacrifice for his deity. that session, ok... but then he does this the next session too, and then the third... things are starting to go awry as the other players have enough of seeing him having the spotlight during nights where they just wait for him. because he intended to make us role play every scenes... this was the problem, not the fact he's evil ! how it ended which leads me to the point... one day he makes the wrong choice... they are in a big city and murder the familly next door of the hotel they are in. they hapenned to be the baker who delivers the fresh bread to the inn the players are in. as the bread didn't come in, they've gone to see and founda body and thus alerted the guards. so the players wakes up and find guards searching for a man, they give descrption and a name ! the guy says, wait a minute they can't i use silence and darkness, nobody could see my warlock with devil sight. let alone know my name ! i say, wait for it man... the players intrigued started the casede. they wanted to stop a murderer... yep this has gone south. so they are told the actual detective on the case is back at the murder scene. they arrive there and see a cleric of knowledge... what do they have, identify as a spell... so he identified the blood. confirmed the familly, but found blood that wasn't his own on the fist of the father... identified gave a brief description and a name. meaning nothing since the cleric doens't know the person. he said oh come on ! then the detective says... i'm about to speak to the dead, want to hear it ? now the guy is sweating, speak with dead, what the !!! and the other players says yes... the guy said, yes darkness she didn't see me... but then realised he casted it and its concentration, thus recasting it in the next room allow the first dead person to see him as he walks the corridor... all trails leading to him and his supposedly perfect crime with prestidigitation / darkness and Silence... at this point the character leaves town before they find him.
heres the real problem... those who only want to murder, or even play evil, do not fit in groups unless they actually have a reason to fit in group. in this exemple, the guys didn't have any reason whatsoever to stay within the group. and didn't actively find a way to stay in group. he just wanted to be evil and acted evil. without thinking about group composition.
why did magneto ask prof X for help ? aren't they worse enemies ? aren't they evil versus good ? why is mister sinister helping the X-Men, more importantly, why is Jean Grey and Cyclops helping him kill the alien invaders ? the answer is quite simple... they have common goals !!! and the evil guy to achieve this common goal knows that he needs to keep on the good side of his fellow people. in my exemple, the evil guy thought, i can get away with it, they will never know. that was his mistake... thinking there would be no consequences to him killing in the country side. there was consequences, there will always be... the question is not can they find out i'm evil ? no the question is much simpler... what will they do once they find out ? thats the question evil players have to answer first before they do anything.
i play devils and demons all the times, my players are like, how can you play devils and demons that great ? and i'm like... simple, i think before i act ! being evil doesn't mean you cannot think. the worse evil you cna find is the joker on batman, pure chaotic evil man. changes ideas and emotionnal states as he changes clotches... yet, he still is capable of driving plans, still capable of shooting for the stars with brilliant planning. while szaz is just a lunatic that always gets taken out in one hit...that the thing... people do not think and being evil is never a group thing for them. but the only way it works is if the gorup finds out, you need to have a reason to follow them...
and make yourself a favor... stop using the "we're bound to that evil man so we have no choice" card ! that never works, that kills a campaign about 2 sessions in !
last time i played an evil character in a good game... it wasn't until about the 15th session they find out i was... the cleric wanted to kill me ont he spot... i said, if you do, your friend over there will die. he said, bluff, kill me and you will know the truth. he tryed, but the friend, stopped him, said its true... the other said what ? he explained, remember the hole int he ground. he helped me, but before he could heal me, he asked if he could borrow a bit of my blood for the ritual. i said yes, he used it for a ritual alright, he bound me to him by infernal contract. by contract, he will keep me alive as long as he is nearby. in exchange i help him find a skull he is seeking. if i don't do that, my soul goes to him in the afterlife... the cleric was WHAAAAT ! i then answered... all in good faith my friends... i need someone to protect me, you definitely need someone to help you keep going. i raised both my hands together as in let's be friend, while smiling ! we had a lot of fun, violent at times, torture for profit in others... i even got to make the cleric do something against his deities code. i ended up dieing later on to the cleric who finally just killed me. that was one way out of the contract.
as long as you have a reason to stay within the group... it can work. aside from that cleric, the others were fine with me... he killed me out of spite for the fact he killed an innocent because of me. long story... i knew i would die after that one, it was ok for me as an ending. so all was well i had fun playing my little tiefling of avarice....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The main reason inexperienced players shouldn't play evil characters is that they think being evil means cackling madly as they try to kill literally everyone they meet. They confuse Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid, and assume for some reason that an evil character never wants anything, has a plan on how to get it, recognize that sometimes you need to play by the rules to get there, and sometimes, if there is no other alternative, do the "right" thing.
