Hey Guys,
a player in a new Game some friends and me are gonna start wants to play an essentialy evil character.
He already asked me if he could steal from group members and I am struggling how I should deal with that.
I think I could give him an ingame motivation to stay with the group but nevertheless it feels like it's just a matter of time until the shit hits the fan.
Don't let him steal from group members unless he wants to get his ass kicked by all of them collectively.
LE is usually not a problem in campaigns, NE somewhat moreso. CN and CE are the ones you have to watch out for.
Let me give you some useful advice as DM.
NEVER allow evil characters in a party. Never run campaigns for evil parties. Your friend is a faggot. Tell him to quit being a faggot or else don't include him in the game.
That is all.
If he plays an evil character let his evilness be a flaw if another player notices him stealing then let pvp happen. Paladins notice his evil, any decent villager be wary for them. In essence punish him for being evil.
Tell the group as a whole that they can hand you notes for your eyes only. Then if he hands you a note while they're sleeping or whatever saying he wants to steal something, wait until a rest period then roll a d100 which can decide (you pick the odds) if one of the party catches him in the act. If they catch him you tell the other players like "you wake up to a noise in your room and see edgelord rummaging through your bag"
just be clear with him that it's a team game and if he's interested in actually roleplaying a bit of a scumbag that's cool but there's no point in actively conspiring to fuck with the party in general. As long as he's not literally backstabbing people or ruining the game itself, a bit of screwing around and stealing from them could make for some interesting situations. Especially when he has the item some dude was suddenly missing and that comes to light
The players are a party. This involves cooperation. I can't see any reason why you should let him do that.
Evil characters can work but only with heavy restrictions and a solid ground as for why they are in the party in the first place. Allies of circumstances, bloodthirsty mercenary, prisoner, things like that.
DnD is a team-based game. You're essentially asking how to deal with someone who doesn't want to be a team player. The answer is, you don't. Tell him to go play Skyrim or some other single-player videogame where being an immature shit isn't going to ruin the fun of other people who actually exist in the real world.
Also tell him to read up on what a "That Guy" is, because he sure as fuck sounds like one.
I play a lot of Lawful Evil. Someone who's fiercely loyal and even covetous of his beloved friends and companions, obeys tradition where it suits him but is also ruthlessly ambitious and careful of potential rivals.
He'll rise to the top of the world with his bros, or see it burn.
Tell him to fuck off. Evil party members can work, but only if they're not petty little shits that start shit within the party.
Ebin :^)
Have an upboat
>He already asked me if he could steal from group members
Not that. That's how. Every instance I've found of evil party members that worked was where they only care about themselves and their select group of friends, and are ruthless and sadistic to other outside their own interests.
Here's what I would do, OP
I would ask my players if they would be okay with PvP and that sort of shitty inter-party conflict and based on their reply, I will accept that guy's evil character.
If my group is good, generally they will say "No thanks" and I would shoot that character idea down.
Then I would let the party have a fair chance of catching the thieving shit... and let them sort the character out.
...
All right thanks guys i think i'm gonna talk with him about it and see if we can find something to make everyone happy
I think you are mixing up terms here. Stealing is just petty, it's not inherently evil. Evil would be, to steal a wand of flight, if thats the only escape plan for the warrior for example.
Talk to your player what he wants to achieve with the theft. Sometimes it's just to show dominance or try stuff out, he can't or wouldn't do in real life. I have seen enough people grow out of it after doing it once or twice without an ingame battle.
With that said, I think lawfull evil characters are interesting. You still have a goal, marry the prince, save your country, that kind of things, but you are willing to do anything to achieve it. And influencing a group of insanely powerfull warriors might just be one way to achieve your goals. Stealing from them does not help you on your path.
I found, that characters and players who don't have a motivation themself other than "I'd like to make my character do cool things" are the easiest to influence ;-)
>Evil party members can work, but only if they're not petty little shits that start shit within the party.
