I'm DMing a campaign and there's one evil player with two non-evil players. The evil one believes staying with his companions is beneficial to him but will eventually attempt to kill them once they exhaust their use to him. He serves an evil God and just desires to unleash his rage and murder upon all he comes across.
I'm curious as to how this will pan out.
Does anyone have experience with a situation similar to this? Players or DMs
From my experience it will end with characters attacking each other and players with hurt feelings. Especially if he wants to go full murder hobo it probably won't last long. Evil generally only really works if the whole party is evil (they will betray each other but everyone knew that going in) or if the evil character is strongly contained (my God told me I need to behave and help these people for important quest). Otherwise it rarely ends well.
I have to agree, it generally ends poorly. This type of scenario works best on the silver screen or in a book, as an interactive story it generally falls apart and causes hard feelings.
Now, that is not to say it cannot be done, I have read a couple accounts of players being the bad guy of a game and it worked out well. The common thing in the stories that I seem to recall is that they played exactly as though they were a party member, there was no in-fighting, their groups worked on the same goals. Any attempts made to undermine another player were slight, not having major ramifications causing the non-evil PC undue hardships or losing agency. The reveal was done after the group had felt they all achieved their ultimate goal or they were on the verge of achieving that goal.
It's a tricky thing to pull off with an NPC let alone a PC, players are generally a suspicious lot. It will also require the bad guy to be experienced enough to not get lost in the idea that evil means stupid. If you can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this guy can play a convincing role of Moriarty and not turn into the mad cap Joker of comic legends, then by all means try your hand.
You can also attempt to put situations in place, that can "grow" the characters. create borderline moral scenarios that could effect their alignment. Not all good people stay good forever. Not all evil people stay evil forever.
I am in a current campaign, where the CG Barbarian. Has an issue, with my CN gloomstalker, and a LG Druid/Barbarian not doing lethal damage to enemies. The CG guy is "we need to kill them", where the LG is like "do no evil", and my CN guy, doesn't kill them, because the gods haven't given him omens to do so, but he feels obligated to test anyone who tries to "take away his freedom", by putting them in some "Saw-like" situation or pit fighting vs animal or something, where people have to earn their freedom for themselves again. the CG barbarian, tried to kill a goblin the LG guy was holding in his arms, rolled a 1, and instead cleaved his great axe into the druid's forearm.
Imagine all the scenarios of how that can turn out.
I'm a big fan of not restrciting people's creativity and such. I'd say run with it, play mediator if things take a bad turn, and create situations that allow the players options themselves to grow or change or stay the same.
check out this site http://easydamus.com/alignment.html It will give you and the player an example of how his alignment might act toward others in the party. Evil doesn't always mean, "betray the party" and beware of any player that starts being a dick with the excuse, "that's what my character would do", that is a major red flag.
Evil doesn't mean run around kill everyone and stab them in the back, it can, but they wouldn't last long in a party(or at the table). A smart evil player realizes they need others for their plans to succeed, every BBEG has minions, lieutenants, or even friends/companions, makes sense that an evil player would have the same.
Lawful Evil is my favorite alignment to play for evil characters, they can have a code of honor, be reasonable and be polite if it is in their best interest, but can also be unforgiving, cruel, menacing, and go that extra step that some good characters would shy away from to get the job done.
It's extremely difficult to pull off. Not to say impossible, just really hard. Anytime a player goes off on his own or does something against the rest of the party, bad things happen.
Been a GM for over ...well a long long time (D&D, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Twilight2000, Gamma World, Top Secret, Mech Warrior, Traveller, Boot Hill, Champions, Fantasy HERO, Star Frontiers, and others) The only game in which PvP backstabbing worked out, was Top Secret because everybody knows everybody is a super spy.
Again, not impossible, just hard.
**
TOON! I forgot about TOON. backstabbery is totally OK in TOON.
. He serves an evil God and just desires to unleash his rage and murder upon all he comes across.
I'm curious as to how this will pan out.
