My goal is to create an ethos that makes people question whether doing wrong is actually wrong or not.
Why? -- Those "people" you're first going to have to convince are going to be the GM and other players at the table who will be tasked with listening to you/your character redefine a lot of words to justify his actions, and they may just find that to be very tedious in a quite short amount of time. Kind of like in those anime "filler" episodes where some character of uncertain motives monologues like a villain for twenty minutes. Halfway through, you skip forward to see if any action breaks out.
Just my 2c.
I'd go for ruthless "ends justify the means." If you've seen Serenity the Agent or Fancy from Killjoys.
"You're willing to make any sacrifice to stop the BBEG? Are you willing to sacrifice your honor and morals? I am."
I think by 'evil for the right reasons' you mean evil for justifiable reasons. Like the villain in Black Panther....however, once you're done you've still just made a villain in the guise of a PC. He may think he is a hero but has lost all sense of what is going to far.
I think you need to define 'evil' a little more clearly for us to answer your question. The thief who steals from a family knowing the family will starve because of it is evil. The serial killer who stalks his victims and tortures them is extremely evil. Just as is the warlord who raizes villages and rapes and murders whenever he feels like it.
There are of course different levels of evil. If that thief was already desperate and starving then he may just be extremely selfish which may warrant a neutral alignment.
Just where in that spectrum do you want to fall?
I think Slim Jim's point is well made and Blue Sky's response doesn't alleviate any of the red flags raised.
A player wanting to play an evil character usually leads to a disharmonious table. Unless the evil character's goals and motives are compatible with the party and the player takes extra care not to be a jerk.
Blue Sky has stated he wants the other players to question whether the actions are really evil but has failed to give any examples at all to build upon. Furthermore there is no description of the character's motivations. All he has said is he wants to play an evil character and be able to justify it by saying something along the lines of "it will be alright in the end". With that attitude I can easily see the table having arguments over the actions along the way.
rather than shoot it down, it would be better appreciated if you gave constructive criticism on how to make the above idea work.I did: I told you why it likely wouldn't work.
Any suggestions?Don't play an evil character who monologues that he's misunderstood and that he's doing the right thing, because it smacks of disingenuousness (either IC or OOC), and few are going to embrace that favorably, either IC or OOC.
largely wish to focus on evil for the right reasons.
What goal are these ostensibly "right reasons" ultimately serving? --If it's a good goal, then your character isn't evil. If it's not good, then the reasons aren't "right".
--In the first clause of the first sentence of your OP, you stipulated that your character would be evil. You must then proceed from the assumption that respondents in the thread will be taking it as a given that your character will be up to doing bad, not "right".
Evil for evil's sake is silly. Its cartoon levels of silly, where you tie maidens to train tracks and twirl your mustache because its thursday and thats what you do on a thursday. There are no good justifications for that sort of evil, its just kicking puppies and melting kids ice cream because you can.
Simply put, evil for evil's sake is a waste of a good character.
Evil because "its faster" or "it works" or "its necessary" works much better. Its harder to argue against, and its more convincing. It also humanizes your character more as folks won't try to dig down to discover why your iteration of wily coyote is trying to eat the road runner. Folks won't try to look for a deeper character when they realize they're dealing with a saturday morning cartoon.
You need to intrigue folks to get them to dig into your character, and "muwahaha im evil" isn't a good way to get folks intrigued. Neither is acting super mysterious. Instead, its better to feed folks breadcrumbs over time as they try to figure out what the heck makes you tick.
I think it's important to note that evil is not nice. At least not to everyone. And most instances, usually only towards the evil character in question.
But evil and good aren't flat descriptors. A lawful evil character might be able to work well with a lawful neutral character (and to some extent a lawful good character), than say a lawful neutral character might get along with a chaotic good character. They would agree that there is an order to things. At our table we usually say that the evil one is "just willing to step over a whole lot more bodies, torture, gloat about revenge, steal, lie etc." They've simply set the bar for what they can do much lower. They may even have a common goal, and might have reached an agreement that they need each other to reach that goal - to which the evil character might begrudgingly agree to respect some of the good characters rules. E.g how Daredevil and Punisher teams up in season 2 of Netflix' Daredevil. That's how a party usually gets along.
I won't dwell on alignment types too much. I've heard it's its own can of worms. My point is that there is always room for dynamics. Such as evil characters with actual emotions. As I just mentioned in another thread, I love playing evil characters who love someone. Be it a person, their family, a cause. Like the Kingpin and Vanessa (Again, Daredevil).
I had an evil character (NE) who loved ballet once. The theater he was in got attacked, to which he flew in furious rage against the attackers. I knew there were a lot of heinous acts he wouldn't bat an eye over. But how could they even dare to ruin such art? And worse, ruin his experience of it - his deep thoughts and reflections over his own miserable life - severed by these ingrates. This might sound silly in hindsight, but at the table, it was kind of a testament to his character. It was the first time he actually showed to have cared for something, and his idea of retribution was of course, a very bloody revenge.
