Recently I have come to a head with my DM about alignment choices. All characters must come to an end, whether it be by player death, campaign fatigue, or the eventual end of the campaign. Understanding this, I asked my DM if he would be ok with me rolling a secondary character as an Evil alignment. It had been tried once before in the past, but due to.... unforseen complications with another party member, that campaign ended abruptly.
My post here is posed towards DMs who forbid, or those who possibly discourage, EVIL aligned characters. What are your reasoning's for curbing players choices? Has there ever been a genuine falling out due to your stance on this matter?
***My Previous Attempt at an EVIL Paladin***
My Paladin had been "the right hand" of his god, I believe it was Torm, and had gone to battle against an Evil deity, cannot recall which one but it was one of the big bads. On the fields of battle, while the two were about to clash, my Paladin (currently Lawful Good) was poised to strike out against the opposing Paladin (whom of which was Chaotic Evil.) In what would be best described as the avatars of both Gods clashing with one another in the sky above, mimicking the battle below, my Paladins divine powers would falter and fade in the middle of combat. The ground began to crack and split around him, whole chunks of earth falling into the crevices, as a giant bone like hand would reach from below and pull him into the recesses of the Netherworld. After torture and many trials placed before him ( I pretty much ripped this idea straight from Supernatural tbh ) my Paladin would convert over to be the Evil Gods right hand, after finding pleasure and fulfillment in the torture of innocent souls after being cast aside by Torm and abandoned on the battle field.
The Paladin's story would then divert all focus to bringing his own righteous Justice to Torm, dethroning and killing him in revenge. That was the "Level 20+ End Game" goal for him. He was not afraid to torture bandits for information, or even taking nobles under the whip for power moves in the names of other lords, as long as it meant he could achieve his end game. The campaign ended abruptly due to another playing taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP and attempted Murders on key NPCs. It spiraled within an hour or two of game play.
I have personally not experienced a player wanting to play an evil character, so far at least, but I tend to not like the idea too much myself (exceptions to follow), unless the campaign is intended to be an evil one.
To delve deeper into the reasoning, it is also a matter of party composition. If the party is mostly neutral-aligned and the evil character is either lawful-evil or neutral-evil, that could work, imho, as the "evil" deeds he/she would perpetrate are somewhat in line with the general ideology of the party, and could be seen as extremes more than outright evil things. This could actually make for some extremely interesting developments.
Problems begin if the party is mostly composed of good-aligned characters, because evil deeds would (and should) have a deeper impact on the party balance, and therefore (unless the player is a really clever Lawful-evil one with tons of charisma and deception skills, which could still make for amazing RP and development possibilities, but most probably quite short-lived) the evil character might be singled out or outright get dealt with by the rest of the party.
Chaotic Evil is where I see the most problems, as that alignment is basically a psychopath going around killing for sheer pleasure and without any reasoned logic behind is evilness, which would make it pretty difficult for it to fit in any non-evil party composition, imho.
So, it is not wrong to want to play an evil character, and it is not wrong allowing it, but party composition and party interactions need to be taken into consideration when deciding on allowing this or not.
EDIT: also, I feel the rest of the players (with strong distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge) should maybe be asked what their thoughts are on the evil-character matter.
My stance doesn't necessarily forbid a specific alignment, but everyone does have to be able to work as a group. If a lawful good character and a chaotic evil character can make it work, all is good. I will say, not all players are up for that challenge. I am a new dm, so I haven't run into it or even witnessed it as a player, but it does seem like it could be interesting.
My stance is not to forbid any particular mechanical part of the game - but I do forbid players playing characters that do not work with the party.
So evil characters are fine, so long as they are played in ways that the group of players (and characters) can work with. Even having conflict about the differing view points of the characters is fine, so long as the players are still on the same side - working towards shared fun and shared success, rather than the players and/or characters acting as opposition to each other (like when a player uses an evil alignment as an excuse to screw over their party even though that's stupid of the character who should value allies because they benefit the character, or when a player is dead set on courses of action like 'if I ever find out in-character that your character is evil, I'm going to kill them.' which are entirely disruptive to play).
This is an area where I put fairness over equality, though - so some of the players in my group are not allowed to play evil-aligned characters (because of having played them in disruptive ways repeatedly in the past) while others can play evil if they want to, but it's first come, first served with evil alignments and one player in particular playing a lawful good character (i.e. if that player decides their character is lawful good first, no one can play an evil character, but if that player hasn't settled on alignment and someone is already settled on evil, he can't play lawful good) because the extra effort required of everyone involved to keep the party from imploding wears everyone out.