Does anyone have experience with a situation similar to this? Players or DMs
that bit there says the guy is chaotic evil and the whole thing is doomed to failure from the start, CE characters are doable in an entirely evil group, lawful evil you can work into mixed groups if the player plays them right, but what you have is a situation that's not going to work. with anything other than afull evil group or possible a mixed evil neutral and even then you should have in party arguments about his methods.
if i was playing a lawful good character i would refuse to have him as my associate, if he then attacked me and the rest of my party i'd kill him straight off to save the world from another monster and consider it a job well done. if it was a lawful evil character they can be scheeming, grasping and underhand in their methods, the aim is to gain personal power,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
Played an evil Tiefling Wizard once. Talked with the DM about the character and we agreed, that she is actually calculative and patient. She hang around the party, earning their trust with her "altruistic" behaviour. At the very end of the campaign we were fighting a BBEG, that was after a powerful artifact, that would elevate him to a demigod level of power. We barely defeated him, but everyone was still standing alive. So my Tiefling lass walked up to the artifact, as the Arcana expert and picked it up. Everyone was cheering and patting their backs, till I said... "She cackles madly, throwing a Quickened-Maximised Fireball at the rest of the party followed with another Maximised Fireball." It was a nice full party wipe.
The next campaign we were facing against her in an attempt to dethrone the evil demon and save the world. Fun times.
Maybe a little late.But as usual newer players always missmatch alignement with reason.
Everybody need a reason to do something.And Good or Evil are just the way to reach you goals. So when someone say he want to kill him or her, let him explain why? And if his only explanation is "Because i am evil" then say to him that chaotic evil is not chaotic stupid, unless he have an int score around 4. Easist way of a solution is let guards capture and kill him. Problem solved. No action should be withoud proper consequents.
To prevent this in the future, make a Session 0 where you talk about the party alignment, special rules, wishes, no Gos etc. In this session you usually tell the chaotic players that if they run amok they will face the consequences,
On a side note, it's usually quite "efficient" to create a party, that already has some bonds between the members. I've recently started the Lost Mines of Phandelver for a group of 4 utter rookies. We have a druid, barbarian, bard and warlock. The story hook for cargo delivery is good to get them going, but still I gave them the private personal hooks from premade characters. And lastly I made up a short story for each, explaining how they met and why they are now together. And thus, our manipulative Bard was rescued from a chasing group of thugs by our Celestial Warlock, granting her a sanctuary within one of the temples of Neverwinter. And our Druid nursed the Barbarian to full health after his small duel with a scouting group of orcs.
That being said, my point is... Someone can be evil, but still have bonds with good characters. He might have a good aligned sister or friend he refuses to harm. Also as was told before, evil does not mean stupid. Same as good does not mean nice. Just look at a few examples from recent popculture. Judge Dredd is definitely a Lawful Good character, but he is anything but nice. Voldemort is a Lawful Evil, but he has elaborate plans and only started openly killing people, when most of them were already in motion and there were but a few that could oppose him.
Bottom line... the players... need to know what will happen. At my table I recently played... you have to ask permission to do anything negative to another player. ... or get booted. Surprising there were some situations where the players allowed things to be done that were negative. The evil player, however, had to understand that turn about was fair play and others could respond at that point.
At that point it became an event in and of itself... Often times it was a pre-cursor for the evil player (or good player in an evil majority game) to leave (create a new character etc) Some of the accounts from the players were quite interesting..
I have played a number of games with evil party members (though not necessarily that style of eventually going to backstab the party), but in one game where we had a really evil NPC who attacked party members, myself and 2 other party members created a plot to kill him. Ended up making for a really good story.
If his motivation is clear and the other party members are fine with the idea of being with an evil character, it could end up actually being very interesting and something they all enjoy.
Players who play evil characters have extra responsibility. They have to think about the story as a whole. Not just their place in it. Their evil actions can’t derail the campaign or make it impossible for other players to play. I explain this to every player who wants to play evil.
Folks like to wring their hands about evil party members, but when was the last time your Lawful Neutral druid and Chaotic Good fighter actually paused play to get into a debate about ethics or the role of the state? Alignment, like backstory, is largely relevant in the first handful of sessions when the players are telling each other about their characters instead of showing/playing them, and that will largely fall by the wayside as the group coalesces and settles into a shared arc. Sure, the evil party member may advocate for demanding a reward after saving a traveler while the paladin wants to just smile and part ways... but because parties travel in groups 99% of the time instead of juggling five separate characters off doing separate things, the opportunities for an evil character to cause any real mischief are few and far between in normal table play.
