Has anyone tried this, and not had it blow up in your face?  It feels like one could make some pretty interesting lawful or neutral evil characters, who could possibly mesh with a party of non-evil alignment.   I think I'm mostly worried about the possible player who ends up making the murder hobo /sex fiend, on steroids.  Am i just over thinking this?  or will i generally need to micro manage evil characters to make sure they don't ruin the fun for everyone else.

You'll need to take it on a case-by-case basis. Practically speaking, Intelligent Evil creatures are self-serving and perfectly capable of living within the laws, when it serves them. Physical and sexual assault are crimes that draw unwanted attention from law enforcement. The most notorious and successful "evil" people, such as mob bosses, are often overtly well behaved in person and delegate their misbehavior to others.

I would personally draw a hard line that only experienced DMs should play evil characters in a good-aligned adventure simply to mitigate the possibility of having to deal with it later. If a player is willing to run a few adventures in order to unlock more creative latitude, then that's a win-win.

It’s all going to come down to the player’s skill. There are people out there who can rp an evil character, and have them mesh well into a good party, though I imagine they are relatively few. 
I’d say try to get buy in from the rest of the players and make sure they all understand what’s happening. Don’t give them veto power over another character, per se, but make sure everyone is clear, and see if there are any actions that would upset a player (not a character) if the evil character did them. And make sure you have a good relationship with the player of the evil character, and that they understand where the limits are. Rule of thumb: if that player finds themself saying “But that’s what my character would do” it means they are taking things too far.

And you should not ever have to micro manage anyone’s character. You have enough to do as DM. If you do, it either means they need a different character, or they’re an annoying player and you should kick them from the table.

If the premise is for a "non evil" campaign, then don't let a PC be evil. Simple.

Quote from Zhule >>

Has anyone tried this, and not had it blow up in your face?  It feels like one could make some pretty interesting lawful or neutral evil characters, who could possibly mesh with a party of non-evil alignment.   I think I'm mostly worried about the possible player who ends up making the murder hobo /sex fiend, on steroids.  Am i just over thinking this?  or will i generally need to micro manage evil characters to make sure they don't ruin the fun for everyone else.

 I have played Lawful Evil assassins or nightblades in the past, in a mostly-lawful party. They agreed on the lawful parts, and both characters were smart enough to hide their evilness from the party. They knew their companions didn't like it.

Every game I have ever been in with a character of any Alignment that was different from the over all theme of the game, it blew up.  If you're running a primarily Lawful setting, where all but one character is a Chaotic they will invariably do something Chaotic, because in this instance, that really is what their character should do.  It's the same with Evil in a Good campaign.  I've never seen that work.  If they are Evil, and they never do anything Evil, what's the point of playing an Evil character?  If they are intelligent enough (in the real world) to get away with it, all well and good, and there are a whole bunch of ways to resolve how they might get away with it in the game.

My most vivid memory of a game that got spoiled by an Evil character was a guy who was a friend of the DM who would drop in at random from time to time, always played an Evil character, and did his best to find some way to screw everyone else over because he said "That's what my character would do."  He was absolutely right.

I'm playing a lawful evil character in a group with good PC's and one neutral one.  It works, because I will go to whatever length to justify my character working towards the group goals.  As a DM you need to have shared goals that are a mechanism for all the characters to work towards the same goal regardless of alignment.  You also need to know your players.  If you have any reservations about such a character being a distraction, then don't allow it at your table.

In my case, it creates plenty of sub-plot drama.  The evil pc is the party face, and often has to juggle personal desires against keeping the group in an optimal position in the world.  Alignment is a guide, and not some narrow path a player must follow.  

Recently I was playing in a one shot where our characters were made for us and given to us. I was given a chaotic evil character and I decided to go with what I was given and be as evil as possible. And everyone was surprised when I burned down the town, blew up a wedding, and derailed the plot. Do not let evil (or at LEAST Chaotic Evil) characters into non evil groups, it cannot go well

It works, because I will go to whatever length to justify my character working towards the group goals.

And this is what will prevent it from blowing up, as Geann describes.

It blows up because the evil character's player insists on being overtly and irreconcilably evil in RP ("this is what my character would do"), knowing it will cause friction in the party.

