|
This subject came up on the "Are Evil Clerics weaker than Good Clerics?" thread, and I felt it deserved its own spot for discussion.
Simply put: who has seen Evil PC's? How have then been handled? Were they intrinsically disruptive or useless in the game? What were your favorite/most hated Evil PC or NPC moments?
In general, an open discussion on the topic of Evil (and to a lesser extent) Good PCs and their choices/actions.
For me, the most fun Evil character I've had was a Gnome Beguiler/Mindbender set in an Eberron game. His name was Dip, and he was unabashedly capable of horrible evil actions. He also was immensely likeable to everyone around, quick with a helping hand or beneficial buff spell. Several times over, he was the turning point in the party surviving or suffering a TPK.
Some examples of his callous Evil:
While exploring the undercity of Korranberg, looking for some old magical doohickey, the party encounters a party of 4 adventurers. As the party scout, I see them first, and remain unseen at the same time. I see an obvious "White Mage," a Rogue-type, a Wizard in all black, and a Fighter-type in heavy armor. Plan of attack: sneak in, kill the rogue and wizard by ambush, capture and charm the healer and fighter.
When I described the enemy party, I made sure to play up the black robes and numerous knives angle, hinting that the white robed healer-looking one may have been coerced into participating. Complete fabrications, but then thats what he did. Our attack was successful, the rogue and wizard didn't get a single shot off, the Fighter was Charmed before he knew what was happening (and told to go guard the back door) and the healer was captured. Complete success on our part, due to complete disregard for things like "intentions" "alignments of the enemy" and the like.
Later on, when I had realized the charm will wear off long before we can get back to the surface, I attempt to (not my most subtle, but I was improvising) lock the 2 of them in a magically sealed underground vault (where we just got the magic doohickey). This sparked combat, and the 2 were taken down rather quickly. I got a bunch of sideways looks for the attempted entrapment/murder, but managed to talk my way out of it.
Other highlights of subtle Evil (that the party could neither counter or even discover most of the time) were:
Betraying some subversive Gnomes to the Trust (Zilargo's version of the Secret Police...very very scary people) because we had raised some suspicions about ourselves; I was told, basically, it was them or us.
Selling a Good cleric into bondage in the cogs of Sharn, because he chose to ally with an opposing patron (dragons playing some kind of great game, with the both of us as pawns).
Spreading all kinds of rumors and propaganda about a particular crime boss / pirate captain in the Lhazar Principalities, so as to distract most of the rest of the pirates and allow us easier passage up to Riedra.
Scattering entire villages with telepathic messages of doom and gloom, again to disguise our own travels through Riedra with hordes of travelling refugees.
All the while, none of the other PLAYERS had any problem with these actions; he was quick witted, commonly loaned money, used his spells and abilities to great party effect, and in general was a really nice guy. One of the PC's, a Psion, had some general problems with some of my actions, but until I actually stabbed a villager (looking to implicate some other adventurer types, IIRC), accidentally within eyeline, there was no real inter-party-conflict.
So, bring on the stories, philosophical treatises, and mechanical manipulations of Evil.
I'm dying to hear other peoples' experiences.
-t
|
In my experience, having a single evil character in a good party can last for a little while. But it almost never last more than a few adventures because there is just nothing you can really do to not be found out eventually.
And the good characters will usually have no choice at some point but to take you down. Maybe they will not, but most of the time they will. Particularly when there is a good cleric, a paladin, a druid, or someone else that has mechanical alignment restrictions, or moral backgrounds. In the case were it is one evil character, in my experience as player and DM is that their sneakiness is what kills them.
They tend to try to hide things from the other players, things those characters might not have been up in arms about, and it is just the untrustworthy attitude that the other players get tired of.
However, I think the bigger topic should talk about the entire party being evil, rather than an individual. That is were all the problems come into play. Usually because the players think that all the common sense rules for party interaction don't apply, when in fact, they apply a lot more. Evil doesn't mean you can't trust anyone, or that you have no friends, family, allies, etc. . . The truth is, you need those things more.
Ordinary people flock to the holy cleric and the noble paladin because they are good and selfless. Evil though, needs to cultivate allies that can be trusted. There was a FR series about a group of not good drow, and how they interacted with each other. They are evil, cruel, selfish, and Drow, but they worked as a group because they are stronger together, don't have to worry about everyone else making low level powerplays, and they have a history together that is worth not throwing away for an immediate gain. Most players don't see that as a good thing to have.
Secondly, beig evil does not mean you have to go out of your way to BE EVIL. Someone mentioned Raistlin in the last thread. I want to say Mr. Blake. There are very few overtly evil things he did throughout the books. Some douchy things to his friends and family, but he didn't go around saying "hey I'm evil". Most of the truely evil things he did do are either of camera or by himself, with some notable exceptions, when he really really didn't need someone any more. But then he didn't go out of his way to slay them, he just didn't excert himself to do anything to protect them when he could have. And admitedly, in the situation I refer to, even good characters might have done the same, or similar things, just because at this point, there aren't many options that morality can help.
