What is the best way to play an "evil" character in a "non evil" campaign

>What is the best way to play an "evil" character in a "non evil" campaign.
Subtly. Basically all you have to do to get away with being evil is not rock the fucking boat by doing some stupid cartoon villain stunt and letting someone catch you in the act; if you really for whatever reason feel the need for an excuse to fuck someone's shit up then bait someone into acting first and if you have other morally dubious endeavors to perform then perform them subtly and/or away from the rest of the group. They're traveling companions, not your mother, and you're a grown-ass adult entitled to some privacy.

Example: You've tracked a merchant that knowingly ripped you off and left egg on your face to his favorite bar and he's been in there for a while getting drunk. You enter the bar and get a drink, but you stumble and spill your drink on him. At the very least that's petty revenge (emphasis on the "petty") and can be repeated and in the very likely event that he rises to your bait then you'll probably get a chance to hurt him at the least and maybe (and perhaps "accidentally") kill him, plus if you're good with your hands you can steal his keys and then clean his home out afterwards. I mean, it's not like anyone could know that you had brass knuckles in your gloves and that you were more sober than you looked, and on top of that half of the bar heard you say that you didn't want trouble but he insisted on getting into a fight anyway.

>not dropping alignments entirely when playing D&D or derivatives and houseruling everything dependent on them

Alignments are unnecessary shoeboxing and guidelining and don't work for complex characters.

Mass Effect played on Renegade

Opened thread because Yuri, was disappointed.
Also maybe pitch the idea to your group and if they don't like it have a backup good aligned character?
Yuri thread?

There is a "board" for that, user...

Jokes aside I did want to make a Yuri PC but never got to it. Only problem with the plan is that your friends may not react to fondly to plot twisting them "I am the bad guy and I will now control your brains !"

I played CE in a generally good game. My character just wanted to fight, kill, and get rich

If Lawful Evil, then just have the character appeal to the lawful nature of the party make a promise that he would not fuck over the party and keep that promise

If Neutral Evil, then keep in mind that he's not stupid join the party because their goals are the same but have him not rock the boat because he's aware that doing so will threaten him

fuck chaotic evil

LG is pretty easy to play as if you understand the alignment, definitely falls into the normal human choices.

If you want to play a passive aggressive dick maybe

In 3 it's not really passive anymore.

Play the nicest guy when people are watching, then be the biggest diabolical bastard when they aren't.

Chris Claremont run of Wolverine with the X-men would fit you pretty well. Though he was at least trying to be better.

Play Ruthless Spacer for bonus points. You will feel like a true, elitist, Space Aristocrat.

Play a Lawful Evil lawyer.Rules lawyer the fuck out of everything in game.Also have high CHA

Lawful evil would be a good choice for such a campaign

Essentially, yes. Just don't fuck with the party and be evil towards everyone else. "Evil" never meant "psychopath", you can still care about some people and want the best for them. You probably just don't care a lot.

Play a chaotic good character who believes that the end justifies the means

The best way I've found of playing evil in a "non evil" campaign is trying to subtly manipulate the party to help you carry out your desires. Try making suggestions and rationalizing them to your party in what would "make sense" to them.

Poking fun at your party's hypocracies if they disagree works out pretty well. I've gotten a Paladin to let me threaten a dragon's eggs and livlihood just because we wanted what was behind their fat ass. We came back later that night and murdered the dragon and nest while they slept just to get at their horde later.

Lie, cheat (in character, don't abuse the rules of the game), and steal when it benefits your character. You might want to avoid being seen doing so by your party, or maybe try to get them in situations (probably one at a time) where they have no real choice but to help you (implicate him in stealing a key you need to move on so he has to escape with you, something like that). Kill when it makes logical sense, but not randomly or blatantly.

Remember, being evil isn't about pledging your soul to the dark gods and murdering babies, it's about caring more about expediency than what's right or fair.

>What is the best way to play an "evil" character in a "non evil" campaign.
"Don't", you idiot sperg.

Seriously, don't. Being the evil member of a normal party combines all the worst aspects of being a "look at me" special snowflake player and being a teenage edgelord.

Be Jane

Actually having an "evil" alignment character in your group is a good way to set in stone the cause of action that you're NOT going to pursue.

Having the obviously amoral character around helps good players roleplay. A entirely "good" party ends up being moralizing fucktards who step over themselves trying to be the "nicest".

The party "bastard" is what allows the otherwise good party to contextualize their alignment. They don't have to give everything to charity, they just have to come up with a solution that isn't what the bastard wants. In overcoming the temptation of the easy solution, they feel more heroic. When there is no-one arguing for a crueler method, choosing the kinder one doesn't feel like a choice.

So long as the bastard's player is okay with never getting what they want, it's pretty fun.

>Lawful is boring meme
eat a bowl of dicks

This post made me think about something - why do people think their alignment can't change once they choose it? I mean, aside from the obvious class feature removal, what makes people so afraid of developing their character from one side of the alignment square to the other?

I recently played an evil character in a good party. The hook was that my character was very clannish and the party afforded him some security, but he was very clearly a huge liability. He was so untrustworthy that the other guys knew if he was left to his own devices he would ruin some shit, so they kind of babysat him.

Currently playing a LE cleric/fighter of Zarus in a party of good alignment. Getting along quite well, constantly gab at the dwarf and elf players but I keep them healthy because they serve a purpose.

It's a difficult thing to do, and if you can't set your "vision for your character" up so that it's compatible with the fun of the rest of the group, just don't fucking do it.