It will work if you do what Socon and I are describing. My Lawful Evil nightblade (1) did not tell the party she was a magical assassin, but (2) did not assassinate anyone in front of the good members of the party, and (3) did not try to backstab her own party members. It blows up if you try to kill your own party members or execute innocent people in front of them. What you have to do is pass the DM a note saying you will execute the person later that night when the party is asleep, have him let you make rolls privately in some way, and then later that week the party hears that the innocent person "was murdered" and the killer has not yet been apprehended. And then you get to look all confused as to why anyone would murder the poor innocent person, etc.

The problem isn't the playing of an evil character, but rather, the player of the evil character flaunting it and being obviously evil in front of an otherwise-good party. THAT will blow things up every time. Again, see Geann's example of "that's what my character would do."

You see, in my opinion the guy in my example did indeed play Evil the way I imagine it should be.  He was malevolent, like a Demon of Devil.  It's straight out of the Player's Handbook.  The problem with that guy is twofold.  1, he didn't care about any of the other players at all.  He wasn't interested in their story.  2, he was the DM's friend, and the DM let him do it.  We had fun, pretty much, so long as that guy wasn't around.  We were all relieved, even the DM, when he went away.

You have to play smart, and you have to care more about the story than your own self.  It's clear that it can be done, like in Bio's example, but it takes a very strong motivation for someone to suppress their inner nature.  The DM has to give them a reason to care.

Quote from Geann >>

You see, in my opinion the guy in my example did indeed play Evil the way I imagine it should be.  He was malevolent, like a Demon of Devil.  It's straight out of the Player's Handbook.  The problem with that guy is twofold.  1, he didn't care about any of the other players at all.  He wasn't interested in their story.  2, he was the DM's friend, and the DM let him do it.  We had fun, pretty much, so long as that guy wasn't around.  We were all relieved, even the DM, when he went away.

You have to play smart, and you have to care more about the story than your own self.  It's clear that it can be done, like in Bio's example, but it takes a very strong motivation for someone to suppress their inner nature.  The DM has to give them a reason to care.

 

 Once a player "doesn't care about any of the other players at all"; they should not be at the table.  In our game, the DM built a sandbox where the players do care about each other's story.  Nobody has a backstory tied to another PC, but the past does somewhat connect them towards a shared goal.  And if a DM enables behavior that takes from other players sense of enjoyment, they aren't a particularly good DM.  

Here's the deal; do you like playing your evil PC?  Do you like playing with the other players?  If so, find a way to make it work, or else the campaign will not last long.  If the answer is no, then don't play.  And as a DM, this is a session zero discussion.  Our table is a hard stop on PvP.  If you aren't comfortable with a dynamic of evil PC's, then talk to the players.  

Yes, this is my point -- the player must be willing to subordinate playing the "perfect most evil character who is evil all the time" to the needs of the party. You have to make up a character who is willing to do this. It's not about alignment -- it's about designing an evil character who maybe has some redeeming qualities or is willing to hide his or her evil nature for the good of the party. Anna Coulter does this with Judge, her Lawful Evil anti-paladin on Matt Coleville's Chain of Acheron series. Judge's immediate subordinate on the chain is a Lawful Good paladin named Two-Shoes (NPC). They work together extremely well. Matt explained it as, Judge is LAWFUL evil, and Two-Shoes is LAWFUL good, both emphasizing law rather than good or evil. So they can get together on law, which is their emphasis, and they work fine together. Judge is loyal to the Chain (because he's lawful), but is willing to do "whatever it takes" to serve them, whereas there may be certain lengths to which Two-Shoes would not similarly go, even for the Chain. But they generally get along fine.

Interestingly enough, one of the quotes of the series happened in the first episode, when a giant demon picked up Red, the Chain's then-leader, and was going to kill him. Red ordered Judge and the others to flee.  He said, "I'm a dead man, go!" Judge's response was, "I don't take orders from dead men," and Anna had him still try to save his captain. Again, Judge is loyal to the chain and its command structure, evil or not.

The other characters on the chain are alignments like neutral good, lawful neutral, etc. They generally do honorable and what we'd otherwise consider "good" things. Judge does not try to stop them. But again, there are times when Judge will "do what is necessary." Coleville pointed out, there were times when Red would just walk out of a room and "leave things to Judge." Red didn't want to give the order or kill the person himself, but knew it had to be done, so he let Judge do it, and Judge was the executioner (as his name implies).