I actually don't let my players pick an alignment. I let them pick a target alignment, and as they make choices, I let them know if it is taking them closer to or further away from their target. We haven't come across any mechanical reasons why alignment matters, but if it comes up, I'll tell them what their alignment is based on their actions thus far.
I agree with most of what has already been said, but I'll add this: Alignment in 5e is meant to do two things; the first being a guide for PC behaviour, though not a rigid blueprint; and the second is for mechanics.
If I am playing with new players, or experienced players that are new to me as the DM, I will ask that they not choose evil alignments. An evil alignment can be played in a "good" campaign, if you have a player that recognizes that playing an evil alignment doesn't mean screwing with the party and the adventure. Players who just want to encourage PVP, or mess with the adventure are toxic players, imo, and I wouldn't have them in my game.
So, if you have a player you know and trust to play an evil alignment, discuss it with them, see what it is they want to accomplish. It could make for interesting story-telling.
As for the mechanics, the downside to being an evil alignment in a "good" adventure is that there might be some places you can't go, or items you can use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I agree. Player behavior matters much more than alignment does. You can play an evil character who does all the same things as a good player, bit for entirely different motivations. Taking out a goblin layer? The good character does it in order to save a village. An evil character because it is a chance to kill and plunder without getting into legal trouble.
If you look at movies and comics, there are lots of examples of evil characters that "do good". The Punisher, Dexter, Deapool, and more are all possible inspirations.
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
The most important thing is, the entire group has to have fun. If it's not fun, then it shouldn't be done. If the rest of the group will have fun with an evil character in the group, then let it happen. If the rest of the group won't have fun with an evil character in the group, then don't let it happen. It's very situational and it depends on the rest of the players.
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
It depends upon your definition of "evil". In our society we often conflate "evil" with "bad". A person kills someone else, and we call that evil. It's certainly a bad thing, but something can be evil without being bad.
In D&D we have the trope of the "murder hobos" for a reason. Unless you stop your good-aligned PCs/players from killing everything they meet, then you're walking a line.
IMO a Neutral Evil PC is the easiest "evil" alignment to allow as a PC, because what it really means is that that PC is out for themselves first and foremost. They are selfish, probably inconsiderate, likely have difficulty with empathy, but that doesn't mean they are going to do "bad" things.
A Neutral Evil PC can be a member of a good or mostly good party, NEVER kill anyone or anything, NEVER steal or lie or hurt, and still be Neutral Evil. A NE PC might be looking for a magic item they really want, or some piece of information important to them. Maybe they want to become some kind of undead to live forever. They adventure with the party gladly defending and saving their cohorts as a means to an end. A NE PC might even very gladly save an entire village of innocent people because it advances their agenda.
In the end, they are really only after something for themselves, and when they have it, they abandon the party and go their own way, as they always intended. None of the "good" things they did meant anything to them in the way that it meant to the "good" PCs. Just a means to an end.
Evil, not "Bad".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
It depends upon your definition of "evil". In our society we often conflate "evil" with "bad". A person kills someone else, and we call that evil. It's certainly a bad thing, but something can be evil without being bad.
In D&D we have the trope of the "murder hobos" for a reason. Unless you stop your good-aligned PCs/players from killing everything they meet, then you're walking a line.
IMO a Neutral Evil PC is the easiest "evil" alignment to allow as a PC, because what it really means is that that PC is out for themselves first and foremost. They are selfish, probably inconsiderate, likely have difficulty with empathy, but that doesn't mean they are going to do "bad" things.
....
Yeah, I'm aware there's a tricky line there already, and there are days I struggle with that. Doesn't change my own line/rule about evil characters in my campaigns, but I'm aware it's not necessarily all completely consistent. I might be persuaded to allow it some day if a player whose maturity I trusted had a really good reason/story for doing so.
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
It depends upon your definition of "evil". In our society we often conflate "evil" with "bad". A person kills someone else, and we call that evil. It's certainly a bad thing, but something can be evil without being bad.
In D&D we have the trope of the "murder hobos" for a reason. Unless you stop your good-aligned PCs/players from killing everything they meet, then you're walking a line.
IMO a Neutral Evil PC is the easiest "evil" alignment to allow as a PC, because what it really means is that that PC is out for themselves first and foremost. They are selfish, probably inconsiderate, likely have difficulty with empathy, but that doesn't mean they are going to do "bad" things.
....