Of course, if you're playing an extremely immersive roleplay heavy play-by-post game your players might have more time and opportunity to get "in character" and remember that they're actually evil and have motivations beyond those of the group... but D&D's cannon is chock full of source material showing evil characters standing beside good and neutral ones as allies (Raistlin from dragonlance, Monte, Xzar, and Kagain from Baldurs Gate, Gollum for 90% of Lord of the Rings, etc etc).
If your player is the sort that is going to use being evil as an excuse to slit a party member's throat in camp, 99% likely that same player would have found an excuse to kill party members as a Lawful Good paladin, or sell them out to their enemy as a Neutral rogue, etc etc. Disruptive players are disruptive players, and while choosing an evil character can be a warning sign that you have a disruptive player on your hands, correlation is not causation.
Now from the description, I wouldn't even say the "evil" character is evil, more selfish that anything. I never really declared a class though my group says I'm evil. We are running Dragon Hoard and I serve Tiamat (no one knows) so I killed a dragon cultist I captured instead of letting him be questioned (Tiamit said to). I faithfully serve and I get along with my group most of the time, the only true "betrayal" I'll do is when we finally face Tiamat, I'll admit I serve her and I will not help them fight her and will attack them if so ordered (I will ask them to serve her her instead of fighting her
My answer to any alignment question is: don't bother with alignment. I've found that very few players actually understand alignment and quite frankly; I am tired of dealing with Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Stupid, Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, and Stupid Neutral. Focus on the Roleplay, not the classification. Make it beneficial to the Murderous Character to continue to stay within the party's good graces.
Maybe the Evil Deity has a power struggle going on with some other Evil Deities that the party is fighting against. This means that the Murderous Character is more interested in killing the same things the others are interested in and working with the party is pragmatic.
Maybe the Evil Deity needs to avoid attracting the attention of, or made a bargain with a Deity of one of the party members. So the Murderous Character is there to make sure that they stay alive... for now.
Then maybe the Murderous Character will actually develop an enjoyable relationship with the party members and not murder them.
I was running a group of teens and pre teens through Lost Mines of Phandelver and the youngest chose to be a Chaotic Evil Barbarian. The group had decided that the majority of them had been in prison for one reason or another and the barb chose that he had murdered someone to get there. Three players chose to not be in prison when the dwarf found them. I decided that the 3 were chosen to escort the rest and report back at the end of the assignment how the convicts had behaved, which would decide if they were to be paroled. Since most of the convicts were in for less serious (and sometimes silly things; ie pissing in the skylight of the house of the Mayor of Neverwinter and actually hitting him), this was something that I felt was acceptable for them. The barb got his own talk in front of everyone: if you are ever spotted away from one of the three non convicts, you'll die. If they don't survive, you'll die. If they do, and give a poor report of you, you'll die. If you piss them off, you'll die. We didn't get very far before everyone got so busy that we abandoned the campaign, but he responded fairly well. The worst that happened was him running into the cave on the second encounter while the party was engaged in fighting a larger than posted contingent of goblins that also included a hobgoblin. He did this because he heard snarling wolves at the cave entrance and wanted one for a pet. I had 3 wolves and 3 goblins waiting in there, so I suggested that he cry out "Leeeeeeeerooooooy Jenkins!" as he ran in. He happily complied, pulled the wolves and 2 of the goblins (the third retreated to report to the Bugbear, Klarg or something, who decided to prepare a trap for the party). He got knocked unconscious, healed up by the hard and then cried out to his party members to not kill one of the wolves. DM ruling that Maglubiyet was pissed that he was trying to steal one of the wolves and struck him unconscious again. Good times. The party eventually mopped up the remaining wolves and goblins, took a short rest, and proceeded with caution into the cave, successfully clearing it. Good thing there were 7 others and one was an artificer with the big gun.
Im sure that many will disagree with this. In the end no matter what the players character sheet says I just let them play as they want without having to stay within the rule of alignment. I see this more with new players but have long time players do the same. In the past when I would run a game where this mattered often times a player would pick something other then evil. In most cases a good alignment. I just dont force it anymore.