In the 'good vs evil' argument, I feel like they miss the potential for storytelling that can arise from evil vs worse evil. An evil character can do good, even if for the wrong reason
For example, I have a character built that I haven't played yet, still looking for the right campaign, but while I was making them I came to the conclusion that they were Chaotic Evil. Again, that's not to say they're a compulsive psycho murderer. The character is a pirate who served on a ship under a captain he had a lot of admiration for, who ran the ship by true democracy (IRL pirate ships were mostly run this way and are some of the earliest examples of progressive democracy, with women and POC often given equal standing and respect, so that's where I drew inspiration from). The pirate character is obsessed with being Free, free from laws and kings and convention and stuff, borderline anarchist while still respecting the way things are run on the ship because they have to be run a certain way, and really admires how the ship's captain can walk the line between being an authority figure and still treating the crew as free folk. Hence; Chaotic.
They're also Evil. No beating around the bush, their ship attacks other ships, they fight and kill them and steal their loot, and the character enjoys fighting and killing harmless and vulnerable merchant crews. They also love a tough fight with a worthy opponent. They *like* to fight, they think inflicting pain is fun, they are cruel. Hence; Evil.
But one day, the first mate of their ship sells them all out to the authorities, they sail into a trap and the captain is killed, the ship sunk, and much of the crew imprisoned. Years later when the character gets out of jail, he's in hard times. He has no money, no prospects, and has to resort to doing things he doesn't want to to survive. He sells his labor as a mercenary to eat, rather than taking whatever he wants, because without his crew at his back, he's realistic about his odds of survival. He allows himself to be subjected to a Law that he doesn't respect to survive, though he still holds anarchist ideals. He desperately wants revenge on the man who betrayed his captain, so he must gather the resources he'll need to exact it.
One day he takes a job that has a team, The Party. He plays along for the job, planning to part company afterwards, but then gets sucked into whatever is going on in the campaign, and somewhere along the lines realizes that these folks might be his best chance at getting revenge, and starts to look at them as his new crew. He maybe even comes to regard one or two of them as friends, even if they prefer to talk their way through problems he wouldn't mind fighting through. But he has to keep an eye out for them, watch their backs, and if he plays nice then a fight usually comes along anyways so he's still happy. He's still an anarchist, he's still cruel and likes to hurt people, and still driven by revenge, and is still very much a Chaotic Evil character, but he's also a functioning member of the party who's not constantly derailing things for the other players, and is down with fighting evil because he just likes a fight and likes his party. Bonus points if the DM makes the traitorous first mate now a lieutenant for the campaign villain, because then the pirate is not only just along for the ride, but now fully invested in taking them and their boss down, fully committed to the "good" side despite being evil.
"No Evil Characters" was by far the only hard rule I established during S0 at my table. My players are new, need a bit of steering and I don't need them confusing being evil vs. not being good.
And I don't see how the existence of mutiny discounts democracy. What I mean by "true democracy" is democracy in its basest sense: that everyone on the ship gets a vote on how they act and where they go. Mutiny is just a more brutal form of voting that befits an evil form of democracy. You do a bad job Captaining? You get voted off the ship, and they won't wait for land to do it.
Bear in mind that democracy was the ideal form of governance for large crews of outlaws escaping absolute monarchy, especially when those lawless and violent crews know what they'd do to each other if they didn't live by some form of code (tying it back into D&D, there's yet another example of being Evil not necessarily meaning you're overconfident or stupid) . Remember, the Golden Age of Piracy was in the 17th-18th century before the progressive age ushered in democracy in as a legitimate form of government. In those days it was seen as something befitting dirty pirates and outlaws.
I've been playing D&D going back 35 years, and just picked it back up during Covid. My current character is Lawful Evil. The initial players were aware, but we've added a couple new players who I doubt know. And the reason why is that I play the character to have justification to further the party objectives. In fact, this character is the party Face. He plays a little like Neegan in TWD.
If the player is angling to PvP with an evil character the concept is likely to doom the campaign. That should be a reason to not have such an element in your game. But for those who are steadfast in not allowing evil PC's at their table; are your PC's virtuous? Our group is roughly 20 sessions in this year and we've had "Good" aligned characters take out a goblin tribe including the children. We had our good ranger put an orc war chief's head on a pike as a deterrent to leave the group alone. Our good aligned dragonborn let Calcryx in the Sunless Citadel escape because he felt the dragon shouldn't be a pet. However an evil dragon is now out in the world. Adventurers are often walking a grey line because of the line of work they do.