Evil for evil's sake is silly. Its cartoon levels of silly,The difference between "silly" and horrifying is when it steps off the four-color page into real life.
where you tie maidens to train tracks and twirl your mustache because its thursday and thats what you do on a thursday. There are no good justifications for that sort of evil, its just kicking puppies and melting kids ice cream because you can.
Just as there are not evil justifications for good. --It's axiomatic to the concepts.
Have you considered playing a neutral character with evil tendencies? Not every character who commits an evil act is evil, just like not every character that does a good deed is good. When a character has an actual alignment component it is usually because the majority of their important actions fall under that alignment. If you want a character that makes people question what is evil you cannot be a ruthless serial killer.
If your character has no redeeming qualities (is outright evil), than people are not going to really pay attention to what your arguments. They will simply judge you as evil and ignore all the rest. If instead of being seen as the villain you are seen as a normal or better yet a good person, than when you do slide into evil your actions will have more significance.
A very straightforward way is to simply make your character a sociopath. IOW they don't feel compassion or guilt. If they have to kill 1 person to save 10 people then that's what they will do regardless who the 1 person is or who the 10 people are, It's just basic math to them. It won't automatically make your character evil but they may end up doing evil things without even thinking about it.
Another approach as has been suggested is to set a goal for your character. Make it a really noble goal like save the forest or create a society without evil (for real irony). Then have your character follow the most direct path to that goal regardless of the consequences in the short term.
"but, by destroying the lumber mill and it's associated village the trees won't need to be cut down any more".
Both of these can easily work with the party when you realize that being evil doesn't mean "I'm a homicidal maniac who will stab their friends in the back as soon as they look the other way". The adventuring party should represent the biggest baddest group around. If I want to accomplish X and the group will help me do it I have no reason to ever kill or betray them. Heck I might even sacrifice a bit to help the group if it means my long term goals will be met. Just because I care about the welfare of my fellow party members it doesn't mean I can't also be evil. It also creates the problem you're looking for where it's obvious that your character is evil, but at the same time they are so beneficial to the party that your fellow party members will want to look the other way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see someone wanting to play Evil I have to give this one piece of advice. You must never, under and circumstances, betray, backstab, undermine, abandon, murder, and/or, destabilize the party.
Also if you're looking for tropes on what can be evil.
Politicians and Lawyers, pretty much all should come with the evil tag built in.
You could also be a Joker like character, you commit some horrible atrocities that do in fact bring some pretty dark stuff to light, though that's more of an intrigue campaign
My advice is to not do that. It sounds obnoxious. A character who is both preachy and evil.
If you wanted a similar concept, then consider a ruthless neutral character. Someone who doesn’t wish any evil on others, but is still willing to do evil things for justified reasons on a case by case basis.
GM aside, did you check what the other players will be running?
If you have a completely neutral party, outside of your PC, evil might work.
If you have 3 guys that are good or tend to good, then the GM can allow you to run an evil PC, but either you wont perform evil actions or you will directly clash with the rest of the party when you do.
I will also advise you to keep in mind: The game isnt a movie.
The other players dont trully need to give you the benefit of the doubt or put effort in uncovering your backstory. Simply put, if you hide your "fair and just" justifications to your evil, the other players might quite literally just turn on you, they might not spend time searching the good in you or what made you the way you are.
Personally i have had my fair share of clashes due to playing good PCs and having someone else play a evil one, directly or by being "neutral". It can get somewhat tiresome, but if you, and your table, enjoy the constant clash of wills, then you could try running it.
I think I have a good example.
My character from Rise of the Runelords was an elf wizard named Xinixiel. He was very much the Only Sane Man of the party, working to keep the more chaotic neutral elements of the group focused on a productive goal, rather than seeing who could set more of Varisia on fire. He was somewhat aloof and creepy, but interacted relatively well with NPCs, and when some party members (it was a BIG group) displayed murderhobo tendencies, he compiled dossiers on these dangerous individuals and gave them to the authorities. Xinixiel was driven to protect as many innocent people as possible.
To that end, he began stealing people's souls with spells like Summon Cacodaemon and Create Soul Gem. When evil people die, their souls pass on and most often turn into some manner of evil outsider, a threat to all life throughout the universe and beyond. Rather than fight the innumerable horde of the Abyss, wouldn't it be better if those demons were never born? It's only logical. Ever the pragmatist, the soul gems were later incorporated into the magic items he created and used to outfit the party, better equipping them to battle the forces of evil and protect the good people of Varisia. "The ends justify the means."
By the end of the campaign, only one player had figured out what I was doing (by identifying a spell as I cast it). He was a cleric of Iomedae, and even he agreed that the plan was sound. No doubt it would infuriate Pharasma, but that wasn't his goddess. "Fewer demons" is an admirable goal.
