The Gaming Den

Where did Prak go? That all centaur game you were playing, let's turn it up a notch and one of them has to be evil. Likewise the control group os normal party race make-up has to have one evil PC in it.

My first question would be: "Why do you want to play an evil character?"

99% of people that play want to be heros rather than anti-heros, and anti-heros aren't even evil.

The reason many don't let you play an evil character is probably because they don't want that element in their story as it is not the story they are wanting to be a part of.

You have a choice to make, Suck it up and play something else, or don't play at all.

Just like any other special needs character, like the centaur as a PC, your evil character will be a disruption to the game or not an evil character at all.

You want to play an evil character, find a game that has an all evil party.

99% of the people wanting to play evil characters just want to screw with the other players and disrupt the game.

My first question would be: "Why do you want to play an evil character?"

My answer would be, well, I'm out of paladin builds, but moreso as a rule it seems no one is open-minded enough to give it serious consideration.
Though I've read several stories in which the main character is well evil, Jaraxle and Artemis Entreri, or for that matter Raistlin Majere, and Kitiara. Ultimately I"m looking for a new and morsoe (obviously this fits), challenging role playing experience.
Something along those lines for the sake of arguement. Honestly though, people have many motivations for playing characters, it may well be that there's a pc that he's always wanted to play but just can't get it out because of the "evil" tag on his feats or his class in the case of the Assassin.

99% of people that play want to be heros rather than anti-heros, and anti-heros aren't even evil.

For the sake of Deanruel87, and to keep this from falling into complete shennanigans, I won't say it, but I am going to say Shadzar that as a person who primarily Dm's... No, actually just as a logical human being
I'm going have to say I doubt your integrity along with the veracity of this statement. . .
... and it's really straining to continue discourse with you after that.
I'll take a break and get back to you later perhaps.

D&D morality doesn't hold up to scrutiny very well. This is a game where you can play a face stabbing hobo who breaks into apartment complexes to murder the occupants and then cut their intestines out so they can sort through the bowels for any gold they happen to have swallowed. And that character can be "Lawful Good".

If you say "I'm writing Chaotic Evil on my character sheet because I am a profit-driven murder hobo who kills people in their homes to take their stuff!" all that does is force a frank evaluation of the game's conceits that are honestly completely insane. It doesn't really accomplish anything to deconstruct the fantasy adventure archetypes, it's just really disruptive to the game.

If you say "I'm putting Evil on my character sheet because I want to get away with stuff that Good characters can't." then again, you're being disruptive. The game already allows you to stab baby dragons in the head right after they say their first word and be called "Good". The things you can get away with as a normal hero are honestly appalling. If there's anything the DM won't let you do with Chaotic Good written on your sheet, it's something that squicks Mister Cavern in real life. And you wanting to do it anyway is basically out of character aggression.

That being said, yes. I've played some Lawful Evil characters before on the grounds they had a completely callous disregard for all this shit and just wanted to conquer the area that the campaign was in (that happened to be full of monsters). But that kind of philosphizing is mostly wankery.

-Username17

2. While many become anti-heros, most want to play the game so they can be a hero as per the story, or because they want to kill the monsters. Since most of the monsters fought are often "evil", that would place them into wanting to play the heros, even if that isn't their default thoughts about it.

1. The first sentence being said to a DM would automatically be denied as you ever playing an evil character. Ignoring the entire "build" garbage...I would take the first half and ask...so why not play something else? Why go form paladin to "evil" character?

D&D lets you be the protagonists of your own story, not that you should use it to emulate an existing story. Anyone wanting to play a character like Raistlin, is flat out denied. Make your own character concept rather than ripping of anothers. If I want to be told a story of Raistlin, I will read one form someone I trust to write it, not a wannabe author using D&D as the vessel for their hack-job story.

Assassin is just stupid as a character class. Your just killing people for money, anyone around you would just be bodyguards. An assassin would leave anyone else behind, which goes back to not working together with the rest of the group, but against them as such most evil characters would do, and become a disruption.

Back to the questions I would ask given those responses without the cock in the mouth when you answered them....