I've been able to put the restraints on what my evil PC does to ensure that while he's a self-serving, power hungry jerk..... he's also a noble with money to buy our group out of problems and he can Eldritch Blast a storm in combat. He's a net positive for the group so we are all good. Now his evil motivations are long arc plot hooks and at some point I'm sure he will have to decide between personal need over party\world need. But that isn't taking the fun of the game from another player. Short store is, you want to allow Evil PC's, have players who can pull it off and make the sandbox where they can operate within a group dynamic.
…I don’t think evil characters should be in a campaign.
I agree, but that is, of course, just me. I don't want to GM for evil characters, and I'm not sure I'd be any good at it anyway. I want to be in games where the PCs are the heroes. Or at least, the anti-hero.
To put it in popculture terms, consider the Clint Eastwood Movie "Magnum Force." I'd be OK GMing Harry Callaghan but not the vigilante cops.
Again I'm seeing a lot of the idea that evil means selfish and untrustworthy - evil characters will kill other players, evil characters will betray other players. I'm not convinced that's what evil really means (though some players may choose to play it like that).
Take, for example, the mafia in real life. They are regarded (by the law) as "evil", in that they don't do what they are told. They work outside the law, if people cross them they put their feet in cement and throw them in the lake, and they have turf-wars with other gangs. They also, in general, will avoid killing civilians, and their whole system is built around loyalty. They are a family, not just a group of people. A person who might break your legs for talking to them badly can't be considered good or even neutral, they are definitely evil. But, if a mafia gunamn were to join the party and say "the boss says you're going to succeed in this mission" or "the boss says I'm to keep you alive as long as possible", then you can make a fair assumption that they will act in the best interests of the party at all times, and won't hurt the party, but if an NPC refuses to cooperate then they'll pour lamp oil over their children and ask them again with a match in their hand.
"Evil" to me generally implies that they work by their own rules, and that they have no moral boundaries for their actions to further their goals. So if someone makes an evil character who wants to get all the money, I'd have a chat with them about changing their motivations to avoid potential pvp in the future of the campaign. "I want the same guy dead as you do", excellent motivation. "I want all the money, and you are getting money, so I'm with you to get money", bad motivation.
What you are describing there is Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil is very different, think Joker, Penguin, HQ etc.That said, there are 'less experienced' players who think that CE means Chaotic stupid and will wreck the game. I have no problem with letting evil characters in my game. I also have no problem with other PC's or even myself as DM killing off evil characters that go the Chaotic Stupid route.
That's a fair comparison, but you have to establish how they will fit into the party in the first place. The Joker wouldn't work as part of a group unless the group was furthering his goals, and wouldn't murder them for money. I'd still avoid having a joker-esque character in a party as the Joker is very independent and doesn't play well with others. That in itself is a separate trait to consider which ties in with their character.
You could have a good character who has a single mission, and then is faced with the choice of whether to save the party or continue their mission - which may not need the party at all - and they might choose to continue their mission for the greater good. In that instance, I'd rather have an evil character who is invested in the party than a "good" character who would ditch the party if saving them might jeopardize their goals, which might have been entrusted to them by their holy order or some such.
Generally, you will actually find more loyalty in the "bad" side of things than the "good" side. If someone strays from the path in good society, they will sever ties to them to avoid being tarred by the same brush. If someone strays in "bad" society, they can often rely on their brothers to try and save them - depending on whether they ratted anyone out. It's kind of that Evil people have to betray each other to be cast out, and good people have to betray an ideal. Evil people have fallbacks, they might betray one group but still be in good with another. Good people who are cast out are usually done so universally.
New players doesn't instantly mean "you can't play evil".
I know a player who was inexperienced and played a decidedly evil character, but as I mentioned earlier, she doesn't let it interfere. It's more of a "I'm all for your bad ideas with good intentions that turn out disastrous" kind of evil instead of "I'm going to do things you won't like and that's just who my character is". There is no doubt that she's evil, but she's become an integral part of the found family who are otherwise neutral and good.
I know of a campaign where alignments were not chosen at the start but determined over time. One of them is most likely evil, but again, he's not at odds with the party who are likely neutral and good. He's also fairly new to the game.
It's not the alignment. It's the players. Too many people think evil = drama with anyone not evil. It doesn't need to be like that. There are many ways to play evil.
All that stated: It's possible that new players more likely have an idea of evil that opposes cooperation. In cooperative storytelling, that's very unlikely to work well. If it were me, I'd make sure the players knew that evil acts would not be allowed to interfere with the party. Yes. It's restricting to players wanting to tell their story, but I want players to tell our story. Once a party is involved, even personal stories become cooperative in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
New players doesn't instantly mean "you can't play evil".
