Incidentally, I roleplay with a lot of 14-year olds. Only one of them has any real tendencies towards PvP, and she usually makes sure her character has another PC who can keep her in check. In fact, she asked to kill off one character when the moirail/Morality Chain PC got killed by a troll.
It's not so much the age as it is the competitiveness. While that's a childish trait, it's pretty darn common with all ages. ;D
My favorite all-time character is an evil wizard who is quite insane and thinks he's still lawful good. As such he has adventured many times with good groups with no problem. But he's evil, not stupid. He knows better than to bite the hand that's feeding him. If he's going to betray the group, he's only going to do it once. But truly he rarely does. He has his own goals and so long as the party is helping him achieve them, he treats them just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil characters can be fantastic additions to any party, but it really just boils down to if the person can play the evil character properly.
Most people just choose the "obvious evil" stereotype--it isn't eve an archetype--and run with it.
All characters, regardless of alignment, should be ambitions, goals, desires, and, most importantly, REASONS for doing everything they do. Here is a more important one: Make sure that the character understands that the people around them are far better than the other groups he tried, so he would want to keep them alive so he doesn't become estranged and have to look for new allies.
Some of the important tenants of playing evil characters are:
You want your allies to stay alive not out of caring about them but simple self preservation.
If your group is alive you can continue to grow in power and obtain wealth to feed your hubris, greed, and lust for what you lust for.
You should always have something that you are lusting for, but never should that be one of the party members--remember, you are USING these idiots!--
Loath someone in the party, often times someone important for your survival, and make up a reason why you loath this person. You cannot kill him, but you sure as hell can be as snarky as possible.
Stay with your party, as a lone evil guy is often times a lone evil guy who is not missed.
Play a race that has some sort of ability to hide your alignment, Tieflings come to mind since one of their Variant abilities does this and therefore means you can be evil but still play with a Paladin.
Play something useful to the party's survival, and no this does not mean a Rogue. Rogues can be replaced in almost every situation by a level one summoning spell to walk ahead of the party and trigger traps. The only time Rogues are actually required is when a lock needs picking that cannot be broken down, or in special circumstances.
Do not play the "tank".
Do not play the "healer".
Be thematic! When someone hears you are an EVIL NECROMANCER they might think, "whaaaaat?" But--when your zombie minions form barriers that the enemies have to break through everyone will love you.
The ENDS always justify the MEANS, but this does not mean the MEANS have to be the most direct version. Part of what makes someone a Villain and not a Monster is that Villains think, scheme, plan, and make their goals happen without getting dragged to the Gallows for punishment.
Most of all, do NOT punish the rest of the party just because you are evil. Do NOT backstab party members, kill their families, threaten them, or in any way bring harm to them beyond making sound tactical decisions in character.
Be HORRIBLE at something that someone else is fantastic at.
Take TWO OR MORE drawbacks, make sure you roleplay these drawbacks, and remember to take the extra trait you get for each drawback.
Remember: Villains are prideful to an unrealistic degree, their greed can sometimes make it so they can be cold bastards when it comes to money, and their goals being the only thing they care about can lead them to make brash or dangerous decisions.
By FAR the most important tenant is this:
DO NOT FIGHT YOUR PARTY. Singularly you might be more powerful than one of them, but against them all you can just lay down, give them your ankles, and just let them stomp on your balls until they think you've had enough because you don't have a chance against three others in an open fight or even a stacked fight since they will still be able to over-power you.
If you can solo your party in a straight fight then you either need to bring in a new character since you are too powerful, or, should you refuse, expect them just to decide to kick you from the group.
Evil characters can legitimately like the members of their party. All evil strictly means is a willingness to commit evil acts. It doesn't mean you can't have friends! :D
Evil characters can legitimately like the members of their party. All evil strictly means is a willingness to commit evil acts. It doesn't mean you can't have friends! :D
Yeah, but if the Evil guy and the Good guy are both best buds, BFFs, then the evil guy runs the risk of becoming the Bad-Butt instead of the Bad-Ass.
More like the good guy runs the risk of tolerating the evil guy's bad deeds and turning neutral--or worse. The influence can run both ways.
One of the things that makes playing evil characters fun, is the same thing that makes acting as an evil character fun for actors.
