That sounds like exactly the kind of person that I'd never want to play an evil character in any game I'm involved in.
I'm perfectly fine with allowing evil characters, provided that the player's mature enough to a) figure out a reason to cooperate with the party and b) not be a jerk to other players. (Your CHARACTERS can certainly dislike each other, as long as the players are actually enjoying themselves.)
Doesn't sound like this guy fits either criteria.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An evil character in a good party can either be a very enjoyable experience that makes for some of the best roleplaying and gaming in history, or it can just be a steaming turd that leaves a bad taste in your mouth after you proceed to kick said turd out of the table.
Execution is everything. An evil character who is roleplayed poorly, has shallow ambitions, or has little reason to be with the party outside of metagaming reasons, results in the latter outcome.
But if he is roleplayed very well, has ambitions worthy of being a BBEG (that doesn't invalidate the other players' participation), and has a fair reason to be in/use the party, then it's a game of fun had by all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil characters who are "in the greater service to evil" or "are looking for an opportunity to betray the party" are absolutely not welcome, full stop. If you're playing that sort of thing in a mixed party, you're being a jerk and you should reconsider. There are games where intraparty conflict is important, appropriate, and fun, but Pathfinder is not one of them. People really interested in exploring that sort of thing are encouraged to broaden what sorts of roleplaying games they play.
That said, a character with goals in line with those of the rest of the party, who just happens to be evil, but is willing to compromise their behavior in order to get along in order to accomplish shared goals is fine, and this can be the source of a lot of great roleplaying opportunities. This is particularly appropriate if the particular kind of evil is a sort of selfish cynicism rather than "I venerate dark powers." People who venerate dark powers who want to get along with the rest of the party are encouraged to be the LE sort who believes that their methods are the only reliable means to a desirable outcome, or who believe that the ends ultimately justify the means.
So an evil person who wants to hang out with good and neutral people because they're all interested in saving the world, or overthrowing a bad government, or solving the mystery of an ancient ruin is fine. An evil person who is only doing this so they can betray the party and become the villain is not. I would politely remind that player that this is a cooperative storytelling game, and one's actions should be chosen so as to improve the game experience for everyone; no one is signing up for your production of "the Me show starring Me", after all.
My personal experience with this is that the people who are absolutely the best at playing evil characters, whose performance as evil people is an absolute boon to the experience of the rest of the players, are the good roleplayers who are least inclined to want to play evil. I find that internalizing that "evil is ultimately not desirable, as attractive as it might be superficially" is key to really nailing one of those characters.
GMPCs should be handled carefully, since the GM has power that the players don’t. This situation really goes against that, and sounds like an unpleasant experience for all the players.
Evil characters should generally still have similar goals to the party, otherwise there isn’t reason to work together. (Not that the same isn’t true of, say, LG.) Again, the GM is working counter to this, and it sounds like an unpleasant experience.
Talk to the GM and the other players, and figure out what the other views are. Not gaming is better than bad gaming.
Never seen that kind of PVP happen in personal experience, but it looks like this thread isn't about evil PCs per se, but about traitorous PCs - which could be other alignments than evil, really.
Evil PCs can have the same goals as the rest of the party, be friends with the other PCs... and just be a lot more in it for the gold, have no problem with simply assassinating that guy who might be trouble later, have too much fun executing defeated enemies, or steal from people who aren't their friends when it won't come back to bite anybody they care about. You can be evil without being trouble for the party.
I will say, I do think an evil character working against the party could work out to not be unfun for the rest of the table, provided their player handled them with the same mindset as needed for any other villain to be fun for the players; OOC, that they're almost certainly going to be (and should be) killed or otherwise defeated in the end (fleeing to be a recurring enemy for a few times being okay, for instance), that PC deaths are not a goal, that slitting everyone's throats in their sleep, stealing their loot, sabotaging them without providing an opportunity to stop it, etc, are jerk moves, and so on.
The problem, imo, is when either the GM or the player is aiming for a villain to win, rather than just be a cool challenge. Same as for any other villain.
I will say, I do think an evil character working against the party could work out to not be unfun for the rest of the table, provided their player handled them with the same mindset as needed for any other villain to be fun for the players; OOC, that they're almost certainly going to be (and should be) killed or otherwise defeated in the end (fleeing to be a recurring enemy for a few times being okay, for instance), that PC deaths are not a goal, that slitting everyone's throats in their sleep, stealing their loot, sabotaging them without providing an opportunity to stop it, etc, are jerk moves, and so on.
I was in a campaign once where one of the characters was a traitor to the party (a spy for the organization we were fighting against). It was arranged with the GM, and the party even fought the character in his real form in a dream/vision (without knowing it was actually him at that point). However, it was always the intent of the player that the character would eventually turn on said organization in favor of the party. It was pretty fun.
Having PCs get killed because another player secretly turned on them sounds...not.
|
I refuse to run games with evil players. I also will almost never play in a game with evil PCs without MAJOR discussion and planning among the entire party ahead of time.
Very few people are mature enough to play an evil character, and even fewer understand how an evil mind works. More often than not, someone playing an evil character in a good party will just ruin the game for everyone involved besides themselves.
One thing I really like about PFS is they do not allow evil PCs.
|
That kind of campaign only works when the PLAYERS are on board and are mature enough to keep the OOC exactly that.
For example, I used to know a guy named Dave (whom we called Evil Dave, though he hated that name) who always played evil in D&D. Always. Don't allow evil, he didn't play. He was cool with that, he understood. Thing is, most GMs in our area knew his playstyle as did most players, so he was the exception to the "no evil characters" rule.
So, one of the best stories I heard was that he was playing an evil wizard whose 'best friend' was a paladin. How, you ask? Well, he was Lawful Evil and always made sure to either not be around when his friend was using Detect Evil, or else make sure to stay in such a place as there was something MORE evil to ping.
When the campaign ended, he literally stabbed the paladin in the back, coup de grace attack, which again... All the other players, including the paladin, were on board.
That's the only way it works.
Gotta agree with Kaladin, evil pcs are fine so long as they follow the basic rules needed for party coexistence. Treasonous PCs suck and ruin the fun for everyone. If in character you are given very very strong reason to betray you party go for it. However planning in character creation to kill everyone just goes against much of what pathfinder is about
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they have an MD or PhD they should be addressed as “Dr. Evil.”
I have seen this done in another system and it doesn't end well.
There are compromises that players have to make in their roleplay in order to ensure that the game runs (mainly around being ia party even if you don't like the other characters) and it sounds like your GM isn't willing to go along with that sort of social contract. He is probably relying on the rest of you to play nice and not leave him to die in an orc prison cell until he is powerful enough to stab you in the back.
So, either flat out say no, that sort of character is OOC banned from the campaign (assuming you are setting the rules), or run a full on PVP game, and make it clear the rest of the party are free to kill his character for giggles, until he learns how unfunny it can be to be on the receiving end of that sort of behaviour.