Yeah, I'm aware there's a tricky line there already, and there are days I struggle with that. Doesn't change my own line/rule about evil characters in my campaigns, but I'm aware it's not necessarily all completely consistent. I might be persuaded to allow it some day if a player whose maturity I trusted had a really good reason/story for doing so.
So, what would you do with a player who chooses, say Neutral, and plays it as Neutral Evil? Do you have a mechanism for dealing with players who aren't "playing their alignment"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
My stance doesn't necessarily forbid a specific alignment, but everyone does have to be able to work as a group. If a lawful good character and a chaotic evil character can make it work, all is good. I will say, not all players are up for that challenge. I am a new dm, so I haven't run into it or even witnessed it as a player, but it does seem like it could be interesting.
That's pretty much my stance as well. If a player comes to me with something that could cause party conflict, I need to know that they're not going to turn it into a party-splitting, PVP fest. The players need to figure out why they'd be a party in the first place, and how they're going to justify remaining a party.
" So, what would you do with a player who chooses, say Neutral, and plays it as Neutral Evil? Do you have a mechanism for dealing with players who aren't "playing their alignment"?"
In my opinion, evil is much more about how you think than how you act. Most "evil" PCs will end up doing far more good than evil - so should they be rebranded as neutral?
If you save the world and then celebrate by torturing a hundred kittens, what alignment box should you be dumped in? Hannibal Lector only eats rude people - I approve; if I was a cannibal, I would limit myself to native English speakers who can't use basic grammar.
Another example is Brian Mills, the 'good guy' in 'Taken' - I have seen the film a couple of times and can't think of a single 'good' act he performed. I do remember
he tortured a guy for information and then continued torturing him to death for the shiggles. I think a tick goes in the 'evil box' for that one.
Not all evil people go around being evil, the same as most people on this forum - who would probably consider themselves 'good' - don't go around doing good. In the real world, a lot of very evil people are considered model citizens until their secrets are discovered.
Being evil is often a very personal thing; if a PC can control his urges when in public then he can be a valued member of the party, and indeed society. I would suggest that he (or she) has more to fear from the 'good' characters in the party; if they catch wind of his hobbies and don't do something, then they are almost as bad as him. He is hardly going to alert the authorities of their charitable donations and voluntary work.
The trouble for D&D groups is when a character chooses the evil alignment as an easy way out, an excuse for any action they wish to perform, or as some people have already noted, they choose evil so they can be a jerk.
Those characters never seem to last long in my campaigns...
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
It depends upon your definition of "evil". In our society we often conflate "evil" with "bad". A person kills someone else, and we call that evil. It's certainly a bad thing, but something can be evil without being bad.
In D&D we have the trope of the "murder hobos" for a reason. Unless you stop your good-aligned PCs/players from killing everything they meet, then you're walking a line.
IMO a Neutral Evil PC is the easiest "evil" alignment to allow as a PC, because what it really means is that that PC is out for themselves first and foremost. They are selfish, probably inconsiderate, likely have difficulty with empathy, but that doesn't mean they are going to do "bad" things.
....
Yeah, I'm aware there's a tricky line there already, and there are days I struggle with that. Doesn't change my own line/rule about evil characters in my campaigns, but I'm aware it's not necessarily all completely consistent. I might be persuaded to allow it some day if a player whose maturity I trusted had a really good reason/story for doing so.
So, what would you do with a player who chooses, say Neutral, and plays it as Neutral Evil? Do you have a mechanism for dealing with players who aren't "playing their alignment"?
I might question certain actions, but I don't have a definite mechanism. There would probably be in game consequences (arrested for murder, etc.; if a player was a paladin or cleric of a good-aligned God, there might potentially be consequences in that realm, too.) I'm not interested in strictly policing alignment. I allow a fair amount of moral ambiguity at the table, but an explicitly evil PCs is not a line I'm willing to cross at the moment. But again, that's me and the table I run--I'm not making any claims about how anyone else should run their table.
I can't remember where, but I've seen it described somewhere that Good through Evil is an inward measure of how you see yourself, as you suggested, while Lawful through Chaotic is how you are perceived by others. Maybe not totally accurate, but it makes a certain bit of sense for sure.
Everyone has different experiences with the game over the years, but as for myself, I can count the number of fun experiences with evil characters on 1 hand and still have 4 fingers left over. There have been dozens of times were someone has wanted to play an evil character and then proceeded to ruin the game for everyone else at the table. Now I just associate players who what to be evil with people that really just want to be an @ss at the table. But that is just my experience over the past 35 years.