I'm DMing a campaign and there's one evil player with two non-evil players. The evil one believes staying with his companions is beneficial to him but will eventually attempt to kill them once they exhaust their use to him. He serves an evil God and just desires to unleash his rage and murder upon all he comes across.
I'm curious as to how this will pan out.
Does anyone have experience with a situation similar to this? Players or DMs
From my experience it will end with characters attacking each other and players with hurt feelings. Especially if he wants to go full murder hobo it probably won't last long. Evil generally only really works if the whole party is evil (they will betray each other but everyone knew that going in) or if the evil character is strongly contained (my God told me I need to behave and help these people for important quest). Otherwise it rarely ends well.
I have to agree, it generally ends poorly. This type of scenario works best on the silver screen or in a book, as an interactive story it generally falls apart and causes hard feelings.
Now, that is not to say it cannot be done, I have read a couple accounts of players being the bad guy of a game and it worked out well. The common thing in the stories that I seem to recall is that they played exactly as though they were a party member, there was no in-fighting, their groups worked on the same goals. Any attempts made to undermine another player were slight, not having major ramifications causing the non-evil PC undue hardships or losing agency. The reveal was done after the group had felt they all achieved their ultimate goal or they were on the verge of achieving that goal.
It's a tricky thing to pull off with an NPC let alone a PC, players are generally a suspicious lot. It will also require the bad guy to be experienced enough to not get lost in the idea that evil means stupid. If you can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this guy can play a convincing role of Moriarty and not turn into the mad cap Joker of comic legends, then by all means try your hand.
You can also attempt to put situations in place, that can "grow" the characters. create borderline moral scenarios that could effect their alignment. Not all good people stay good forever. Not all evil people stay evil forever.
I am in a current campaign, where the CG Barbarian. Has an issue, with my CN gloomstalker, and a LG Druid/Barbarian not doing lethal damage to enemies. The CG guy is "we need to kill them", where the LG is like "do no evil", and my CN guy, doesn't kill them, because the gods haven't given him omens to do so, but he feels obligated to test anyone who tries to "take away his freedom", by putting them in some "Saw-like" situation or pit fighting vs animal or something, where people have to earn their freedom for themselves again. the CG barbarian, tried to kill a goblin the LG guy was holding in his arms, rolled a 1, and instead cleaved his great axe into the druid's forearm.
Imagine all the scenarios of how that can turn out.
I'm a big fan of not restrciting people's creativity and such. I'd say run with it, play mediator if things take a bad turn, and create situations that allow the players options themselves to grow or change or stay the same.
Blank
check out this site http://easydamus.com/alignment.html It will give you and the player an example of how his alignment might act toward others in the party. Evil doesn't always mean, "betray the party" and beware of any player that starts being a dick with the excuse, "that's what my character would do", that is a major red flag.
Evil doesn't mean run around kill everyone and stab them in the back, it can, but they wouldn't last long in a party(or at the table). A smart evil player realizes they need others for their plans to succeed, every BBEG has minions, lieutenants, or even friends/companions, makes sense that an evil player would have the same.
Lawful Evil is my favorite alignment to play for evil characters, they can have a code of honor, be reasonable and be polite if it is in their best interest, but can also be unforgiving, cruel, menacing, and go that extra step that some good characters would shy away from to get the job done.
It's extremely difficult to pull off. Not to say impossible, just really hard. Anytime a player goes off on his own or does something against the rest of the party, bad things happen.
Been a GM for over ...well a long long time (D&D, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, Twilight2000, Gamma World, Top Secret, Mech Warrior, Traveller, Boot Hill, Champions, Fantasy HERO, Star Frontiers, and others) The only game in which PvP backstabbing worked out, was Top Secret because everybody knows everybody is a super spy.
Again, not impossible, just hard.