A way to do it is if you (the player) are actively attempting to find ways to make your selfish asshole character follow the group, but for their own reasons.
Maybe deep down they're just used to being a cruel heartless monster because it's easy, but have some secret desire to be better than they are - - and on the surface there's a BBEG that's threatening the world (and, I mean, you fucking live there, right? Fuck that guy.)

Someone like Ammon Jerro from NWN2 is a good example of how to play an evil NPC in a good party without it causing much trouble.

You could also be someone like Morrigan from Dragon Age, who just tends to express her ruthlessness by bitching and moaning that the rest of the party is wasting time saving lives instead of sticking to the time table, yet letting the designated leader call the shots anyway.

Ultimately the thing is; if your number one priority is to just play your alignment straight without allowing anyone else to decide what to do, then that's just going to cause heaps of unfun bullshit and backstabbing.

BECAUSE the fundamental problem isn't really alignment; alignment is either a complication or an excuse.
The real problem is that you didn't care to create a character that was compatible with the rest of party.

That's harder to do when you're not of the same alignment as them, but far from impossible.

My NE is a selfish asshole who tags along with the party for fame, wealth, and power. He understands he needs to help the party out to keep it together, but has no qualms with getting his hands dirty.

He's sometimes right, though. In my first game, where every player was new to TTRPGs as a whole, one player made their characters LG. The GM consistently pressured him OOC into taking the harder route because he was 'lawful'. No, you couldn't punch the obviously evil priest in the face for desecrating a Good deity's temple, as there's a law against assault. But if you tried to get the guards, he'd be gone by the time they returned!

By contrast, every other character (myself, the Neutral-leaning-on-Chaotic Good, and two CNs) were never questioned about their choices besides 'are you sure that's a good idea'. I always felt a bit bad for that player having their character boxed into things, since they were, on the whole, acting both Lawful and Good.

In the end I ended up doing the magical punching of that priest, and that was that.

Speaking from experience, someone that the party relies on super heavily gives you free range to do be as much of cackling evil madman as you want.

For instance, being the only person in the party who can can heal, or, in the case I refer to, being the only PC in the party who is significantly wealthy. So you know, all those peasants I executed for minor crimes are quickly forgotten when the humble monk, honorable cavalry archer, and mercenary swordsman realise that they'd have to spend about a tenth of the money on them for every night they spend with a roof over their head eating anything other than trail rations.

Accusations of brutal and callous behaviour by my shugenja quickly turned to awkward but convenient ignorance after it had all been smoothed over with a few slightly too useful gifts, a few nights on the trail of our quarry spent in the lap of luxury rather than a dingy tent, courtesy of my paychecks.

Oh, and as far as why I would cooperate with people who clearly don't share my views on the moral spectrum: Because Lawful Good aligned people are far, far more predictable and trustworthy to be around than any alternative. I can rely on them to never fuck my over in any way but the absolute obvious. So I only need a thin veneer of subterfuge and illusion to get my shit done, rather than worrying about some other cackling asshole coming up behind me and ruining my shit at any moment.

I like this. At this point the 'bastard' player's fun can come from just being creative in his Dick Dastardly-ness and maybe, just maybe spinning a plan they might actually be tempted by.

Maybe trying not to be too much 'I told you so' when the good-aligned plan fails. Or not, rub it in.

Basically my kobold assassin

A GM being an idiot who does not understand alignment does not mean the alignment itself is a problem.

Why are so many GM's idiots or morally bankrupt shits who seem to enjoy messing with LG people?

The only realistic definition of Evil in this world is Selfish.

>not to be too much 'I told you so' when the good-aligned plan fails. Or not, rub it in.
Are you kidding? that shit's hilarious.
I suppose it gets old though.

A character of every alignment should be tested, the difference is LG are far more interesting to test since the characters themselves often find making the LG choices are far harder than pretty much any other. The Lawful and Good alignments are both restricting, so it makes sense the alignment combining both to be the hardest to stick to. When I play a LG character, I expect to be tested. It's not hard to be a LG character if your only good choices are both Lawful and Good, but that's not realistic. Many times, accomplishing something quickly and effectively will require loose morals and a willingness to disregard social and legal restrictions. It takes a person of great strength and moral consititution to take the harder path. A CG character may be similarly tested - while he might believe all men should be free, perhaps in this instance "freeing" these people might not be 100% a good idea. It takes true commitment to their personal belief system to free them anyway.

>social and legal

But alignment trumps these, a LG character is under no obligation to follow any rules or codes of a society if it is acting evil. has unjust laws or preventing him from doing the right thing.

In that guys example the Paladin is well within his rights to physically subdue an evil priest desecrating temples or to kill him if necessary, he does not have to go scream for the guards like a chump.

Well I suppose it really depends on your interpretation of the alignment system.

Just follow the Doctor Doom moral code
> Be a guardian to those who are loyal to you
> Do not harm Associates
> Do not Lie to people(But always follow the LETTER of your word, I.e. "I will not harm a single hair on his head")

Also if you're playing Pathfinder, wear a condom/tunic/panties made of AngelSkin, that way you're invisible to paladins at all times.

I think this guy is a good example of lawful evil

Agreed. It's odd how his disciplined ruthless efficiency makes him so likeable, but i guess it's in contrast to all the other fuckwits who can't think straight well enough to tell a temper tantrum from a sound plan.

Don't forget the Bolton clan as well