Allow me to provide the example of what my previous Evil Aligned Characters back story was to bring more focus and clarity to some of the discussion.
I will also include this is an edit to the original post.
My Paladin had been "the right hand" of his god, I believe it was Torm, and had gone to battle against an Evil deity, cannot recall which one but it was one of the big bads. On the fields of battle, while the two were about to clash, my Paladin (currently Lawful Good) was poised to strike out against the opposing Paladin (whom of which was Chaotic Evil.) In what would be best described as the avatars of both Gods clashing with one another in the sky above, mimicking the battle below, my Paladins divine powers would falter and fade in the middle of combat. The ground began to crack and split around him, whole chunks of earth falling into the crevices, as a giant bone like hand would reach from below and pull him into the recesses of the Netherworld. After torture and many trials placed before him ( I pretty much ripped this idea straight from Supernatural tbh ) my Paladin would convert over to be the Evil Gods right hand, after finding pleasure and fulfillment in the torture of innocent souls after being cast aside by Torm and abandoned on the battle field.
The Paladin's story would then divert all focus to bringing his own righteous Justice to Torm, dethroning and killing him in revenge. That was the "Level 20+ End Game" goal for him. He was not afraid to torture bandits for information, or even taking nobles under the whip for power moves in the names of other lords, as long as it meant he could achieve his end game. The campaign ended abruptly due to another playing taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP and attempted Murders on key NPCs. It spiraled within an hour or two of game play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently on Version 1 of a custom Bard Subclass. Would love to hear your feedback! Give a look in the link down below!
What does this mean " taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP"?
Frankly from what you've described, as a DM I wouldn't allow it either, unless it was specifically an evil campaign where the party's goal was to kill Torm. The PC you have described, in an otherwise good-aligned party that is trying to complete good adventures, is very probably going to cause conflict.
Your PC sounds more like a villain that good-aligned PCs would try to stop.
The only way I would allow a PC like this in my game would be if the PC had strayed from the path (or in your case been turned from the path) and wanted redemption. A Blackguard, for example, who is trying to regain his/her paladin status in service of a good god.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently I have come to a head with my DM about alignment choices. All characters must come to an end, whether it be by player death, campaign fatigue, or the eventual end of the campaign. Understanding this, I asked my DM if he would be ok with me rolling a secondary character as an Evil alignment. It had been tried once before in the past, but due to.... unforseen complications with another party member, that campaign ended abruptly.
My post here is posed towards DMs who forbid, or those who possibly discourage, EVIL aligned characters. What are your reasoning's for curbing players choices? Has there ever been a genuine falling out due to your stance on this matter?
***My Previous Attempt at an EVIL Paladin***
My Paladin had been "the right hand" of his god, I believe it was Torm, and had gone to battle against an Evil deity, cannot recall which one but it was one of the big bads. On the fields of battle, while the two were about to clash, my Paladin (currently Lawful Good) was poised to strike out against the opposing Paladin (whom of which was Chaotic Evil.) In what would be best described as the avatars of both Gods clashing with one another in the sky above, mimicking the battle below, my Paladins divine powers would falter and fade in the middle of combat. The ground began to crack and split around him, whole chunks of earth falling into the crevices, as a giant bone like hand would reach from below and pull him into the recesses of the Netherworld. After torture and many trials placed before him ( I pretty much ripped this idea straight from Supernatural tbh ) my Paladin would convert over to be the Evil Gods right hand, after finding pleasure and fulfillment in the torture of innocent souls after being cast aside by Torm and abandoned on the battle field.
The Paladin's story would then divert all focus to bringing his own righteous Justice to Torm, dethroning and killing him in revenge. That was the "Level 20+ End Game" goal for him. He was not afraid to torture bandits for information, or even taking nobles under the whip for power moves in the names of other lords, as long as it meant he could achieve his end game. The campaign ended abruptly due to another playing taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP and attempted Murders on key NPCs. It spiraled within an hour or two of game play.
***
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Grim
Currently on Version 1 of a custom Bard Subclass. Would love to hear your feedback! Give a look in the link down below!
College of Ancestral Balance
Links will open in a new page. Comment HERE with feedback! Thank you!
Hi Grim o/
I have personally not experienced a player wanting to play an evil character, so far at least, but I tend to not like the idea too much myself (exceptions to follow), unless the campaign is intended to be an evil one.