I know a player who was inexperienced and played a decidedly evil character, but as I mentioned earlier, she doesn't let it interfere. It's more of a "I'm all for your bad ideas with good intentions that turn out disastrous" kind of evil instead of "I'm going to do things you won't like and that's just who my character is". There is no doubt that she's evil, but she's become an integral part of the found family who are otherwise neutral and good.
I know of a campaign where alignments were not chosen at the start but determined over time. One of them is most likely evil, but again, he's not at odds with the party who are likely neutral and good. He's also fairly new to the game.
It's not the alignment. It's the players. Too many people think evil = drama with anyone not evil. It doesn't need to be like that. There are many ways to play evil.
All that stated: It's possible that new players more likely have an idea of evil that opposes cooperation. In cooperative storytelling, that's very unlikely to work well. If it were me, I'd make sure the players knew that evil acts would not be allowed to interfere with the party. Yes. It's restricting to players wanting to tell their story, but I want players to tell our story. Once a party is involved, even personal stories become cooperative in my opinion.
I 100 percent agree that being evil does not instantly put you at odds with the party. Look at Raistlin from Dragonlance. He's evil, but his twin brother is good, and Raistlin is just there to make sure his brother is alright. Raistlin isn't constantly wrestling with an urge to psycho-murder the whole party and steal their stuff, because they have goals in common.
I can't be the first person to link this video, can I?
2 pages of replies should indicate that evil characters in a campaign are more trouble than it's worth. Now, if the entire campaign goes that route, and everyone is evil - like a full House Dimir storyline where you're all out to deceive and...well, do House Dimir stuff, that might be different. If you're all part of a drow house doing drow house stuff, it might work.
What doesn't work is evil in the sense of (again..unless all are this way, but even then):
You don't care about anything at all other than yourself.
You're quick to kill just about anything.
You worship and aim to advance the agenda's of the worlds horribad gods.
Playing characters that lean into any of the 3 bullet points almost forbids other players from playing really good paladins. The holiest of healing, help all clerics. Fighters willing to die for those that can't fight for themselves, etc. Folk can obviously still play those but you can guarantee that it will all circle back to my 1st sentence. It'll be more trouble than it's worth.
2 pages of replies should indicate that evil characters in a campaign are more trouble than it's worth. Now, if the entire campaign goes that route, and everyone is evil - like a full House Dimir storyline where you're all out to deceive and...well, do House Dimir stuff, that might be different. If you're all part of a drow house doing drow house stuff, it might work.
What doesn't work is evil in the sense of (again..unless all are this way, but even then):
You don't care about anything at all other than yourself.
You're quick to kill just about anything.
You worship and aim to advance the agenda's of the worlds horribad gods.
Playing characters that lean into any of the 3 bullet points almost forbids other players from playing really good paladins. The holiest of healing, help all clerics. Fighters willing to die for those that can't fight for themselves, etc. Folk can obviously still play those but you can guarantee that it will all circle back to my 1st sentence. It'll be more trouble than it's worth.
I think if you go back and and read the two pages of discussion, you'll see that the point being made is largely that being an evil character is more narratively complex than the bullet points you list.
I would say your bullet points describe evil villain NPCs, not evil player characters. There are plenty of ways a player's character can be evil that doesn't spill over into villainy. Not every evil character is trying to bring about the end of the world in the name of their evil gods, not every evil character kills everyone they meet, and not all evil characters only care about themselves.
Look at the example I cite in my first comment on this thread for an example of an evil character that pretty easily avoids all the problem points you've identified.
I think it highly depends on your definition of good and evil as well as how you interpret those terms in the alignment chart. Personally I highly disagree with the ideas of objective morality and much prefer subjective morality as a way of thinking.
All that said, I love to play evil characters. Evil, not being "I'm going to betray my friends and destroy the world" but evil in a "I'm going to do things without a concern for morality."
That's being amoral, not immoral. By D&D's standards, that makes you neutral rather than evil.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I meant it more in a sense not of the avoidance of morality but knowing the morality and choosing to do the thing anyway, which is a clear distinction within the alignment chart.
"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms."
I think it highly depends on your definition of good and evil as well as how you interpret those terms in the alignment chart. Personally I highly disagree with the ideas of objective morality and much prefer subjective morality as a way of thinking.
All that said, I love to play evil characters. Evil, not being "I'm going to betray my friends and destroy the world" but evil in a "I'm going to do things without a concern for morality." This is notably different from chaotic as "I'm going to do whatever I can get away with." So maybe my evil character will kill someone accidentally with a cloud kill and think, "Well, who cares." Or my evil character will try to force their ideals on another and if they don't agree they will be enlightened via being killed. Characters like these can fit into most campaign settings and group compositions assuming that the Player is willing and able to work with the group to not take center stage. Not every evil character needs to be cartoonishly evil, and not every cartoonishly evil character needs to be the center of attention.