-Why only an evil character since you don't want to play paladins anymore?

Then return to the original unanswered question. "Why do you want to play an evil character?"

I agree with Frank. Most "evil" that players want to do is just dickery at the game table.

I understand if someone wants to put "Evil" on their character sheet so that they can play an Assassin or a Necromancer or a Blackguard because those are badass, but when people want to do squick-inducing crap I don't want to be there any more. Torture, sex crime, cannibalism, etc. are totally evil and I don't want to hear about that crap from the DM or other players.

It's one thing to do the "and now I blow the gold at the brothel" and have it happen off camera and to instead have someone go into loving detail about what they are going to do there. Real evil isn't something that you can tell fun stories about, and I've taken time out of my day for fun and not for psychological abuse.

You can tell meaningful stories about real evil, but they won't be fun. I mean, when is the last time someone was like "I've had a rough day....let's get drunk and watch some Schindler's List!"

I understand if someone wants to put "Evil" on their character sheet so that they can play an Assassin or a Necromancer or a Blackguard because those are badass,

This, and ONLY this is the issue for me. I'm not advocating whatever fucked up fantasy people apparently indulge in whenever they get to play evil.
Frankly, I don't know anything about that, except completely adecdotal evidence that people provide. I've not seen this "RAPESTABDESTROY" from player in any sense playing evil, but like frank said I have seen the Stab destroy from good.
So imagine my frustration when I go to roll up an Assassin, Blackgaurd, or Dread Necro and get... with obtuse moralizing or outright lies about it like this shadzar guy?

"99% want to play heroes not anti heroes"

Really?
So yeah while I see exactly what you're saying but by no means should this be folded into something like "lets use illithid tadpoles as sex toys on our enimies"
Let me reiterate the problem that I notice again. Keith:

I understand if someone wants to put "Evil" on their character sheet so that they can play an Assassin or a Necromancer or a Blackguard because those are badass

Its the people who go WHOA! Evil?! and fuck you, for asking that are really making me go WTF?
Oh and...

"and now I blow the gold at the brothel" and have it happen off camera and to instead have someone go into loving detail about what they are going to do there

Man who the fuck does that? Thats the problem right there it isn't that someone wants to be honest about the disposition of a dude channeling hell power, it that a portion of the people who apparently everyone has played with (minus me apparently) is some kind of sick fuck using the game as an outlet. Thats going to go over bad no matter what it says on the top of the Sheet.
Frank... basically your saying Not that the "heroes" AREN'T chaotic evil if judged by thier actions on any moral standpoint, but that forcing people to tell the truth or even look at that subject when honest about it yourself is disruptive and in some ways Dickery. Well... wow, okay I guess, 1st rule about alignment in D&D is don't talk about it, and now I see why its a "I dont' wanna discuss it topic."
...but ultimately, I know you don't mean you wouldn't allow an assassin in your game of Hero: The Face Stabbing.
Neutral for the win then. I guess.

Double post.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Here's an exercise for everyone on this topic wondering why Evil characters aren't more allowed. Why don't you come up with a list of five things that an Evil person can do that doesn't threaten group cohesion if the other Good teammates find out. Then explain why an Evil person is allowed to do these things without breaking character but a Neutral person is not.

Sounds like it could be fun. Let's give it a shot:

1. In backstory, PC really didn't like something that was way more dangerous than them. So they murdered their family as part of a fiendish deal to get evil power with which to beat this thing up, and didn't really regret it afterwards. Since then, they've been acting like pretty upstanding hero-types, but if the party faces an enemy above their metaphorical weight class, the PC will bring up horrifying sacrifices to fell powers as a weapon of last resort. Will happily accept alternatives if they've got a decent chance to work.

2. When an obviously evil force offers to collaborate with the party in exchange for them overlooking some of its nefarious stuff, the PC will clearly indicate that he/she doesn't particularly care about the evilness of this potential ally, but will abide by the group's decision.

3. When another PC expresses sorrow over killing stuff, the evil PC will confide that he/she enjoyed it, and suggest coping measures to deal with the guilt. Will attempt to sell the idea that if doing horrible stuff "seems necessary", you might as well enjoy it so that someone is happy.