The main problem with alignment is that it is very unrealistic in D&D. Some things are evil. Period. Circumstances do not apply, (unless the GM ignors the rules as they are). Some acts are good. Even if you use agood act for evil, you have done a good and an evil act that balance out. In most other games, there isn't really a set definition, but people understand what is and not moral, and there is room for interpretation. Personally, I think those systems work so much better, but it is not D&D.
I've already run off at the mouth about this quite a bit in the evil cleric thread, so I don't know if there's much to add here barring more vigorous arguments from anti-evil crusaders. (I feel kind of bad about threadjacking the cleric thing)
Since I started gaming roughly... 15 years ago? Maybe not quite half of my characters have been evil. Of the 65% or so that weren't evil, probably a good 35-40% have been some form of neutral. I very rarely play good characters, partly because I find that I've got a pretty good "evil" vibe, and partly because for me it's cathartic. There's a lot I don't get to do or say on a day to day basis that comes out in game.
As for trouble? Nope, none. Not caused by my characters specifically. I've had rogues that quietly organized world-spanning spy networks while heading from place to place with the party (and occasionally quietly double-crossing allies that the party isn't using anymore). I've had assassins who specialize in having a menacing presence and carry around boxes filled with ear collections. I've been insane swashbuckling tieflings with pyromania, snide warlocks who take every opportunity to cause some petty emotional damage on people nearby, and vile warriors whose foremost thought is methods of murder.
But like Beckett said, I've never played a character who didn't value the party more than blindly throwing evil activities around. Because that kind of character wouldn't join the party in the first place.
As for the party, sometimes they've felt it necessary to back one of my characters down. It creates tension, and usually a strong disagreement is enough to make my characters rethink their goals and find a way to work around the goody two-shoes. A very rare few times I've come to blows with party members, and always because it was appropriate that we do so. Good halfling rogues shouldn't think being cheeky and cute and "kender-esque" is enough to get by with stealing from the man who has an elaborate tattoo portraying lewd and vile acts afflicting gods of good.
One of the best roleplay sessions I ever had involved me playing a NE rogue in 3.0. He was the party's mouthpiece during most diplomatic or trade situations owing to a decent amount of skills and charisma, but not the leader. Finding it necessary to enter a temple of a militantly good god, something along the lines of St. Cuthbert, he was denied entrance by a pair of paladins and the head priest. The party needed access to the temple library, and didn't have time to delay, so Max (the rogue) just tells them to go ahead without him; he'll kill time elsewhere. The druid, his lover, demands that Max be allowed to enter; or she's not going in either. The priest doesn't care what she does, but the rest of the party is getting nervous about giving offense. So, despite being hurt that no one else cared enough to take a stand, Max tells her to go in and learn what she can. Of course, once everyone else has left, it starts raining while Max waits outside (DM tomfoolery!), and he's left to just stare at the temple doors and the paladins flanking them. He's from this city though, and has enemies here. A small group of local guildies attacks him while the rest of the party is inside, and the paladins just stand watching while he fights off five men on his own. They nearly kill him, but owing to the fact that they weren't able to SA him, Max survives (single digit hp, 8 I think). After the fight, he finds himself facing one of the paladins, who tells him that he's under arrest, along with the rest of the "hooligans" who were brawling in the street. Of course, our boy calls the paladins out for not helping, and claims self defense. The paladin simply replies that according to their code, it's only necessary to help the "innocent" and that by virtue of being evil (demonstrably so, they've got paladin x-ray vision) he's absolved them of any requirement to get involved. Whether he's guilty of assault or murder would be ascertained by a judge. Being a rogue with a past in the city, Max is obviously not too keen to hit up the holding cells of the city guard. He tries to make a runner, but the pally was prepared and shield bashes him into oblivion. When the rest of the party comes out, they largely assume that whatever happened, the "evil" rogue was to blame (tangentially true). And it's only due to the insistence of the druid and party bard that he isn't carried off in irons. Instead, the party is quickly booted out of the temple district. With the druid's healing Max is quickly back up to snuff, but although it doesn't cost the party much time there is lingering resentment that he caused so much trouble. On the second night after their day at the temple, Max has got a pretty good mad on, and he awakens from his recurring night terrors with one of his (many) suppressed memories from childhood suddenly surfacing. He remembers the name and face of the man who, 12 years prior, had murdered his mother in the poor section of this same city. So while the rest of the party is asleep, he heads first to a certain temple to pick up something he'll need and then back to dimly remembered streets. He puts his charisma and disguise abilities to good use and tracks his mother's killer down. There is a quick and precise murder. He takes the victim's coin purse and leaves something behind to indicate a struggle. It's a holy symbol, clutched in the man's hand as if torn off in a struggle, and it belongs to a paladin who is bewildered to find a coin purse and bloody knife in his quarters the next morning.
The party was out of town by the time anything could have happened, and who knows whether the paladin in question was accused of anything. But before long the party was back in sync and everyone was happy to see Max back in good spirits after those two days of "sulking".