After all of that. There is certainly a time and a place for an evil character, but saying that evil characters shouldn't be allowed at all is restricting 1/3rd of the given alignment chart (even if the alignment chart is poopy) is the same as saying that 4 of the 12(13 with artificer) classes shouldn't be allowed.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Hey, don’t knock my boy Boromir! I wouldn’t consider him Evil. (I totally agree with your post though.) :-)
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Yeah Boromir is a bit of a reach, but I saw his character as a want to be ego maniac, arrogant and completely over confident. Then he used deception and trickery, tried to steal the ring etc. He did redeem himself before dying but for quite a while he showed some subjectively evil characteristics.It would have made for an interesting 'alternate ending' storyline if he had succeeded and took the ring to Gondor.
I’m not sure morality is as easily determined as that when there’s an artefact with a corrupting influence involved, but we’re all allowed our own interpretation.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Before players make evil characters... i always ask them, why would you want to be evil ?
whats being evil to you ?
more often then not, people think killing makes you evil and thats it...
i asked friends who were playing evil campaigns... i asked them to join and they were happy to have me...
but i asked a question before i made my minotaur character... do you guys/girls have a problem with taboos in society, aka hang man or violence to women in all ways possible for exemple ? i said i don't want to traumatise any of you by punching something that is too close to your comfort. then all said nope, not a problem at all... i said ok... 3 sessions later i have to change character... they were all uncomfortable with him. i was using mental disorders to generate flaws to my character. and playing those made them realise that what makes an evil character isn't the act of killing... its everything else ! the lack of morality, the lack of emotions for one being. the lack of many things a normal human is considered to have...
so if your players only to murder stuff up, they don't need to be evil for that. being evil is not just the act of murdering someone, and i'd say by experience that 99% of the players who want to play evil, only want to murder things up. heres the catch, the real problem is from the group not the person playing evil...
exemple...
all players goes to sleep during the night, i ask the fated question... do any of you do things during the night ?
all says nope, but one player does... he start sneaking up in houses casting silence while he murders the whole familly that lives there. then do sacrifice for his deity.
that session, ok... but then he does this the next session too, and then the third... things are starting to go awry as the other players have enough of seeing him having the spotlight during nights where they just wait for him. because he intended to make us role play every scenes... this was the problem, not the fact he's evil ! how it ended which leads me to the point... one day he makes the wrong choice... they are in a big city and murder the familly next door of the hotel they are in. they hapenned to be the baker who delivers the fresh bread to the inn the players are in. as the bread didn't come in, they've gone to see and founda body and thus alerted the guards. so the players wakes up and find guards searching for a man, they give descrption and a name ! the guy says, wait a minute they can't i use silence and darkness, nobody could see my warlock with devil sight. let alone know my name ! i say, wait for it man... the players intrigued started the casede. they wanted to stop a murderer... yep this has gone south. so they are told the actual detective on the case is back at the murder scene. they arrive there and see a cleric of knowledge... what do they have, identify as a spell... so he identified the blood. confirmed the familly, but found blood that wasn't his own on the fist of the father... identified gave a brief description and a name. meaning nothing since the cleric doens't know the person. he said oh come on ! then the detective says... i'm about to speak to the dead, want to hear it ? now the guy is sweating, speak with dead, what the !!! and the other players says yes... the guy said, yes darkness she didn't see me... but then realised he casted it and its concentration, thus recasting it in the next room allow the first dead person to see him as he walks the corridor... all trails leading to him and his supposedly perfect crime with prestidigitation / darkness and Silence... at this point the character leaves town before they find him.
heres the real problem... those who only want to murder, or even play evil, do not fit in groups unless they actually have a reason to fit in group.
in this exemple, the guys didn't have any reason whatsoever to stay within the group. and didn't actively find a way to stay in group. he just wanted to be evil and acted evil. without thinking about group composition.
why did magneto ask prof X for help ?
aren't they worse enemies ? aren't they evil versus good ?
why is mister sinister helping the X-Men, more importantly, why is Jean Grey and Cyclops helping him kill the alien invaders ?
the answer is quite simple... they have common goals !!!
and the evil guy to achieve this common goal knows that he needs to keep on the good side of his fellow people.
in my exemple, the evil guy thought, i can get away with it, they will never know. that was his mistake... thinking there would be no consequences to him killing in the country side. there was consequences, there will always be... the question is not can they find out i'm evil ? no the question is much simpler... what will they do once they find out ? thats the question evil players have to answer first before they do anything.