4. After the party corners a villain the evil PC considers particularly suave or stylish, the evil PC will argue for mercy towards them on the grounds that the evil PC considers this villain "cool" and does not care about most of the victims, but will grudgingly go with the group's decision.

5. Evil PC will adopt a cute animal, and then jokingly suggest that the party leader should prove their ability to make hard decisions by kicking said critter precisely 2 times. Will laugh whether the party leader follows through or not.

Interesting exercise. Should I explain why each of these is Evil, but not Neutral for the purposes of the vague and sometimes self-contradictory alignments I've got in mind now?

You could explain why a good person (note, no capital!) would stay in an adventuring group with someone who displayed any of these behaviours other than the metagaming excuse "because he's in the party"?

If one of my friends did any of these things, I'd seriously reconsider our friendship. The second time? I'd drop that psycho like a hot potato, and I'm not a crusading warrior used to smiting the forces of darkness. If I was used to chopping up anyone who worshipped a different pantheon, I'm sure my response would be much more violent.

Midnight_v wrote:outright lies about it like this shadzar guy?

Yet you, like many others won't just answer the simple question:

Why do you want to play an evil character?

What is so hard about answering that question? Why is it nobody can ever answer that question?

I have had people asked why they want to play a bard, and damn near got to play one. They didn't, but got closer to playing a bard than playing an evil character, because they actually had good reason.

Just wanting to write EVIL on your character sheet is not enough of a reason.

You can write cock-sucker on your character sheet, but you won't be doing it at/in the game, so what was the point of writing it?

In over 20 years only ONE person has actually answered the question above.

Everyone else was obviously too afraid to because they knew their reason was a bullshit one, just as yours must be.

"I ran out of paladin builds", does NOT answer why you want to play an evil character.

I approached you with the same simple and polite question I have asked so many over the years, and you present the same lack of an answer.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt to be the first in hundreds of players, but alas and sadly you turned out to be no different.

People wonder then why nobody wants to allowed evil characters, it is because they are for the reasons others have listed here that will become disruptions to the game, or they really have no reason other than wanting to have that cool word written on their character sheet.

I have played in games where people have played evil characters and most didn't last long due to reasons already mentioned, and only one, the worst D&D player ever, ever came close. When he tried to do evil it just became a hindrance to the game and the players and the character was struck down by blue bolts, FROM THE PLAYERS.

Assassins are work for hire killers, they don't belong in D&D parties simply because they would have no reason for traveling with them. End of discussion there. You would be better off like most to play some sort of non-caster that is with the group as a hired mercenary as a player party isnt likely to hire an assassin, and probably not too likely to hire a merc either.

If someone asked to play an "evil character" when they wanted to paly an assassin, i would have ben pissed off to begin with that they didn't ask to paly an assassin right away. When you come to the DM asking to play a non-standard or out of the ordinary concept character, you should not dick-around. HAve a reason, tell me why it will not increase my workload of having to fuck with it in the game like a centaur PC, why it wouldn't fuck witht he other players, what it would contribute to the entire game.

Don't come to a DM and ask to play something jsut because you want to because the game doesn't belong to you, their are other players, the DM included that have rights to a fun game without disruptions also, and they don't need to deal with your special needs character if it will be in the way.

I HAVE played in and ran all evil parties. Reverse Dungeon might as well be of this nature, but it sort of isnt at the same time since the "DM" plays random PC groups, and the "players" play the dungeon and its inhabitants.

I would love for someone to finally answer the the question WHY they want to play, specifically, an EVIL character, and show me how it would contribute to the game rather than only benefit them.

I don't really get most of the problem. In my group, we're playing characters who do stuff like the greek heroes did. Defend their realm/king/god, attack enemies, pillage, etc. They don't attack enemies because those are evil and the heroes are good, they attack enemies because they are (or were desiganted) enemies. As long as your character is on "Team Us" (which means you don't work against them, directly or indirectly like by causing too much trouble) he or she will fit in.

I don't try to justify it as good in our sense - we're playing characters in another world. Greek mythology ethics would be a closer fit than most other ethics I'd say.