My point here is, there is definitely a way to play an evil character but not disrupt the otherwise non-evil party. But as a player, like Anna, you have to come up with a character who works for the party. LAWFUL evil, rather than lawful EVIL, for instance.

Lots of examples of this being done successfully and not. Key thing is the players ability to roleplay it properly and, in my opinion, accepting that alignment is a guide not a hard rule. Good people can do bad things and not become neutral or evil, and evil people can do good things and not become good. 

You need to have a clear reason why the evil character and the good ones are aligned, maybe the bbeg is a threat to all. One good example would be a character from the 9 hells joining the party on a quest that will prevent the forces of the abyss gaining power. They have been instructed by Asmodeus to do all they can to stop the forces gaining access to some artifact but maybe they have a secret side quest to get the artifact into the 9 hells and not allow the party to destroy it. Or maybe destroying it is fine. 

Lawful Evil is probably the beat option for this because the character can have a strict set of rules they live by, for instance not killing women and children out of hand. 

But my main piece of advice, don’t try running this as you and your players first, second or even 3rd campaign. In 30 years of roleplaying many different systems I have seen this story fall apart and have to be abandoned or cut short dar more then I have seen it pulled off successfully. 

Lawful Evil is probably the beat option for this because the character can have a strict set of rules they live by

Another great quote from Anna's character, who is aligned with the devils and Asmodeus is his patron... When discussing the difference between devils (LE) and demons (CE)...  Judge commented that devils have standards. Demons don't.

This is basically what you're saying... a Lawful Evil character has standards. They may not be standards you and I would agree with (not being evil ourselves, I'd hope!), but for instance if an evil person with standards makes a promise, that person probably will keep that promise.

I had a supervillain in Champions back in the day, Overlord, who eventually earned deep respect from all the players. Yes, they hated him. Yes, he was absolutely evil (though there's no "alignment" in Champions). His ultimate goal was to sacrifice every human on earth to absorb their energies and make himself a god. Yet, he was honorable and kept his word. If you managed to get him to promise not to sacrifice anyone this year, for example, he'd honor it. He actually allied with the PCs twice... once against the Crimson Claw in the Great Super Villain Contest (GSVC, a published 2nd edition Champions adventure), and once against Set and Darkseid when they tried to take over the multiverse. Both times, Overlord realized that if the uber-villain won, his plan would never be possible, so he joined the heroes. And they trusted him, because "he had standards" -- he would not break his word, and he had proven this to them several times, so they knew they could rely on his promises.

So, even an evil NPC villain *can* work with the party, if you design the character right. No other villain in my menagerie would have been trusted to help the heroes against Darkseid or the Claw. But they knew if Overlord said he'd honor a truce between his villains and the heroes until the common enemy was beaten, they could trust that.

This is exactly the hook that allowed my Lawful Evil PC to function in the party, and I was on board with it to make the concept work.  I'm the party Face, the presumed "leader" of the group to outsiders, and political motivations are aligning my character's wants with the party goals.  That's how a DM can make this work.  Also takes the player understanding that they have to put in that effort too.  

Our game has a highly involved political story arc. Most of the NPC's who are of nobility are morally "grey".  As players we don't even know who the good folks are.  It is an advantage to have a PC who is just as self-serving as those in that arena.  so for our game, my evil PC has a role.  But metagame, treasure shares are done fairly by all players, we have a no PvP understanding, and the players know the general goals of everyone's character and in game work to not hinder each other.  Takes some work from everyone, but I've been playing for a year and a half with no issues.  