Evil is not limited to acting evil. Evil characters can be as good as they want to be. So long as they have an ulterior motive, which could well be "I like hanging around with this dude." My evil wizard is friends with a lawful good monk, and has adventured with him more than once. When he adventures with the monk, there is a specific goal and they work together to accomplish that goal. The last time the goal was to defeat an evil sorcerer who was terrorizing an entire nation. The monk wanted to stop the evil sorcerer. My wizard just wanted some of his stuff.
It was a beautiful partnership.
|
Honestly, alignment issues in a group rarely have anything directly to with alignment. Most of the time it is a jerk player who is using the old "But that it what my character would do!" excuse. While the popular jerk alignments are LG, CN, and CE, a jerk player will find a way to have a grand old time at the expense of the other people at the table regardless of whatever two letter combination is on their sheet.
My advice is just to not play with jerks.
|
|
My favorite all-time character is an evil wizard who is quite insane and thinks he's still lawful good. As such he has adventured many times with good groups with no problem. But he's evil, not stupid. He knows better than to bite the hand that's feeding him. If he's going to betray the group, he's only going to do it once. But truly he rarely does. He has his own goals and so long as the party is helping him achieve them, he treats them just fine.
Perfect example that proves the rule.
Some players can pull it off, if they design the entire theme to assure they are going to have similar goals to the party and have wrinkles that keep them with the party.
The outlier player adjusts, not everyone else.
I played an obviously chaotic evil cleric necromancer of Urgathoa, who wore a bloodied skull mask. He was both the party's healer and tank.
He picked up the separatist archetype and the healing domain and was obsessed with keeping his 'patients' alive, whether they wanted him to or not. Made him very loyal to his party. His definition of alive didn't exclude a bit of necromancy, however. Didn't come to that, though.
While the party may have wanted to replace him in normal circumstances, the campaign started in the Abyss, so they didn't have very many options, especially since they reeeaaally needed a healer.
An alternate incarnation of the character, who followed Velsharoon, once gave a paladin of Kelemvor an undead graft after she gave him a bit of trouble, for bonus points.
-
But yeah, more on topic, the problem here is not the evil, but the seeming desire to dick the party at some point. Evil can work with the average party. Maybe they're his friends. Maybe they're his safety net. Maybe he likes the cut of their jib. Maybe they have a common cause. Maybe he knows adventurers tend to make shit loads of money.
In the game I am in now In, I am playing a lawful Good cavalier of the Shield and another player is playing a Paladin.
If another player came in and wanted to play an evil charactertje GM would not stop him/her we would not stop him, if he behaved.
Our house rule is as lawful goods is we can tolerate being around those of Evil alignments. And it is not illegal to be Evil. It is Evil acts that we will not tolerate.So as long s an Evil character is obeying the law( Or not breaking it too bad) we have no problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but if the Evil guy and the Good guy are both best buds, BFFs, then the evil guy runs the risk of becoming the Bad-Butt instead of the Bad-Ass.
Eh, that´s for the players to decide :) Besides, one man´s complete badass is another´s cliched psychopath. Friendships are generally quite possible, but serious political or moral dilemmas are pretty hard on friendships, especially when the friends have the power and opportunity to act on their beliefs in ways regular people can´t imagine - i.e. eradicating entire tribes of sentient humanoids.
In the game I am in now In, I am playing a lawful Good cavalier of the Shield and another player is playing a Paladin.
If another player came in and wanted to play an evil charactertje GM would not stop him/her we would not stop him, if he behaved.
Our house rule is as lawful goods is we can tolerate being around those of Evil alignments. And it is not illegal to be Evil. It is Evil acts that we will not tolerate.So as long s an Evil character is obeying the law( Or not breaking it too bad) we have no problem.
In this case the evil character would just need a ring of undetectable alignment either by purchase of DM-fiat. Alternatively the Tiefling Variant stuff can work too.
My rule for alignment is everyone's good. I wouldn't let a player choose an evil alignment unless they were all going to play evil characters.
Sure there are a few that could pull it off, but most do not choose evil for role playing purposes (though they'll go to the grave insisting otherwise).
Exception: 2nd Ed. druids. Not an issue any more.
Even then LN, N, and CN are suspect in terms of group compatibility. Sure, there may be a great story behind it, but I've never heard a background story that was diminished by changing a non-good alignment to good. I'm more then willing to let players try and convince me if they ever did, but the people I play with now aren't put off by my rules, so I doubt it will ever be an issue.
It all ties into Rule #1: Everyone at the table has fun. However, considering that you are new, you might ride it out and see how things go. At least then your suspicions will be confirmed if things go badly and you can point out how one person is killing the fun for the rest of you. There is a chance that you have a great time with the guy though.