I'm sorry, but Evil pcs is a staple of the genre since writing existed at all.

You know who'd qualify as evil?

Gilgamesh
Ajax
Achilles
Hercules
Alexander the Great

These characters all worked with their parties just fine, so I'm not seeing what you're complaining about. Heroes in the original source material(excepting possibly the Arthurian Legends) did not follow today's morality. The Greeks in particular lived by a completely different system. Acts acceptable by the party include the rape and dismemberment of women, the desecration of corpses, ignoring mercy, declaring war over a single woman, etc etc. I mean, have you even read the Illiad? Achilles, in some versions of the story, raped a young man and woman to death. And he's the foremost hero of the story.

Accepting his fate, Hector begged Achilles – not to spare his life, but to treat his body with respect after killing him. Achilles told Hector it was hopeless to expect that of him, declaring that "my rage, my fury would drive me now to hack your flesh away and eat you raw — such agonies you have caused me". Achilles then got his vengeance, killing Hector with a single blow to the neck and tying the Trojan's body to his chariot, dragging it around the battlefield for nine days.

I'd expect the party to be able to put up with that, considering it actually happened in some of the best source material around. Heroes and normal people have very different moralities, especially when compared to the morality we have today.

One of the main issues Midnight_v keeps coming up with is that the Assassin class is "Evil". So change it so that it no longer has any alignment limitations. That is 90% of your complaints about not being able to be evil gone. The same with Shadow Mage, Warlocks and Necromancers. Why do you think that Shadow Mages are evil in any way?

If your wanting to be evil comes down to wanting to play those classes then you don't have an argument.

And then if you start talking about having an evil backstory but while adventuring they aren't actually evil, then the PCs aren't actually evil. If you insist that if they did some evil in the past then they forevermore count as evil then you can't have a blackguard turn from evil and become a paladin, you have immature kids be evil based on stupid actions when they still haven't realised that other people have feelings and so on.

For a PC to have "Evil" on their character sheet they need to do evil things. Regularly, and during game sessions. Otherwise it is just having a different coloured hat on. And if they do so, then they will affect the rest of the party, stop extremely good characters feeling like they are actually doing something good, or squick out the players.

And theres a difference between evil characters in a story and evil members of a group in a story. Achilles and Hector wouldn't be able to adventure together since Achilles would dick around pissing everyone else off before half-arsedly taking part in a fight and claiming all the treasure.

Vnonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but Evil pcs is a staple of the genre since writing existed at all.

You know who'd qualify as evil?

Gilgamesh
Ajax
Achilles
Hercules
Alexander the Great

These characters all worked with their parties just fine, so I'm not seeing what you're complaining about. Heroes in the original source material(excepting possibly the Arthurian Legends) did not follow today's morality. The Greeks in particular lived by a completely different system. Acts acceptable by the party include the rape and dismemberment of women, the desecration of corpses, ignoring mercy, declaring war over a single woman, etc etc. I mean, have you even read the Illiad? Achilles, in some versions of the story, raped a young man and woman to death. And he's the foremost hero of the story.

Accepting his fate, Hector begged Achilles – not to spare his life, but to treat his body with respect after killing him. Achilles told Hector it was hopeless to expect that of him, declaring that "my rage, my fury would drive me now to hack your flesh away and eat you raw — such agonies you have caused me". Achilles then got his vengeance, killing Hector with a single blow to the neck and tying the Trojan's body to his chariot, dragging it around the battlefield for nine days.

I'd expect the party to be able to put up with that, considering it actually happened in some of the best source material around. Heroes and normal people have very different moralities, especially when compared to the morality we have today.

Nah, I'd label them as neutral. Yes they did evil but they also did good: that evens it out to neutral.
I believe neutral is about balancing evil with good.

Some weigh evil more heavily, but nothing in the game says that it takes more good to balance out evil acts.

Back to reason to play evil:
Just want to try out evil stuff like feats, classes, etc.
D&D is about trying new things, but it'd be best to be Disney evil so party tolerates you. That way it is win win, you get evil stuff and party tolerates you.