i play devils and demons all the times, my players are like, how can you play devils and demons that great ? and i'm like... simple, i think before i act ! being evil doesn't mean you cannot think. the worse evil you cna find is the joker on batman, pure chaotic evil man. changes ideas and emotionnal states as he changes clotches... yet, he still is capable of driving plans, still capable of shooting for the stars with brilliant planning. while szaz is just a lunatic that always gets taken out in one hit...that the thing... people do not think and being evil is never a group thing for them. but the only way it works is if the gorup finds out, you need to have a reason to follow them...
and make yourself a favor... stop using the "we're bound to that evil man so we have no choice" card ! that never works, that kills a campaign about 2 sessions in !
last time i played an evil character in a good game...
it wasn't until about the 15th session they find out i was... the cleric wanted to kill me ont he spot... i said, if you do, your friend over there will die. he said, bluff, kill me and you will know the truth. he tryed, but the friend, stopped him, said its true... the other said what ? he explained, remember the hole int he ground. he helped me, but before he could heal me, he asked if he could borrow a bit of my blood for the ritual. i said yes, he used it for a ritual alright, he bound me to him by infernal contract. by contract, he will keep me alive as long as he is nearby. in exchange i help him find a skull he is seeking. if i don't do that, my soul goes to him in the afterlife... the cleric was WHAAAAT ! i then answered... all in good faith my friends... i need someone to protect me, you definitely need someone to help you keep going. i raised both my hands together as in let's be friend, while smiling ! we had a lot of fun, violent at times, torture for profit in others... i even got to make the cleric do something against his deities code. i ended up dieing later on to the cleric who finally just killed me. that was one way out of the contract.
as long as you have a reason to stay within the group... it can work. aside from that cleric, the others were fine with me... he killed me out of spite for the fact he killed an innocent because of me. long story... i knew i would die after that one, it was ok for me as an ending. so all was well i had fun playing my little tiefling of avarice....
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The main reason inexperienced players shouldn't play evil characters is that they think being evil means cackling madly as they try to kill literally everyone they meet. They confuse Chaotic Evil with Chaotic Stupid, and assume for some reason that an evil character never wants anything, has a plan on how to get it, recognize that sometimes you need to play by the rules to get there, and sometimes, if there is no other alternative, do the "right" thing.
In the 'good vs evil' argument, I feel like they miss the potential for storytelling that can arise from evil vs worse evil. An evil character can do good, even if for the wrong reason
For example, I have a character built that I haven't played yet, still looking for the right campaign, but while I was making them I came to the conclusion that they were Chaotic Evil. Again, that's not to say they're a compulsive psycho murderer. The character is a pirate who served on a ship under a captain he had a lot of admiration for, who ran the ship by true democracy (IRL pirate ships were mostly run this way and are some of the earliest examples of progressive democracy, with women and POC often given equal standing and respect, so that's where I drew inspiration from). The pirate character is obsessed with being Free, free from laws and kings and convention and stuff, borderline anarchist while still respecting the way things are run on the ship because they have to be run a certain way, and really admires how the ship's captain can walk the line between being an authority figure and still treating the crew as free folk. Hence; Chaotic.
They're also Evil. No beating around the bush, their ship attacks other ships, they fight and kill them and steal their loot, and the character enjoys fighting and killing harmless and vulnerable merchant crews. They also love a tough fight with a worthy opponent. They *like* to fight, they think inflicting pain is fun, they are cruel. Hence; Evil.
But one day, the first mate of their ship sells them all out to the authorities, they sail into a trap and the captain is killed, the ship sunk, and much of the crew imprisoned. Years later when the character gets out of jail, he's in hard times. He has no money, no prospects, and has to resort to doing things he doesn't want to to survive. He sells his labor as a mercenary to eat, rather than taking whatever he wants, because without his crew at his back, he's realistic about his odds of survival. He allows himself to be subjected to a Law that he doesn't respect to survive, though he still holds anarchist ideals. He desperately wants revenge on the man who betrayed his captain, so he must gather the resources he'll need to exact it.
One day he takes a job that has a team, The Party. He plays along for the job, planning to part company afterwards, but then gets sucked into whatever is going on in the campaign, and somewhere along the lines realizes that these folks might be his best chance at getting revenge, and starts to look at them as his new crew. He maybe even comes to regard one or two of them as friends, even if they prefer to talk their way through problems he wouldn't mind fighting through. But he has to keep an eye out for them, watch their backs, and if he plays nice then a fight usually comes along anyways so he's still happy. He's still an anarchist, he's still cruel and likes to hurt people, and still driven by revenge, and is still very much a Chaotic Evil character, but he's also a functioning member of the party who's not constantly derailing things for the other players, and is down with fighting evil because he just likes a fight and likes his party. Bonus points if the DM makes the traitorous first mate now a lieutenant for the campaign villain, because then the pirate is not only just along for the ride, but now fully invested in taking them and their boss down, fully committed to the "good" side despite being evil.