**
TOON! I forgot about TOON. backstabbery is totally OK in TOON.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
that bit there says the guy is chaotic evil and the whole thing is doomed to failure from the start, CE characters are doable in an entirely evil group, lawful evil you can work into mixed groups if the player plays them right, but what you have is a situation that's not going to work. with anything other than afull evil group or possible a mixed evil neutral and even then you should have in party arguments about his methods.
if i was playing a lawful good character i would refuse to have him as my associate, if he then attacked me and the rest of my party i'd kill him straight off to save the world from another monster and consider it a job well done.
if it was a lawful evil character they can be scheeming, grasping and underhand in their methods, the aim is to gain personal power,
All plans turn into, run into the room waving a sword and see what happens from there, once the first die gets rolled
Played an evil Tiefling Wizard once. Talked with the DM about the character and we agreed, that she is actually calculative and patient. She hang around the party, earning their trust with her "altruistic" behaviour. At the very end of the campaign we were fighting a BBEG, that was after a powerful artifact, that would elevate him to a demigod level of power. We barely defeated him, but everyone was still standing alive. So my Tiefling lass walked up to the artifact, as the Arcana expert and picked it up. Everyone was cheering and patting their backs, till I said... "She cackles madly, throwing a Quickened-Maximised Fireball at the rest of the party followed with another Maximised Fireball." It was a nice full party wipe.
The next campaign we were facing against her in an attempt to dethrone the evil demon and save the world. Fun times.
Maybe a little late.But as usual newer players always missmatch alignement with reason.
Everybody need a reason to do something.And Good or Evil are just the way to reach you goals. So when someone say he want to kill him or her, let him explain why? And if his only explanation is "Because i am evil" then say to him that chaotic evil is not chaotic stupid, unless he have an int score around 4. Easist way of a solution is let guards capture and kill him. Problem solved. No action should be withoud proper consequents.
To prevent this in the future, make a Session 0 where you talk about the party alignment, special rules, wishes, no Gos etc. In this session you usually tell the chaotic players that if they run amok they will face the consequences,
On a side note, it's usually quite "efficient" to create a party, that already has some bonds between the members. I've recently started the Lost Mines of Phandelver for a group of 4 utter rookies. We have a druid, barbarian, bard and warlock. The story hook for cargo delivery is good to get them going, but still I gave them the private personal hooks from premade characters. And lastly I made up a short story for each, explaining how they met and why they are now together. And thus, our manipulative Bard was rescued from a chasing group of thugs by our Celestial Warlock, granting her a sanctuary within one of the temples of Neverwinter. And our Druid nursed the Barbarian to full health after his small duel with a scouting group of orcs.
That being said, my point is... Someone can be evil, but still have bonds with good characters. He might have a good aligned sister or friend he refuses to harm. Also as was told before, evil does not mean stupid. Same as good does not mean nice. Just look at a few examples from recent popculture. Judge Dredd is definitely a Lawful Good character, but he is anything but nice. Voldemort is a Lawful Evil, but he has elaborate plans and only started openly killing people, when most of them were already in motion and there were but a few that could oppose him.
Watch Matt Colville on evil characters to get some ideas
^ yep... that... lol
Bottom line... the players... need to know what will happen. At my table I recently played... you have to ask permission to do anything negative to another player. ... or get booted. Surprising there were some situations where the players allowed things to be done that were negative. The evil player, however, had to understand that turn about was fair play and others could respond at that point.
At that point it became an event in and of itself... Often times it was a pre-cursor for the evil player (or good player in an evil majority game) to leave (create a new character etc) Some of the accounts from the players were quite interesting..
I have played a number of games with evil party members (though not necessarily that style of eventually going to backstab the party), but in one game where we had a really evil NPC who attacked party members, myself and 2 other party members created a plot to kill him. Ended up making for a really good story.
If his motivation is clear and the other party members are fine with the idea of being with an evil character, it could end up actually being very interesting and something they all enjoy.
Players who play evil characters have extra responsibility. They have to think about the story as a whole. Not just their place in it. Their evil actions can’t derail the campaign or make it impossible for other players to play. I explain this to every player who wants to play evil.
Folks like to wring their hands about evil party members, but when was the last time your Lawful Neutral druid and Chaotic Good fighter actually paused play to get into a debate about ethics or the role of the state? Alignment, like backstory, is largely relevant in the first handful of sessions when the players are telling each other about their characters instead of showing/playing them, and that will largely fall by the wayside as the group coalesces and settles into a shared arc. Sure, the evil party member may advocate for demanding a reward after saving a traveler while the paladin wants to just smile and part ways... but because parties travel in groups 99% of the time instead of juggling five separate characters off doing separate things, the opportunities for an evil character to cause any real mischief are few and far between in normal table play.