The basis of playing an EVIL PC does not rest solely in and is not composed solely of, "the rape and dismemberment of women, the desecration of corpses, ignoring mercy," or blowing my gold at the brothel in vivid detail, and making members of the party feel uncomfortable.

I know this so due to all the evil pc adventurers masquerading as "chaotic neutral" while clearly conducting blatantly evil acts.

The problem is that people's perception of evil appears to force them to make it manifest in the most disturbing and disruptive ways when they write it on their character sheet.

I would prefer to play evil because when I play my shadow mage, I am.
Sure, it says lawful neutral next to my alignment, but in truth, my PC wants to strengthen his connection to the plane of shadow enough to act as a metaphysical gateway to that realm because he believes it will allow the "goddess of shadow" to enter the realm in physical form and that is why he helps you in all your "heroic" quests.

This is not a "good" ambition but it also is not something that should matter to the party or the DM because other than the fact that my PC has a vile metamagic feat, "alignment evil required," his actions are not offensive and his long term evil goal is largely irrelevant since it won't happen before epic level, if at all.

But I can't, can I?
I have to take a generic meta magic feat and say that I am neutral. Typical.

I generally have a number of reasons. But there are ways around all of these reasons.

The first is the question of whether or not the player really understands what the nature of "evil" is all about, and the rammifications for the entire party if it is stronlgy held.

Evil is not about killing, raping, stealing ...
Evil is about putting the needs of the self above everything ...
Real evil won't mind doing the above to accomplish their self empowering goals.
If you are running a character that does that for shits and giggles ...
Your alignment is Batshit Insane.

Now one key is "how evil." Not everyone plays absolute evil just as not everyone plays absolute good.

Absolute Good: Sure I'll save the princess ... no I don't want a reward.
Pretty Good: Sure I'll save the princess ... I'm getting paid for this right?

Good generally encourages party unity ... evil gets to a point where it is every character for themselves (not that it has to because you can be somewhat evil, pretty evil, etc) and that causes a metagame problem because generally speaking it's the characters vs everyone else not the characters indirectly against each other.

If you don't mind that sort of game where PC-PC conflict can happen, it can be an interesting game.

Parthenon, Hector and Achilles would not adventure with each other because they are mortal enemies from warring states that hate each other, and have personally killed close family members of the others.

But could Achilles adventure with Odysseus? Hell yes. Could Achilles kick it with Ajax? Again, hell yes. He could easily chill with Hercules as well, and he would have no problem adventuring with Lu Bu or Circe or Agamemnon. Achilles, Odysseus, Ajax, Jason, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Lu Bu, Sasaki Kojirou, Fionn, Cu Chulainn and Lugalbanda are all viable party members, and they wouldn't have any problems hanging with Achilles. I'm pretty sure they'd all get that E on their character sheets too.

Also, Slade, that's wrong. You are as evil as you are at your worst - Achilles gets that E on his character sheet for a bunch of things, not the least when he refuses to fight because Agamemnon takes his sex slave away. Raping a young couple to death is enough to qualify somebody for an E in my book, even if they do open an orphanage afterwards.

I once ran a monster game where the Pc's were evil and that worked fairly well. I also hear a lot about people running "An evil campaign" and I hear those go ok if given a certain light air.

Perhaps Midnight you could look to see if everyone wanted to play evil, and if so then you could do it as well.

In the monster party there were no "I'm evil so I do some greefing" shenanigans because, I think, everyone was evil and on the same team. You see what most people would call evil could usually be expressed as non-cooperative options in the Game theory excersize we call life. Stealing is evil because somebody else got that stuff and you just took it without putting in the work, this is good for you but it's "no fair". You're playing uncooperatively and if everyone plays your way things don't work. So one of the reasons evil players famously disrupt things in good parties I believe is because there simply comes a point where they play to type and act in an uncooperative manner. In a -Co-operative- storytelling game. So whether they steal something from another party member or hide money they found or kill a party member when that's easier than solving an issue with them.....whatever. The idea that everyone is playing co-operative (good) means that they fuck things up at the table when they play for individual gain (evil) even though that's the character. The solution is present in some way in an ALL EVIL party however. If everyone plays non-cooperative then everyone loses and since everyone in the party is basically wearing a shirt that says "Pro Non-cooperative" then everyone has to RESET! It's really quite interesting when you think about it but it's basically exactly the same as iterative prisoners dilemma excersizes. If one person is playing non-cooperative that person is hated by everyone and they all turn non-cooperative. But if everyone is non-cooperative then everyone is just getting less and making things harder. So the idea that everyone is willing and able to play hard, or in specific here that everyone is Evil and everyone at the table knows it, stops the worst abuses from happening and kind of resets the party back to a Team.