That's how I'd run an evil character.
I think it's fine to play as an evil character as long as that character is contributing to the story of the campaign.
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
"No Evil Characters" was by far the only hard rule I established during S0 at my table. My players are new, need a bit of steering and I don't need them confusing being evil vs. not being good.
They've been many notable female pirates who originally snuck into crews disguised as men before eventually in many cases coming to captain them as women. Here are several examples: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58889/9-female-pirates-you-should-know
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/swashbuckling-history-women-pirates-180962874/
And I don't see how the existence of mutiny discounts democracy. What I mean by "true democracy" is democracy in its basest sense: that everyone on the ship gets a vote on how they act and where they go. Mutiny is just a more brutal form of voting that befits an evil form of democracy. You do a bad job Captaining? You get voted off the ship, and they won't wait for land to do it.
Here's an academic paper on it if you have a jstor account (https://www.jstor.org/stable/43593840?seq=1)
If not you can read about it here (https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158274) or on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_18th-century_piracy)
Bear in mind that democracy was the ideal form of governance for large crews of outlaws escaping absolute monarchy, especially when those lawless and violent crews know what they'd do to each other if they didn't live by some form of code (tying it back into D&D, there's yet another example of being Evil not necessarily meaning you're overconfident or stupid) . Remember, the Golden Age of Piracy was in the 17th-18th century before the progressive age ushered in democracy in as a legitimate form of government. In those days it was seen as something befitting dirty pirates and outlaws.
I've been playing D&D going back 35 years, and just picked it back up during Covid. My current character is Lawful Evil. The initial players were aware, but we've added a couple new players who I doubt know. And the reason why is that I play the character to have justification to further the party objectives. In fact, this character is the party Face. He plays a little like Neegan in TWD.
If the player is angling to PvP with an evil character the concept is likely to doom the campaign. That should be a reason to not have such an element in your game. But for those who are steadfast in not allowing evil PC's at their table; are your PC's virtuous? Our group is roughly 20 sessions in this year and we've had "Good" aligned characters take out a goblin tribe including the children. We had our good ranger put an orc war chief's head on a pike as a deterrent to leave the group alone. Our good aligned dragonborn let Calcryx in the Sunless Citadel escape because he felt the dragon shouldn't be a pet. However an evil dragon is now out in the world. Adventurers are often walking a grey line because of the line of work they do.
I've been able to put the restraints on what my evil PC does to ensure that while he's a self-serving, power hungry jerk..... he's also a noble with money to buy our group out of problems and he can Eldritch Blast a storm in combat. He's a net positive for the group so we are all good. Now his evil motivations are long arc plot hooks and at some point I'm sure he will have to decide between personal need over party\world need. But that isn't taking the fun of the game from another player. Short store is, you want to allow Evil PC's, have players who can pull it off and make the sandbox where they can operate within a group dynamic.
I agree, but that is, of course, just me. I don't want to GM for evil characters, and I'm not sure I'd be any good at it anyway. I want to be in games where the PCs are the heroes. Or at least, the anti-hero.
To put it in popculture terms, consider the Clint Eastwood Movie "Magnum Force." I'd be OK GMing Harry Callaghan but not the vigilante cops.
Again I'm seeing a lot of the idea that evil means selfish and untrustworthy - evil characters will kill other players, evil characters will betray other players. I'm not convinced that's what evil really means (though some players may choose to play it like that).
Take, for example, the mafia in real life. They are regarded (by the law) as "evil", in that they don't do what they are told. They work outside the law, if people cross them they put their feet in cement and throw them in the lake, and they have turf-wars with other gangs. They also, in general, will avoid killing civilians, and their whole system is built around loyalty. They are a family, not just a group of people. A person who might break your legs for talking to them badly can't be considered good or even neutral, they are definitely evil. But, if a mafia gunamn were to join the party and say "the boss says you're going to succeed in this mission" or "the boss says I'm to keep you alive as long as possible", then you can make a fair assumption that they will act in the best interests of the party at all times, and won't hurt the party, but if an NPC refuses to cooperate then they'll pour lamp oil over their children and ask them again with a match in their hand.