Evil, it's more complex than "Hurrrr, I stab the puppy."
|
|
That is a good story. Funny, too. I would have called BS on the paladins, though. Unless you did something to actually start the fight then and there, but that didn't come across.
I doubt that the paladins got in much trouble, if any. (the other paly shows up to make the arrest, and obviously Detects Evils, and sees none. "So, can you lay on hands?" Yep, he didn't do it.)
It pretty much depends on whether we're dealing with "smart evil" or "stupid evil". Our garden-variety "stupid evil" PC is usually played by a Knights of the Dinner Table-reject who goes his way through campaigns fulfilling juvenile aggression fantasies and abusing/maiming/killing everyone in sight until he's finally put down. These kind of evil PCs are the least nocive as they tend to get themselves killed before ever hitting level 3. If there's one at your table all you have to do is sell him out to the local authorities of whatever town or kingdom he is attempting to turn into a graveyard (assist them at your discretion). The only no-no here is ever daring to start the campaign in mid-high level if you know there's stupid evil at your table, then it becomes unstoppable.
Alas, now and then we'll find the occasional @sshat PC, whose player usually thinks he's playing Vampire: The Masquerade rather than DnD, so his PC's motivations aren't taking over the world or even getting rich and famous... instead, these guys get their kicks exclusively out of ruining the other PCs. This kind of schemer usually plays "smart evil" (plans ahead, is sneaky and discreet, covers his tracks, pretends to be your friend) which makes him particularly insidious and, while the player may not be @ssed himself, he's usually oblivious to the fact that he's only ruining the fun for everyone else. While -this- is the kind of player I want in my V:tM chronicles, for nearly -every other game- I warn players beforehand that I'm not interested in the least in playing Spy vs Spy (regardless of whether I'm GMing or playing).
Finally, we have the kind of smart evil PCs who are a total asset to the character party to the point they can only be glad he is on their side. This kind of relationship can be most productive as long as we're talking about adventurers, not heroes. Of course this kind of character concepts are still discouraged in gaming tables with either metagamers or good-aligned preachers unless our evil guy is the Jack Bauer type whose actions are always undeniably justified and done in the name of the greater good, and still relationship with the preachy-types is shaky at best.
That is a good story. Funny, too. I would have called BS on the paladins, though. Unless you did something to actually start the fight then and there, but that didn't come across.
I doubt that the paladins got in much trouble, if any. (the other paly shows up to make the arrest, and obviously Detects Evils, and sees none. "So, can you lay on hands?" Yep, he didn't do it.)
I thought the paladins were a bit sketchy too, but the DM basically asked what I thought a paladin would do if he saw a slaad and a devil fighting. From their point of view, that's what a NE rogue and some LE assassins having a row was like. It probably helped that the fight was in a part of the city with few, if any, bystanders at the time of evening that it went on.
Yeah, I actually know the paladin was fine. The evidence in his place was more along the lines of a slap in the face to the good temple (someone bad did something bad and then left the detritus here) and a calling card (and it was the guy you screwed with, neener neener). My "who knows" was kind of a red herring. After some divination on the knife, the church sent the same paladin out to get Max and bring him back for trial (if it was possible to bring him back alive). A few levels later during party down time halfway across the continent, Max found himself facing a declared challenge from a furious paladin - in the middle of a public bath. Naked rogue versus naked paladin (the rules for the baths were strict, armor is a drowning hazard, and the church didn't have much influence in this new city). And Max wasn't built for too much combat (not without a flanker) so he was in trouble. The only reason he didn't wind up dead (held down in the bath by a paladin with a black eye) was that he was still dating the druid, who lacked the modesty necessary to keep her out of the mens bath when there was a commotion. If you've never seen your naked, hippy girlfriend turn into a bear and maul a guy who's kicking your ***, I highly recommend it.
I could do this all day! (Or all night, as I started posting in the twilight hours and it's now going on noon.)
I was playing a rogue in a friend's homebrew once... I was LN and aiming to become the king's assassin. I forget the character's name, but he was actually the bastard child of the king, and therefore unable to claim status as heir (despite being older than the king's legitimate son). The character was a little crazy though. He was an OCD neat freak and was obsessed with protecting his half-brother although he couldn't reveal their family connection. His most prized possession was an artifact shortsword that his father (king kingsly over there) gave to him. It was called void, and had powers that increased as he leveled but it was an intelligent sword with the soul of an evil cleric stuck inside. So he was constantly fighting with the sword to keep it from basically possessing him and doing bad stuff. I had to keep two character sheets and flip between them depending on who was in control. Same physical stats but different mental and class abilities. It was a lot of fun, but the DM used me as a whipping boy most of the time.
Void would take over and do something nasty, then my actual character would win back control and get punished. He could only get so much pull out of his status as an agent of the crown (we were only like level 3) and the religion of the kingdom had as much or more influence than the royalty. (Modeled on medieval Catholics)
I got hit with a mark of judgement, put in prison, beat up (over and over) and just generally ground down into the dirt. It was a lot of fun though. And the poor guy always had to take an hour or two out of his day to scrub blood and grime off before getting the tar kicked out of him the next day.