You can have an evil character in a party as long as both agree to the terms of their cooperation IC and they have a valid reason to cooperate in the first place.

Naturally, once they have no more reason to cooperate I fully expect them to turn on each other but characters should be well aware of that fact and preparing for it (unless one of them manages to convert the other, which can be pretty fun conflict of good vrs evil without there being need to kill the other character).

Red_Rob wrote:You could explain why a good person (note, no capital!) would stay in an adventuring group with someone who displayed any of these behaviours other than the metagaming excuse "because he's in the party"?

If one of my friends did any of these things, I'd seriously reconsider our friendship. The second time? I'd drop that psycho like a hot potato, and I'm not a crusading warrior used to smiting the forces of darkness. If I was used to chopping up anyone who worshipped a different pantheon, I'm sure my response would be much more violent.

Sorry, I've been kind of busy and didn't really have time to respond to this till now. The thing about the evil party members posited is that they don't actually do anything reprehensible beyond expressing opinions unless the rest of the party goes along with it or the situation is incredibly dire. And this is because they are part of the party, trying to abide by the group's will. Their backstories establish them as misanthropic hooligans at best but now that they are part of a respectable band of adventurers, they are part of a social structure they are willing to behave in (to the point where they don't even try and do sneaky evil stuff when the rest of the group isn't watching).

If the party drops an evil PC of this type, then the evil PC no longer has the party's influence keeping it in check. Thus, good PCs who don't want to stab the evil party members in the face have a strong incentive to to keep them around so as to stop them from doing evil stuff. And conveniently enough, "stop them from doing evil stuff" is generally as simple as disagreeing with them.

Now, when you look at things from the "these people would be terrible friends" angle, I am liable to agree, but I think you may be overlooking the fact that adventurers don't necessarily have to be friends. If the party is a group of mercenary home invaders first and a force for justice second, I could easily see them willing to work with people of antithetical outlooks if both sides decided they were willing to behave in a manner the other found tolerable in order for each to exert more power towards achieving their (mutually acceptable) goals.

-------

In response to the "Why would you want to play an Evil character?" question:

I generally don't. When I do specifically want to play someone Evil, I will have 1 of 2 aims in mind.

1. I want to play a humorously incompetent malefactor whose greatest ambition is to have a skull-shaped volcano castle from which they can gloat about how impressively sinister they are, then get their schemes foiled by an intrepid band of heroes. So, basically Skeletor. In more complex cases, they will be self-aware and trying to replace more horrific forces of evil.
2. I think the game I'm in could use better villains, so I'll build an interesting PC, play them until they are in a good position to launch a scheme I'd have fun foiling, then do so and immediately afterwards ask Mister Cavern to turn the character into an NPC antagonist.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:In response to the "Why would you want to play an Evil character?" question:

I generally don't. When I do specifically want to play someone Evil, I will have 1 of 2 aims in mind.

1. I want to play a humorously incompetent malefactor whose greatest ambition is to have a skull-shaped volcano castle from which they can gloat about how impressively sinister they are, then get their schemes foiled by an intrepid band of heroes. So, basically Skeletor. In more complex cases, they will be self-aware and trying to replace more horrific forces of evil.
2. I think the game I'm in could use better villains, so I'll build an interesting PC, play them until they are in a good position to launch a scheme I'd have fun foiling, then do so and immediately afterwards ask Mister Cavern to turn the character into an NPC antagonist.