If a player wants to play as an Evil alignment, then they still need to stick to the following:

• They must be motivated either by a desire for wealth/fame/power, or they must have a desire to help other people. The latter option is out, so the evil character must the first criteria. This is perfectly fine. These are required conditions for PCs, because otherwise the DM has no ability to motivate characters to do anything.
• The PC must recognise that they will not at any time be permitted to go into a PvP mode. They cannot steal from other players without the rest of the group agreeing to it, they cannot hide loot from the other players unless the other players are fine with it, and if they attack another player, they become an NPC under the control of the DM unless the other player is fine with it. At any time when a PC begins to act against the other members of the group, they should switch to being an NPC as otherwise you have to split the game.
• They must play a character that ties in with the overall theme of the campaign, who is willing to go on the adventures with the party. The theme of the campaign should be discussed with the DM in session zero. If the theme is "The world is dying, and you will become embroiled trying to save it," then a backstory or personality that leads them to conflict with the party is not permissible, as it will spoil the game at some point.
• The big thing that gets missed by most "I want to be evil" players: They must accept from the beginning that if their evil acts are noticed by the party, the party can eject them from the group and refuse to take them on further adventures. If this happens, the PC will be retired as an NPC. The biggest conflict I have seen with this scenario is where one PC murders an innocent shopkeeper or similar, and then expects that the rest of the party (neutral and good aligned) won't turn them over to the authorities or want to deal with them themselves. Even at the minor end, if you suspect your Thief is robbing innocent shopkeepers, your party of PCs may well choose to be rid of them. (inevitably this character conflict leads to conflict between the players). You also should not require a party of players running good aligned characters to have to pretend that they don't know one of the group is stealing from them, murdered a friendly NPC etc. Again it's bad for player conflict. 

I knew a guy who wanted to play as a Mind Flayer who was trying to take over the minds of the party. That character was flat out banned. PvP combat in D&D is generally not fun, unless the players choose that they want to end the campaign resolving their differences.

I would suggest you talk to the player about exactly what aspects of "Evil" their character is supposed to portray. "Evil" and "Good" are simply easy tags for much deeper behaviour.

If the player wants to play a character who is greedy and obsessed with gaining money, and will betray anyone for enough money, and doesn't care for completing the tasks the party is doing unless there is money, then they can readily play such a character under the brand "Neutral". If they tend towards doing good, but they have no qualms about doing bad to achieve it (like Rorschach from Watchmen) then they would be Neutral, as their doing bad is balanced by the fact that they do it to do good.

"Evil" is a scale in itself anyway. Let's say a party of 3 is asked to help the poor in a village, because they are starving whilst the nobles feast.

The good one will help the people to find their own food, and they will be fed on natural harvest like berries and stuff, which the nobles might take once the party has gone.

The neutral one might steal the food from the nobles, giving the poor some food but leaving them in the same situation when they leave.

The Evil one might break into the nobles house disguised as a vampire, and threaten to kill him if they ever find out that the poor have gone hungry.

Of those 3, the Evil one actually has the best results for the poor - a reliable source of decent food.

Provided that the Evil character's player can be relied upon to steer the evil character down the route of good, then their methods can add to the game. If they accept the "save the innocents" quest, then let their evil imagination run wild with how they can save them, then it can add to the game rather than derail it. You have to have that trust in the players that their character will not betray the party or go murderhobo, both of which make the game worse (generally).

They must be motivated either by a desire for wealth/fame/power, or they must have a desire to help other people. The latter option is out, so the evil character must the first criteria. 

Or... they must have a good reason for pretending to be non-evil, and help other people as part of that pretense.

My Nightblade knew she had to fake being good, or at least non-evil, in front of the party, or she'd be minimally kicked out and possibly the paladin or cleric would have tried to have her arrested.

Quote from BioWizard >>

They must be motivated either by a desire for wealth/fame/power, or they must have a desire to help other people. The latter option is out, so the evil character must the first criteria. 

Or... they must have a good reason for pretending to be non-evil, and help other people as part of that pretense.

My Nightblade knew she had to fake being good, or at least non-evil, in front of the party, or she'd be minimally kicked out and possibly the paladin or cleric would have tried to have her arrested.

 In this circumstance, they still need to be motivated by money, fame or power. It's perfectly fine for someone to pretend to have ulterior motivations - but the PC needs a motivation to be doing it at all. Why are they pretending?

Adventuring requires the PCs to put their lives on the line every time they set out on an adventure. Why did your Nighblade want to be with the party at all?

Sure, she had a motivation to pretend. My point just is that evil characters don't have to run around being all-evil, all the time, and may even behave in a way that seems non-evil to everyone else.  Look at all the real-world serial killers who lived among neighbors and co-workers for years, even decades, and no one suspected what they were doing. They had to be good at pretending not to be evil.