To delve deeper into the reasoning, it is also a matter of party composition. If the party is mostly neutral-aligned and the evil character is either lawful-evil or neutral-evil, that could work, imho, as the "evil" deeds he/she would perpetrate are somewhat in line with the general ideology of the party, and could be seen as extremes more than outright evil things. This could actually make for some extremely interesting developments.
Problems begin if the party is mostly composed of good-aligned characters, because evil deeds would (and should) have a deeper impact on the party balance, and therefore (unless the player is a really clever Lawful-evil one with tons of charisma and deception skills, which could still make for amazing RP and development possibilities, but most probably quite short-lived) the evil character might be singled out or outright get dealt with by the rest of the party.
Chaotic Evil is where I see the most problems, as that alignment is basically a psychopath going around killing for sheer pleasure and without any reasoned logic behind is evilness, which would make it pretty difficult for it to fit in any non-evil party composition, imho.
So, it is not wrong to want to play an evil character, and it is not wrong allowing it, but party composition and party interactions need to be taken into consideration when deciding on allowing this or not.
EDIT: also, I feel the rest of the players (with strong distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge) should maybe be asked what their thoughts are on the evil-character matter.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
My stance doesn't necessarily forbid a specific alignment, but everyone does have to be able to work as a group. If a lawful good character and a chaotic evil character can make it work, all is good. I will say, not all players are up for that challenge. I am a new dm, so I haven't run into it or even witnessed it as a player, but it does seem like it could be interesting.
My stance is not to forbid any particular mechanical part of the game - but I do forbid players playing characters that do not work with the party.
So evil characters are fine, so long as they are played in ways that the group of players (and characters) can work with. Even having conflict about the differing view points of the characters is fine, so long as the players are still on the same side - working towards shared fun and shared success, rather than the players and/or characters acting as opposition to each other (like when a player uses an evil alignment as an excuse to screw over their party even though that's stupid of the character who should value allies because they benefit the character, or when a player is dead set on courses of action like 'if I ever find out in-character that your character is evil, I'm going to kill them.' which are entirely disruptive to play).
This is an area where I put fairness over equality, though - so some of the players in my group are not allowed to play evil-aligned characters (because of having played them in disruptive ways repeatedly in the past) while others can play evil if they want to, but it's first come, first served with evil alignments and one player in particular playing a lawful good character (i.e. if that player decides their character is lawful good first, no one can play an evil character, but if that player hasn't settled on alignment and someone is already settled on evil, he can't play lawful good) because the extra effort required of everyone involved to keep the party from imploding wears everyone out.
I actually don't let my players pick an alignment. I let them pick a target alignment, and as they make choices, I let them know if it is taking them closer to or further away from their target. We haven't come across any mechanical reasons why alignment matters, but if it comes up, I'll tell them what their alignment is based on their actions thus far.
I agree with most of what has already been said, but I'll add this: Alignment in 5e is meant to do two things; the first being a guide for PC behaviour, though not a rigid blueprint; and the second is for mechanics.
If I am playing with new players, or experienced players that are new to me as the DM, I will ask that they not choose evil alignments. An evil alignment can be played in a "good" campaign, if you have a player that recognizes that playing an evil alignment doesn't mean screwing with the party and the adventure. Players who just want to encourage PVP, or mess with the adventure are toxic players, imo, and I wouldn't have them in my game.
So, if you have a player you know and trust to play an evil alignment, discuss it with them, see what it is they want to accomplish. It could make for interesting story-telling.
As for the mechanics, the downside to being an evil alignment in a "good" adventure is that there might be some places you can't go, or items you can use.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I agree. Player behavior matters much more than alignment does. You can play an evil character who does all the same things as a good player, bit for entirely different motivations. Taking out a goblin layer? The good character does it in order to save a village. An evil character because it is a chance to kill and plunder without getting into legal trouble.
If you look at movies and comics, there are lots of examples of evil characters that "do good". The Punisher, Dexter, Deapool, and more are all possible inspirations.
I don't allow evil PCs; I want the PCs to be heroes, and I'm uncomfortable with folks role playing evil behavior. That's my personal line, I don't expect other DMs to take it, but it is one of the rules at my table. I try to be explicit about that from the beginning, though.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
The most important thing is, the entire group has to have fun. If it's not fun, then it shouldn't be done. If the rest of the group will have fun with an evil character in the group, then let it happen. If the rest of the group won't have fun with an evil character in the group, then don't let it happen. It's very situational and it depends on the rest of the players.