I have always tended to play neutral characters. I like to keep my options open I guess. I currently have three active characters and all three are neutral, and all three are in groups that are nominally heroic do-gooders.
I've never had any significant conflict with any of the other players over alignment. Every now and then something will come up, but it's always resolved fairly quickly without bloodshed.
In my experience in normal play we have had more issues with paladins than neutral or even evil PCs. I don't know why so many people have to play paladins as if they haven't got the sense of a rutabaga.
Not to split hairs, but there are a lot of backstories that depend on the character being evil. I had one: a hobgoblin alchemist who got driven out of his tribe for conducting experiments on fellow hobgoblins. Removing the experimentation would have killed the utter unpleasantness of the character.
|
|
Not to split hairs, but there are a lot of backstories that depend on the character being evil. I had one: a hobgoblin alchemist who got driven out of his tribe for conducting experiments on fellow hobgoblins. Removing the experimentation would have killed the utter unpleasantness of the character.
But you can do that and be neutral. You can commit evil acts and not be evil.
If you could commit regular evil acts and not be evil, there wouldn't be an evil alignment.
Is the Heimlich maneuver really gonna help with a stab wound?
OMG ALIGNMENT ARGUMENT #100000000000000000000
OK proceed
I think one thing that a group should do before accepting an Evil character is determining how Evil does a character need to be to deserve that alignment? Just because you are a bit callous and insist on not helping anyone outside your own group is Neutral at best if you ask me. To be Evil, you'd usually need to have done some nasty things judging from the way it's looked at in Golarion. Due to such, I'm rather reluctant about playing an Evil character unless I can have someone else in the party redeem the person, or at least try to do so.
The best games I've been playing had mixed alignments.
But it only works if the evil PCs do their evil deads in a way that allowes the good PCs to ignore them. And if the good PCs trust the evil PCs to don't betray the party.
We, for example, had a game with a naive paladin and an LE guy who saw the group as his friends he wanted to help. But he felt that it was ok, to rob or kill other people in order to keep his friends save.
He did this without, ever, directly lying to the paladin but instead used guile to make the paladin think he wasn't doing anything wrong.
People seem to be confusing some major points in the alignments. Friends are people you enjoy being around and spending time with, any alignment can have friends. Loyalty is part of law/chaos and thus chaotic friends are less likely to be loyal to their friends.
Stealing isnt covered under being "evil" and would be covered under the law/chaos end as well. Although stealing can be seen as "harming" someone, stealing used to also be used in the example of a lawful good character. Theft is a matter of not respecting the concept of possession/laws.
A chaotic good character wouldnt steal something if he thought it would hurt the person he was stealing from, but would steal to help someone.
The issue with evil characters in a party isnt so much as what they would do to the party, as the problems they would cause for the party from their actions.
Personally I think chaotic characters are as bad for a party as evil characters and a lawful evil character is better suited for an adventuring party than a chaotic good one. A lawful evil character playing his alignment wont betray the party, a chaotic good character would.
Personally I think chaotic characters are as bad for a party as evil characters and a lawful evil character is better suited for an adventuring party than a chaotic good one. A lawful evil character playing his alignment wont betray the party, a chaotic good character would.
+1
I think one thing that a group should do before accepting an Evil character is determining how Evil does a character need to be to deserve that alignment? Just because you are a bit callous and insist on not helping anyone outside your own group is Neutral at best if you ask me. To be Evil, you'd usually need to have done some nasty things judging from the way it's looked at in Golarion.
Say you are "doing what has to be done" even if this includes killing people for your party to succeed with their good goals. You bribe the corrupt guards to let you into the city, make sure the guys you had to fight accitentally don't survive, steal stuff you need and fence your loot while all the time ensuring that your paladin buddy trusts you to not do bad things to ensure that said paladin can fulfill his holy quest. If, while doing all this you stick to a personal code of honor, I would say LE is the right alignment. At least if you do it without remorse or a bad conscience because you know some one had to do it and you chose to be the one.
Any alignment can be bad. It just depends on the situations the DM throws at the players.
Actually, it's quite easy:
If the character concept, or way of being played, is not compatible with the rest of the group, or will not work with the story, don't allow it.
The alignment of such a character is... pretty much secondary. At best.
Say you are "doing what has to be done" even if this includes killing people for your party to succeed with their good goals.
Please name an example situation.
