I play evil characters almost exclusively and I have never had any complaints. On the contrary, the other players have said they would trust me to play an Antipaladin. I have also avoided PvP entirely and have been a benefit to the party. While I wouldn't sit out a campaign if I couldn't play an evil character, I would be really disappointed if I couldn't. I would probably sit out a game if I was forced to play a good character.
I'm currently playing a Neutral Evil Witch who worships Asmodeus in a heavily modified Eberron campaign. A CN Swashbuckler Pirate also plays in this campaign. The Chaotic Neutral Swashbuckler pirate has been much more of a problem as he tries to take more than his fair share of loot. A series of events led us to work together and found a mercenary company. During one job, we are dividing up the loot we found in the room. The Pirate declares that he is taking the Pill of Barkskin (functionally the same as a potion) but this would leave the Vanara Monk with nothing but a pittance of gold. While the rest of the party argues with the Pirate, my Half Elf Witch who has taken Skill Focus (Sleight of Hand) due to previous gambling cons in his backstory, decides to pickpocket the pirate for the pill to give it to the monk. The monk and the witch didn't know each other very long but the monk gets into all sorts of shenanigans and the witch likes him for both comedic value and the muscle he brings to the group. The witch is successful thanks to the Swashbuckler's very average perception, gives the pill to the monk who is very grateful and finally bluffs the party that it's probably better to just move on while the swashbuckler preens at his apparent victory. The player who plays the swashbuckler later went on to play an evil character and has gotten into multiple PvPs
Tl;dr A more accurate statement in my opinion would be: The degree to which a person wants to play a disruptive character is inversely proportional to that person's ability to play any character in a cooperative RPG.
This statement of course, is not surprising in the least.
I think a good rule of thumb for dealing with players who want to play evil characters is not to deny them outright, but first talk to them about "why do you want to play an evil character?" and "what makes this character evil?" This can really clear you into what the player's thinking, since everybody's reading of the alignments is a little different.
So things like "I want to screw over the other players" or "I want to bring about a thousand years of darkness" are not really acceptable concepts for evil PCs, because they're almost certain to be disruptive. If it's something like "I want to play a redemptive arc, which is only possible if you get to a bad place to redeem yourself from, so I'd like to start there" or "my character is an elf-supremacist, he believes in the inherent superiority of elves; he tolerates 'lesser' races in subordinate roles, but finds cross-breeds disgusting, and though he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut around those in positions of authority he doesn't respect, his ultimate goal is to show the superiority of elves" or "my character has a talent and a passion for cooking, but has urges to devour human flesh, so that's why she joined the monastery and took a vow to not eat meat, but she still eyes people like a piece of meat sometimes", or "my character's family was disgraced and reduced to a life of poverty by an unscrupulous wizfard who used charm magic to convince them to falsify some documents, so I became an inquisitor to root out and punish people who use mind-affecting magic to take the free will of others from them" are all *arguably evil* characters who can work just fine in a campaign.
It's sort of a shame classes with alignment requirements train us to consider alignment at the beginning of character generation, because it's really the thing that (IMO) should come last. Like examine who your character is, what their life experience and relationships with others were like, what they believe and why they believe that, and then figure out what alignment that makes them.
Tl;dr A more accurate statement in my opinion would be: The degree to which a person wants to play a disruptive character is inversely proportional to that person's ability to play any character in a cooperative RPG.
Sounds accurate to me. It's not a problem unique to playing an evil-aligned character (though it does tend to be more common there); usually the problem is with the player rather than whatever character they decide to play, because they'll be disruptive no matter what.
Given what you've said of this player, I don't think I'd let him play evil unless you talked it out very thoroughly beforehand and made it clear that PvP was off the table and his character should have a reason to work with the party. Even then, I'd be careful. He should have a reason for being evil besides "I want to screw with the party and be a terrible person," and if he can't give you that, I'd be extremely skeptical.
It's sort of a shame classes with alignment requirements train us to consider alignment at the beginning of character generation, because it's really the thing that (IMO) should come last. Like examine who your character is, what their life experience and relationships with others were like, what they believe and why they believe that, and then figure out what alignment that makes them.
Alignment can also shift over a campaign, too. I've had characters go from LN to LG, or even three-step shifts like N to CN to CG. Unless you're playing a class with alignment restrictions, there's no problem with that.