It's been said multiple times, but this says it most concisely.
The only thing I have to add is that if you are playing a highly lethal game where generating multiple characters per session is expected, then making one a dick that will inevitably get curbstomped by the party is much less of a problem.
I made an annoying gnome rogue once to blow off some steam. The party quickly sent him to his death Goblin Grenade style.
I had fun being annoying.
Everyone had fun killing him.
Then I made a better character.
Make it perfectly clear for him that group interests benefits him too. Evil is all about egiosm and self-serving, and well enlightened Evil is almost indistinguishable from Good in actions if not in motivations.
Alright, OP got the message and talks to that guy.
Now, does anyone have any that guy stories where the that guy wanted to screw the party over?
One of my regular players originally wanted to screw the party over in the first game that we played with him...
I am glad the GM shot him down, then
I talked to him just now (that it's a team based game and yada yada yada) and he was really understanding so he won't start shit within the group.
I figure he really wants to act as someone else so i'm gonna give him opportunities to develop his Charakter and background and let him interact with a ton of nps's hopefully that will float his boat.
>>Evil party members can work, but only if they're not petty little shits that start shit within the party.
If they're smart about it ahty can do that too. I onche played with a guy who'se evil character tried to prostitute our drunk teammate to criminalas for information. It worked and gave us a new way to strike at the bad guys. His victim didn't remember shit and her player was decent enough to not metagame.
It also helped that by that time we blew up a buss full of childern (they were unwittingly changed into a weapon, though), carpet-bombed a village with a nampalm (to prevent them spreading deadly dicease) and let one of our enemies (a total bitch, but still) be captured by space robot Dr.Mengele, as part of our operations, so our collective moral compass wasn't that well to begin with.
We had a fellow PC have get forced into a private "conversation" with the villain. They talked privately in the other room so we wouldn't hear and what not.
Fast forward several sessions of hunting the villain later and right when we go to fight him, the PC turned on us.
Now that guy plays a new character and his original PC is now the villain's right hand man. It can be done pretty well sometimes.
Well.
"As you can easily see, all the other members of the group are formidable in their own right. If you steal from them and is found out, you're gonna have a bad time. x on one is always bad business."
>I talked to him just now and he was really understanding so he won't start shit within the group.
Another problem solved with: Communication
>If they're smart about it, they can be petty little shits that start shit within the party and still have it work
Yeah, technically true.
It's also possible that an user could juggle chainsaws.
But I'd still prefer they not attempt it at my game.
Yeah, but not when the players wants to retain control of his traitorous character and initiate PVP.
PvP a shit
>evil babies are bad and I am so mature unlike you babies
Grow up kid.
The problem isn't evil characters, the problem is they have no loyalty to the party, an evil character can be very fun to play though
>LG knight
>CE rogue
>childhood friends, the knight saved the rogues life
>rogue will to anything for his knight friend
>poisons his opponents in a tournament to weaken them and guarantee the knights victory victory
>murders a rival of the knight to ensure his promotion in the order
>mugs and beats any who have ever insulted the knight
>keeps it hidden from his friend because he knows it will break his heart but keeps doing it to see him happy
That rogue is probably either not evil or not chaotic. Undying selfless loyalty to someone who'se not your loved one or a family member is not a CE thing.
willing to kill and harm others for emotional reasons is pretty CE
>some lord speaks poorly of the knights less than noble birth
>later rogue finds him walking the streets at night
>leaves him with several stab wounds and broken bones in the gutter
seems pretty evil to me
where did he say it was selfless? having a friendthat cares for you and will save you in need is a huge feel-good factor in life. trying to keep those people happy is just a sighn of intelligence beyond "ooh....shiny" *stabs partymembers in their sleep*
Ask him if he's okay with the other players killing him. If he's not, then tell him stealing from the other players is stupid.
This guy is right you know?
killing innocents knowingly is not a good or even neutral act, its evil, no matter the reason.
>NEVER allow evil characters in a party.