I find this one rather hard to properly justify.You bribe the corrupt guards to let you into the city,
Morally questionable, but not heinous.
I could see a Chaotic character doing this, though.make sure the guys you had to fight accitentally don't survive,
This is rather situational and in need of further context.
Were these guys so dangerous they had to be put down for good?steal stuff you need and fence your loot while all the time ensuring that your paladin buddy trusts you to not do bad things to ensure that said paladin can fulfill his holy quest.
If your character considers the Paladin to be a friend, he should at least feel a bit of remorse about it.
If, while doing all this you stick to a personal code of honor, I would say LE is the right alignment. At least if you do it without remorse or a bad conscience because you know some one had to do it and you chose to be the one.
This is where I agree with you. However, you're still Lawful Evil, which basically means you will go to Hell when you die.
Also, would there be any way for the Paladin to convince this fellow to change his ways if said Paladin found out about these deeds?
Say you are "doing what has to be done" even if this includes killing people for your party to succeed with their good goals.Please name an example situation.
I find this one rather hard to properly justify.
Bad guy wants to frame the party for something. If he can do this unhindered he will at least delay them or even get them sent to jail. So the evil party member kills him before he can do it.
Or party enters an evil temple or some such. Guy sneaks ahead to scout and kills some guards on his way so the party doesn't have to bother with them.
make sure the guys you had to fight accitentally don't survive,This is rather situational and in need of further context.
Were these guys so dangerous they had to be put down for good?
Having to deal with living opponents after a fight is often difficult for paladins. What to do with a unconscious foe in the enemy stronghold? You can't take them with you but if you leave them behind they could die, so you have to treat them, possibly using up valuable ressources. And if you treat them and leave them behind they could join the enemy forces once again.
Some groups don't bother about this, declaring goons as dead once they are below 0 hp. But for those who do care about it this can be a real problem.
steal stuff you need and fence your loot while all the time ensuring that your paladin buddy trusts you to not do bad things to ensure that said paladin can fulfill his holy quest.If your character considers the Paladin to be a friend, he should at least feel a bit of remorse about it.
I don't mean steal from the Palladin but steal for him and the party from strangers. Lets call it collect involuntary donations for the good cause from others.
If, while doing all this you stick to a personal code of honor, I would say LE is the right alignment. At least if you do it without remorse or a bad conscience because you know some one had to do it and you chose to be the one.This is where I agree with you. However, you're still Lawful Evil, which basically means you will go to Hell when you die.
Also, would there be any way for the Paladin to convince this fellow to change his ways if said Paladin found out about these deeds?
Depends. For the PC I have in mind he would most likely only change his actions but not his way of thinking. He would not do any more evil deads after the paladin found out because keeping on would hurt his friend because he could fall. Hurting his friend would be something this guy would never want. So he would stop unless he was sure that he could, once again do it without being found out.
In our game it worked out very well because the paladin didn't ask questions (was played as too naive to realize his buddy could do something wrong) and because the gm handled the situation so that the paladin didn't face problems as long as he thought all his deeds where LG.
One example: There was a girl who wanted to join a cloister. Her parents forbade it and as she was not of legal age yet they had the right to keep her from doing so.
Now the LE guy talked the paladin into helping him free the maiden in peril. He glossed over any legal problems with the act and together they freed the damsel in distress, smuggled her out of town and into the cloister.
The GM COULD have caused the paladin problems because by law they broke into a house and abducted a child.
But as he was convinced to free her from unwarranted enprisonment (it was her own bedchamber where she was being held) to deliver her to a cloister of a good aligned good it was handled as a rightous act and didn't cause any problems.
1) He could just KO the guards, tie them up and gag them instead.
2) Yeah, it's why I said that is a situational thing.
3) I also worked with the assumption that he's stealing for the group, you know.
4) Your character seems to lean more to Lawful Neutral in my opinion, if not for the cold-blooded murders.
Then what separates Evil from Neutral?
Before coming to D&D and now PF I played several of the palladium books games for a while. And one thing about those I liked was the alignment system.
My favored alignement back then was called aberrant and translated well to how I see LE in D&D. But that might be the reason why I interprete LE somewhat different than others do. If I say LE I usually mean aberrant instead.
Aberrant (Evil)
The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves." is false when
dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to
attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects
loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a
swift, merciful death. An aberrant person will always keep his word
of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live
by them, whether anyone else likes it or not.
Aberrant Characters Will . . .
1. Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable).
2. Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect.