Of course, if you're playing an extremely immersive roleplay heavy play-by-post game your players might have more time and opportunity to get "in character" and remember that they're actually evil and have motivations beyond those of the group... but D&D's cannon is chock full of source material showing evil characters standing beside good and neutral ones as allies (Raistlin from dragonlance, Monte, Xzar, and Kagain from Baldurs Gate, Gollum for 90% of Lord of the Rings, etc etc).
If your player is the sort that is going to use being evil as an excuse to slit a party member's throat in camp, 99% likely that same player would have found an excuse to kill party members as a Lawful Good paladin, or sell them out to their enemy as a Neutral rogue, etc etc. Disruptive players are disruptive players, and while choosing an evil character can be a warning sign that you have a disruptive player on your hands, correlation is not causation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Now from the description, I wouldn't even say the "evil" character is evil, more selfish that anything. I never really declared a class though my group says I'm evil. We are running Dragon Hoard and I serve Tiamat (no one knows) so I killed a dragon cultist I captured instead of letting him be questioned (Tiamit said to). I faithfully serve and I get along with my group most of the time, the only true "betrayal" I'll do is when we finally face Tiamat, I'll admit I serve her and I will not help them fight her and will attack them if so ordered (I will ask them to serve her her instead of fighting her
My answer to any alignment question is: don't bother with alignment. I've found that very few players actually understand alignment and quite frankly; I am tired of dealing with Chaotic Stupid, Lawful Stupid, Stupid Good, Stupid Evil, and Stupid Neutral. Focus on the Roleplay, not the classification. Make it beneficial to the Murderous Character to continue to stay within the party's good graces.
Maybe the Evil Deity has a power struggle going on with some other Evil Deities that the party is fighting against. This means that the Murderous Character is more interested in killing the same things the others are interested in and working with the party is pragmatic.
Maybe the Evil Deity needs to avoid attracting the attention of, or made a bargain with a Deity of one of the party members. So the Murderous Character is there to make sure that they stay alive... for now.
Then maybe the Murderous Character will actually develop an enjoyable relationship with the party members and not murder them.
I was running a group of teens and pre teens through Lost Mines of Phandelver and the youngest chose to be a Chaotic Evil Barbarian. The group had decided that the majority of them had been in prison for one reason or another and the barb chose that he had murdered someone to get there. Three players chose to not be in prison when the dwarf found them. I decided that the 3 were chosen to escort the rest and report back at the end of the assignment how the convicts had behaved, which would decide if they were to be paroled. Since most of the convicts were in for less serious (and sometimes silly things; ie pissing in the skylight of the house of the Mayor of Neverwinter and actually hitting him), this was something that I felt was acceptable for them. The barb got his own talk in front of everyone: if you are ever spotted away from one of the three non convicts, you'll die. If they don't survive, you'll die. If they do, and give a poor report of you, you'll die. If you piss them off, you'll die. We didn't get very far before everyone got so busy that we abandoned the campaign, but he responded fairly well. The worst that happened was him running into the cave on the second encounter while the party was engaged in fighting a larger than posted contingent of goblins that also included a hobgoblin. He did this because he heard snarling wolves at the cave entrance and wanted one for a pet. I had 3 wolves and 3 goblins waiting in there, so I suggested that he cry out "Leeeeeeeerooooooy Jenkins!" as he ran in. He happily complied, pulled the wolves and 2 of the goblins (the third retreated to report to the Bugbear, Klarg or something, who decided to prepare a trap for the party). He got knocked unconscious, healed up by the hard and then cried out to his party members to not kill one of the wolves. DM ruling that Maglubiyet was pissed that he was trying to steal one of the wolves and struck him unconscious again. Good times. The party eventually mopped up the remaining wolves and goblins, took a short rest, and proceeded with caution into the cave, successfully clearing it. Good thing there were 7 others and one was an artificer with the big gun.
Im sure that many will disagree with this. In the end no matter what the players character sheet says I just let them play as they want without having to stay within the rule of alignment. I see this more with new players but have long time players do the same. In the past when I would run a game where this mattered often times a player would pick something other then evil. In most cases a good alignment. I just dont force it anymore.
I would say that selfish is the defining characteristic of an evil character.