1. Flat no to this character, evil=/=insane, not to mention this is just going to fuck up the game with weird shit and over-the-top humor.

2. Disruptive player. IF you think the game isn't working then let the DM know something isn't enough as they play the "villians" or obstacles for the other players and present the challenges for them.

That would be my response to those 2 reasons.

Basically boiling down to neither will add to the game, but both will quickly detract from it.

Looking back on old threads about evil on the Den, I found this fairly relevant quote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Absolutely nothing. In fact, when I played through The Red Hand of Doom, I did so as an Evil character. Most of the rest of the party was also Evil. We still fought for the human team because we got more money that way, and we even took mercy on defeated enemies whenever possible on the grounds that as soon as we won we were going to be running the show and therefore more living goblins was more peasants under us at the end.

The mechanical effects of being Evil, thus, were that we were allowed to use zombies, poison, and evil hobgoblin henchmen in addition to using curative magic and Giant owls. Being Evil allows you to be "big tent" and actually much more culturally tolerant and merciful than being "Good" does.

In the ways I care about - doing the most good for the most people - you can be a better person with the word "Evil" written on your charcater sheet than you can with the word "Good" written on your character sheet.

Evil is just a political party. A political party whose core value is selfishness and which is actually unconcerned by the actions of others. Whatever people at the Chicago School of Economics tell you, that's not actually good for the economy and the world - but it is better for the world than Good (a political party whose core value is helping people who share your core values and killing people who don't), Chaos (a political party whose core value is doing things other people don't want you to do), or Law (a political party whose core value is telling other people what they should be doing). Evil is just capitalist libertarianism - a defensible but ungeneralizable modern ethical and economic system.

Good is essentially indistinguishable from radical Islam, that's not an improvement.

Having Evil neighbors kicks ass over having Chaotic or Good neighbors.

-Username17

That's generally how I play evil characters.

Yeah, Hector and Achilles was a bad example. But the Greek/Trojan heroes would still be bad as a group- a lot of the stories about them are of that character being badass/intelligent with a band of redshirts. Achilles had his own private army, as did Odysseus, as did Jason. I mean, how many of the Argonauts can people name?

---

Avoraciopoctules wrote:If the party drops an evil PC of this type, then the evil PC no longer has the party's influence keeping it in check. Thus, good PCs who don't want to stab the evil party members in the face have a strong incentive to to keep them around so as to stop them from doing evil stuff. And conveniently enough, "stop them from doing evil stuff" is generally as simple as disagreeing with them.

Hold up. If all that stops evil characters from doing evil stuff is disagreeing, then all that stops good characters from doing good stuff is disagreeing. And it is also easy to go behind other PCs backs and steal the gift back/kill the person they are trying to protect/sabotage any and all good actions. All it needs is for the evil bastard to salt the fields as the party travels or to poison a well or two to kill entire villages.

Being with a group of heroes legitimises the evil PCs, and makes it easier for them to do evil. Few really good PC would allow themselves to aid evil by making it easier for evildoers.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:1. I want to play a humorously incompetent malefactor whose greatest ambition is to have a skull-shaped volcano castle from which they can gloat about how impressively sinister they are, then get their schemes foiled by an intrepid band of heroes. So, basically Skeletor. In more complex cases, they will be self-aware and trying to replace more horrific forces of evil.
2. I think the game I'm in could use better villains, so I'll build an interesting PC, play them until they are in a good position to launch a scheme I'd have fun foiling, then do so and immediately afterwards ask Mister Cavern to turn the character into an NPC antagonist.

These are bad reasons. In the first instance it is only situationally bad, since if you want a funny drunken relaxed game then a Skeletor played for laughs can be great but in all other games it distracts from what everyone else wants.

The second reason is just shit. If you want there to be more interesting NPC antagonsists have an OOC conversation with Mr. Cavern and try to come up with NPCs that way. If Mr or Mrs Cavern refuse and aren't interested then they almost definitely won't have your PC become an NPC antagonist. If you try to do it this way you are just being a dick for no reason.