3. May or may not kill an unarmed foe.
4. Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, particularly a child.
5. Never kills for pleasure.
6. Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although
distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information.
7. Never torture for pleasure.
8. May or may not help someone in need.
9. Work with others to attain his goals.
10. Respect honor and self-discipline.
11. Never betray a friend.
This alignment is one of the best team players and presents a lot of roleplaying opportunities when combined with others.
And yes, not all people with this alignment will be aware that there might be something wrong with this way of looking at things. They might focus on them being honorable and as such the "good guys"
I played an obviously chaotic evil cleric necromancer of Urgathoa, who wore a bloodied skull mask. He was both the party's healer and tank.
I played a CE diseased Oracle/Witch who was a follower of Urgathoa.
We had a couple of LG party members who were rightly suspicious of my character, but as she provided the party healing and had proven loyal (within the game) there was no danger of her betraying the others. The only slight betrayal was in persuading the LG Fighter that there wasn't time to desecrate the temple to Urgathoa and deal with the Fighter's newly acquired diseases.
I've also played a NE conman/seducer who saw the party as a great support network for his activities and was keen to keep them functioning and happy.
And most of the groups I've played with since the late 1970s have tried an Evil Character campaign at least once. I'd be more surprised at a new player who didn't want to try out playing Evil than one who did. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it lets them get it out of their system or learn what the advantages and disadvantages are. They aren't going to learn how to play Evil successfully within a party unless they get the chance to try it. If they are of a mind to screw over the other party members then that'll happen no matter what alignment they play (LG Inquisitors or Paladins can be just as disruptive).
My advice would be to let someone play the alignment they want, but gently remind them that the party cannot work without cooperation. Role-play selfish and uncooperative by all means, but don't actually stab the other PCs in the back (literally or metaphorically). If a player starts the power play of 'winning' by betrayal, they will rarely be able to create a character that gets trusted again.
Then what separates Evil from Neutral?
The neutral pc will try keep evil deeds at a minimum because he feels it is wrong to commit them, he feels remorse.
The evil pc will (if venturing with good guys) try to keep evil deeds at a minimum because others might feel it is wrong to commit them and it could lead to inner party conflict.In the end a LN and a LE pc might behave exactly identical. (might not have to) but their reasons to do so differ.
In another game (AD&D with skills and powers) I played a LE cleric worshipping an evil deity.
It was supposed to be some sort of pirate game, so it was not expected to see too many good alignments.
In the beginning the party was kind of wary of the cleric but after he vowed not to sacrifice party members to his good and agreed that they followed the same goals they relaxed some.
We had some real fun when my pc kept on making clear which NPCs he considered party members and which he didn't.
After we found a nice hideout, cleared it of undead (partly by me commanding them) they started arguing who could get the room besides the one I chose for my quarters. Seemed they felt saver being near the (seemingly) powerful evil cleric.
Sadly the game never continued far after that point.
|
|
A lawful evil character playing his alignment wont betray the party, a chaotic good character would.
This is over generalizing a bit. While a LE character may have a code and loyalties, they may not align with that of the party, which might result in a conflict or betrayal. Similarly, while ethically a CG character is not opposed to trickery and deceit, they most likely would not betray the party in a harmful manner as the group is not doing something morally reprehensible. Depending on the circumstances there are exceptions.
My guide for LE and NE characters are Don Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone from the Godfather - one is quite honorable, and even the other does not backstab or kill people - especially partners without a reason.
|
|
If you could commit regular evil acts and not be evil, there wouldn't be an evil alignment.
Yes there would. Are you evil, as in your very nature creates greater evil, or do you just do evil things occasionally because it serves you personally.
A thief does evil things by stealing, but need not be evil.
|
|
Then what separates Evil from Neutral?
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
An neutral person may do something evil because they feel like they need to do it to get what they need to get done. But they won't be happy about it or proud of it.
Evil does it because they are evil.
Good will only do something evil if there is literally no other option and it serves a greater good. And even then, they may be so ashamed they need atonement.
If you could commit regular evil acts and not be evil, there wouldn't be an evil alignment.Yes there would. Are you evil, as in your very nature creates greater evil, or do you just do evil things occasionally because it serves you personally.
A thief does evil things by stealing, but need not be evil.
That's an incredibly black-and-white view of evil. So either someone is utterly foul or Neutral? A guy can torture people regularly and stay TN as long as he protects orphanages? Because that's the position you've chosen to defend, and I'm not sure it's where you intended to place yourself.