"Evil" to me generally implies that they work by their own rules, and that they have no moral boundaries for their actions to further their goals. So if someone makes an evil character who wants to get all the money, I'd have a chat with them about changing their motivations to avoid potential pvp in the future of the campaign. "I want the same guy dead as you do", excellent motivation. "I want all the money, and you are getting money, so I'm with you to get money", bad motivation.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
What you are describing there is Lawful Evil. Chaotic Evil is very different, think Joker, Penguin, HQ etc.That said, there are 'less experienced' players who think that CE means Chaotic stupid and will wreck the game. I have no problem with letting evil characters in my game. I also have no problem with other PC's or even myself as DM killing off evil characters that go the Chaotic Stupid route.
That's a fair comparison, but you have to establish how they will fit into the party in the first place. The Joker wouldn't work as part of a group unless the group was furthering his goals, and wouldn't murder them for money. I'd still avoid having a joker-esque character in a party as the Joker is very independent and doesn't play well with others. That in itself is a separate trait to consider which ties in with their character.
You could have a good character who has a single mission, and then is faced with the choice of whether to save the party or continue their mission - which may not need the party at all - and they might choose to continue their mission for the greater good. In that instance, I'd rather have an evil character who is invested in the party than a "good" character who would ditch the party if saving them might jeopardize their goals, which might have been entrusted to them by their holy order or some such.
Generally, you will actually find more loyalty in the "bad" side of things than the "good" side. If someone strays from the path in good society, they will sever ties to them to avoid being tarred by the same brush. If someone strays in "bad" society, they can often rely on their brothers to try and save them - depending on whether they ratted anyone out. It's kind of that Evil people have to betray each other to be cast out, and good people have to betray an ideal. Evil people have fallbacks, they might betray one group but still be in good with another. Good people who are cast out are usually done so universally.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
New players doesn't instantly mean "you can't play evil".
I know a player who was inexperienced and played a decidedly evil character, but as I mentioned earlier, she doesn't let it interfere. It's more of a "I'm all for your bad ideas with good intentions that turn out disastrous" kind of evil instead of "I'm going to do things you won't like and that's just who my character is". There is no doubt that she's evil, but she's become an integral part of the found family who are otherwise neutral and good.
I know of a campaign where alignments were not chosen at the start but determined over time. One of them is most likely evil, but again, he's not at odds with the party who are likely neutral and good. He's also fairly new to the game.
It's not the alignment. It's the players. Too many people think evil = drama with anyone not evil. It doesn't need to be like that. There are many ways to play evil.
All that stated: It's possible that new players more likely have an idea of evil that opposes cooperation. In cooperative storytelling, that's very unlikely to work well. If it were me, I'd make sure the players knew that evil acts would not be allowed to interfere with the party. Yes. It's restricting to players wanting to tell their story, but I want players to tell our story. Once a party is involved, even personal stories become cooperative in my opinion.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I 100 percent agree that being evil does not instantly put you at odds with the party. Look at Raistlin from Dragonlance. He's evil, but his twin brother is good, and Raistlin is just there to make sure his brother is alright. Raistlin isn't constantly wrestling with an urge to psycho-murder the whole party and steal their stuff, because they have goals in common.
I can't be the first person to link this video, can I?
https://youtu.be/kVuF4fkRD2c
2 pages of replies should indicate that evil characters in a campaign are more trouble than it's worth. Now, if the entire campaign goes that route, and everyone is evil - like a full House Dimir storyline where you're all out to deceive and...well, do House Dimir stuff, that might be different. If you're all part of a drow house doing drow house stuff, it might work.
What doesn't work is evil in the sense of (again..unless all are this way, but even then):
Playing characters that lean into any of the 3 bullet points almost forbids other players from playing really good paladins. The holiest of healing, help all clerics. Fighters willing to die for those that can't fight for themselves, etc. Folk can obviously still play those but you can guarantee that it will all circle back to my 1st sentence. It'll be more trouble than it's worth.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I think if you go back and and read the two pages of discussion, you'll see that the point being made is largely that being an evil character is more narratively complex than the bullet points you list.
I would say your bullet points describe evil villain NPCs, not evil player characters. There are plenty of ways a player's character can be evil that doesn't spill over into villainy. Not every evil character is trying to bring about the end of the world in the name of their evil gods, not every evil character kills everyone they meet, and not all evil characters only care about themselves.
Look at the example I cite in my first comment on this thread for an example of an evil character that pretty easily avoids all the problem points you've identified.
That's being amoral, not immoral. By D&D's standards, that makes you neutral rather than evil.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I meant it more in a sense not of the avoidance of morality but knowing the morality and choosing to do the thing anyway, which is a clear distinction within the alignment chart.
"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms."
So it would be more on the neutral evil side.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."