Xinixiel is true neutral, but when I revealed my scheme after the game, the other players debated by actual alignment. Some thought Lawful Neutral. Some thought Chaotic Good. But despite the fact that my methods were undoubtedly heinous, no one pegged the character as Evil because his motive wasn't evil. I suppose his real alignment is still up for debate, but in my post-game headcanon, he's acquired a few mythic tiers and is now Beyond Morality, so the point is largely moot.
Anyway, in conclusion, there's a difference between being evil for the right reasons, and doing evil for the right reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I second loyalty to the Party, even if it is via begrudging familiarity and subconscious liking.
Secondly, you can like N.P.C.s! Treat them with care, even! They are just your future minions of course, but you also want their respect/admiration and your actions now will have an impact later; considered action is merited at most times. Only if they cross you - or your Party - will you take very final action. Bonus points for interweaving the results of your Character's actions with other Players' intended Character development. Off the top of my head, you could have a Lawful-Evil colleague whose honour was slighted but due to a flaw, (e.g., cowardice), they do not address it. Your Character, while not caring about honour themselves, will not tolerate this affront to someone they care about ... so you take "action" to "resolve" the situation. Permanently, in needlessly painful ways. This then provides an opportunity for interaction between the two Party members and a hook for the other Player to slowly start tackling this flaw. (Again, speak with the other Player.)
In these instances you are behaving in an Evil manner but not always for yourself, nor is it detrimental to the stories that other Players want to tell. Chaotic actions - whether Evil or not -, can sometimes be (incorrectly) perceived to be a Player focusing solely on what they want out of the game, irrespective of others. Hence if this is a concept you are still getting a feel for, a more measured, transparent Evil seems easier for everyone to grasp. This then creates a starting point for the table to understand your Character's actions, letting you work on the moral ambiguity - you are doing things to protect those you care about. As a side-note, you do not have to kill to do Evil - you could steer away from that to focus on emotional pain and difficulty surviving, such as arranging for the burning down of a family's livelihood; etc. So are you guilty of Evil, or simply overestimating the "threat" to your loved ones? Do you hurt others because it is easy/you enjoy feeling superior, or do you spend time/resources/effort to accomplish what you deem to be necessary? Whilst your methods might be cruel and unyielding, will they ultimately provide the best results long-term? Are you Evil or efficient? Is it truly Evil or cathartic justice when you do unto them what they do unto others? Is remorselessly sacrificing one to save the many callous or a leader doing what is needed to protect everyone they can, when others are crushed under the weight of responsibility? Is tricking someone into picking who they want to save, only to save both so as to let them live knowing who was "discarded", sadistic or pointing out the hypocrisy of those criticising your methods? If you influence others and they later do Evil, how much of that is your fault compared to their own moral failings?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, most people think that there isn't a right reason to be evil. Evil sort of means the thing it is wrong to be.
So I don't think you will get a very useful answer unless you can define what that means to you.
Now, sometimes people believe that doing something evil is the right thing, or the least bad option, but those are specific circumstances.
Also, I fully endorse Slim Jim's cautions about not being divisive to the party.
I think you're going to want to have your character subscribe to utilitarianism or even epicurean-ism and these are basically hedonistic philosophies where the proponents of these theories largely believe that goodness is happiness and that happiness is pleasure. To maximize "happiness" your character could then espouse Malthusian principles like Thanos does with his finger snapping.
Another option is having your character be a Marxist and do evil things to spite the system and benefit the little guy. Robinhood-ism doesn't have to be Marxism, its just an example.
In either scenario, I believe your character will actually be neutral as he does evil but believes in good. There is no Good/Evil alignment but neutral is close. Probably Chaotic Neutral actually.
Every time I see someone wanting to play Evil I have to give this one piece of advice. You must never, under and circumstances, betray, backstab, undermine, abandon, murder, and/or, destabilize the party.
Also if you're looking for tropes on what can be evil.
Politicians and Lawyers, pretty much all should come with the evil tag built in.You could also be a Joker like character, you commit some horrible atrocities that do in fact bring some pretty dark stuff to light, though that's more of an intrigue campaign
I'm reminded of Farscape, and one of the characters is singularly devoted to the elimination of an evil race. Period. That is his only desire.
While that seems like a good thing (this race is very evil) his methods are highly amoral. In fact, he is the villain for a good chunk of the show.
Later however, he works with the main characters, still single-mindedly devoted to eradicating the evil race. He uses his skills and capabilities to protect the party but also is willing to do what no one else is, like commit murder for some strange ritual to save everyone's lives or make sure an enemy won't bother them again.
The roleplay for that is tricky, definitely generates conflict, and probably can't end amicably without the character being redeemed, but I think this could work best with a pragmatic evil that has a purpose.
So as others say, find a purpose with noble roots, and do whatever it takes to get there. Just remember you need the party to do this, so you can't harm them.