Professional computer geek
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
" So, what would you do with a player who chooses, say Neutral, and plays it as Neutral Evil? Do you have a mechanism for dealing with players who aren't "playing their alignment"?"
In my opinion, evil is much more about how you think than how you act. Most "evil" PCs will end up doing far more good than evil - so should they be rebranded as neutral?
If you save the world and then celebrate by torturing a hundred kittens, what alignment box should you be dumped in?
Hannibal Lector only eats rude people - I approve; if I was a cannibal, I would limit myself to native English speakers who can't use basic grammar.
Another example is Brian Mills, the 'good guy' in 'Taken' - I have seen the film a couple of times and can't think of a single 'good' act he performed. I do remember
he tortured a guy for information and then continued torturing him to death for the shiggles. I think a tick goes in the 'evil box' for that one.
Not all evil people go around being evil, the same as most people on this forum - who would probably consider themselves 'good' - don't go around doing good. In the real world, a lot of very evil people are considered model citizens until their secrets are discovered.
Being evil is often a very personal thing; if a PC can control his urges when in public then he can be a valued member of the party, and indeed society.
I would suggest that he (or she) has more to fear from the 'good' characters in the party; if they catch wind of his hobbies and don't do something, then they are almost as bad as him. He is hardly going to alert the authorities of their charitable donations and voluntary work.
The trouble for D&D groups is when a character chooses the evil alignment as an easy way out, an excuse for any action they wish to perform, or as some people have already noted, they choose evil so they can be a jerk.
Those characters never seem to last long in my campaigns...
Roleplaying since Runequest.
"Has there ever been a genuine falling out due to your stance on this matter? "
No, it's just a game and I am (mostly) an adult.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I can't remember where, but I've seen it described somewhere that Good through Evil is an inward measure of how you see yourself, as you suggested, while Lawful through Chaotic is how you are perceived by others. Maybe not totally accurate, but it makes a certain bit of sense for sure.
Everyone has different experiences with the game over the years, but as for myself, I can count the number of fun experiences with evil characters on 1 hand and still have 4 fingers left over. There have been dozens of times were someone has wanted to play an evil character and then proceeded to ruin the game for everyone else at the table. Now I just associate players who what to be evil with people that really just want to be an @ss at the table. But that is just my experience over the past 35 years.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Allow me to provide the example of what my previous Evil Aligned Characters back story was to bring more focus and clarity to some of the discussion.
I will also include this is an edit to the original post.
My Paladin had been "the right hand" of his god, I believe it was Torm, and had gone to battle against an Evil deity, cannot recall which one but it was one of the big bads. On the fields of battle, while the two were about to clash, my Paladin (currently Lawful Good) was poised to strike out against the opposing Paladin (whom of which was Chaotic Evil.) In what would be best described as the avatars of both Gods clashing with one another in the sky above, mimicking the battle below, my Paladins divine powers would falter and fade in the middle of combat. The ground began to crack and split around him, whole chunks of earth falling into the crevices, as a giant bone like hand would reach from below and pull him into the recesses of the Netherworld. After torture and many trials placed before him ( I pretty much ripped this idea straight from Supernatural tbh ) my Paladin would convert over to be the Evil Gods right hand, after finding pleasure and fulfillment in the torture of innocent souls after being cast aside by Torm and abandoned on the battle field.
The Paladin's story would then divert all focus to bringing his own righteous Justice to Torm, dethroning and killing him in revenge. That was the "Level 20+ End Game" goal for him. He was not afraid to torture bandits for information, or even taking nobles under the whip for power moves in the names of other lords, as long as it meant he could achieve his end game. The campaign ended abruptly due to another playing taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP and attempted Murders on key NPCs. It spiraled within an hour or two of game play.
Currently on Version 1 of a custom Bard Subclass. Would love to hear your feedback! Give a look in the link down below!
College of Ancestral Balance
Links will open in a new page. Comment HERE with feedback! Thank you!
What does this mean " taking my Evil character decision into his own hands, and making the mistake of open invitation to PvP"?
Frankly from what you've described, as a DM I wouldn't allow it either, unless it was specifically an evil campaign where the party's goal was to kill Torm. The PC you have described, in an otherwise good-aligned party that is trying to complete good adventures, is very probably going to cause conflict.
Your PC sounds more like a villain that good-aligned PCs would try to stop.
The only way I would allow a PC like this in my game would be if the PC had strayed from the path (or in your case been turned from the path) and wanted redemption. A Blackguard, for example, who is trying to regain his/her paladin status in service of a good god.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?