For some reason it gives me the image of Mrs Cavern getting pissed off at you, making the new NPC fail horrifically and making a fool out of your character. Or, Mr Cavern ignoring it, then in your next turn as DM you bring back your old PC as a BBEG and be all:

My Imagination wrote:"Don't you remember this guy? Didn't you enjoy his big plan to take over all kidney bean farming in the whole shire? Aren't you looking forward to him narrowly escaping you time after time?"

...

"No? Well fuck you then, he's here anyway."

Parthenon wrote: I mean, how many of the Argonauts can people name?

There were 20 of them, and they were basically the Ancient Greek Justice League. Off the top of my head: Hercules and that boxer who fought the king, but it was basically all dudes with their own stories.

Wikipedia says: there were actually 49, and they're still all dudes with stories. The highlights are Jason, Theseus, Castor & Pollux, Belaraphon, Hercules, Orpheus, etc. Maybe the other guys are the moral equivalent of the Blue Beetle, but it's still basically the Ancient Greek Justice League.

Achilles' army might be Nick Fury's Howling Commandos instead. There might only be one guy who made it all the way to household name, but the others all have stories too, and are all wearing plot armor. There's a whole play about one of his red shirts (Philoctetes, adapted as The Cure at Troy. I can't really recommend it, though an originalist version would probably be great).

I don't remember enough about the Odyssey to say whether it was the same.

Parthenon wrote:Hold up. If all that stops evil characters from doing evil stuff is disagreeing, then all that stops good characters from doing good stuff is disagreeing. And it is also easy to go behind other PCs backs and steal the gift back/kill the person they are trying to protect/sabotage any and all good actions. All it needs is for the evil bastard to salt the fields as the party travels or to poison a well or two to kill entire villages.

I disagree. Evil should generally be a little more complex than good modified by -1. Since most Good characters have goals more generally acceptable and conducive to play than Evil ones, the party will benefit from having the Good characters be more assertive. And the hypothetical characters I outlined specifically don't try and do Evil stuff behind the party's back. They are Evil because of stuff they do some of the time, not because of their overall goals. And yes, this statement makes a perfect lead-in for someone to point out the incomprehensibility of alignment again.

Parthenon wrote:Being with a group of heroes legitimises the evil PCs, and makes it easier for them to do evil. Few really good PC would allow themselves to aid evil by making it easier for evildoers.

Yes to the first point. To the second, I should point out that "really good PCs" seems to imply that you see ranges of intensity possible for the Good alignment.

If there's also a spectrum for Evil PCs, then I would posit that the characters I am suggesting range from "kinda" to "moderate" Evil intensity. A mixed party would probably benefit from cutting out the extremes of both alignments. SRD Paladins are already out since they can't work with Evil types at all, so there's already a certain trimming of potential.

Parthenon wrote:These are bad reasons. In the first instance it is only situationally bad, since if you want a funny drunken relaxed game then a Skeletor played for laughs can be great but in all other games it distracts from what everyone else wants.

The second reason is just shit. If you want there to be more interesting NPC antagonsists have an OOC conversation with Mr. Cavern and try to come up with NPCs that way. If Mr or Mrs Cavern refuse and aren't interested then they almost definitely won't have your PC become an NPC antagonist. If you try to do it this way you are just being a dick for no reason.

For some reason it gives me the image of Mrs Cavern getting pissed off at you, making the new NPC fail horrifically and making a fool out of your character. Or, Mr Cavern ignoring it, then in your next turn as DM you bring back your old PC as a BBEG and be all:

My Imagination wrote:"Don't you remember this guy? Didn't you enjoy his big plan to take over all kidney bean farming in the whole shire? Aren't you looking forward to him narrowly escaping you time after time?"

...

"No? Well fuck you then, he's here anyway."

There's nothing keeping me from talking to my fellow players and Mister Cavern to see whether my character concept is appealing to them before I implement it. Collaboration between the people involved in the game makes many of these problems disappear. It can also allow for the group to tailor one person's concept into something the rest of the group would find fun.

I would go so far as to say it would be a good idea for people to talk to each other and develop characters collaboratively prior to almost every game.

I just like Frank claiming he'd prefer to live next do to Belkar than Roy.