Sounds like you don't know how to have fun.
The problem isn't him being evil or openly contradicting another character but the player trying to be a dickass theif to his party?
Tell him that shit won't fly.
Have the magic items be bound to the other PCs and unusable by anyone but them as long as they live.
Let someone/everyone else get their hands on a bag of holding to prevent his attempts to steal.
Evil characters can be fun if played right.
There's a thread about it right now that depicts Chaotic Evil done right.
If you want to know what Neutral evil is just read a Xianxia novel.
Lawfull evil is just straight up mafioso and corrupt officials + mastermind merchants.
There is a way to do it right, and a way to fuck it up, and OP's case is a fuck up.
Tell him NO
Disruptible PCs are a nono
I agree
Are the other players ok with a dude in the group trying to backstab them at every moment without them knowing shit?
I played once an LE in a mostly Good group
It was ok, I never went against my party's wishes
I tortured enemies but the moment the party said that was ok for them I stopped
I lied about my goals and other stuff but that never affected them
I shared whatever I got during the missions but the stuff that I got outside missions I only gave them like 50% (while I kept for myself the other 50%)
This didn't stop the LG Paladin (Punisher style) to suspect about me literally at every moment since the begining. That happens when you inform of your alignment and people can't differenciate between OOG knowledge and IG knowledge
At the end it was the LN character who betrayed the party and became a vampire
>That wasn't ok I stopped*
>a player in a new Game some friends and me are gonna start wants to play an essentialy evil character.
Tell him that's great, now what's your second idea?
Try playing without Alignments at all. It has almost no mechanical effect in 5e anyway, even the Evil/Good Spells simply hedge out/affect monster classifications like Fey or Undead, rather than alignments.
Alignments are still in D&D because it's one of the few original ideas Gary and company came up with decades ago. Not a very good one, but original.
The guy wanting to play Evil wants to amuse himself at every else's expense.
The same way you deal with every other character, make actions have consequences.
evil character here, honestly him wanting to do that is just lazy. if youre playing evil AND with a party of good characters, the general idea is that your friends might think youre a son of a bitch but theyl still at least want to keep hanging with you, i only pickpocket quest related items from my party just so i can have direct control of key moments and play the long cons that evil characters should be after
EVIL PEOPLE CAN NOT HAVE FRIENDS
>its evil, no matter the reason
You don't understand the alignment system, then.
"Evil" isn't "villainous" or something like that. As far as the D&D alignment system is concerned, "evil" is basically "selfish".
An "evil" character is more concerned with themselves and accomplishing their own goals than helping the people around them. An "evil" character may work with a group without an issue, but they do so because they believe said group help them accomplish their own goals.
This.
"Good" and "evil" are actually "altruism" and "selfishness".
You could argue that the character described in isn't Chaotic Evil at all, and is actually Lawful Good.
Lawful doesn't have to literally mean "committed to following laws", it means that you have some moral/ethical/religious/etc code you abide by.
So in this case, the rogue is more worried about the well being and success of his friend (regardless of his methods of achieving this), which is "good" and his insistence on preserving their friendship and upholding it at all costs is "Lawful".
>Undying selfless loyalty to someone who'se not your loved one or a family member is not a CE thing.
So if I literally murderraped every baby in the village because my girlfriend said she didn't like babies and I'm slavishly devoted to her, I wouldn't be chaotic evil?
>I wouldn't be chaotic evil?
No, you'd just be an obnoxious That Guy.
>He already asked if he could steal from group members
Kick him out of your game. This already means that the guy can't play an evil character for shit. Nobody would want to adventure with someone they can't trust, and this already means he can't play an evil character who plays nice with the group.
>Kick him out of your game.
Or just tell him that he can't play an evil character.
So basically lawful is autism and chaotic is stupid?
This meme needs to die. Evil characters might be a little harder to RP, but no more challenging than dealing with LG or CN types. Blanket banning of evil alignments is the no fun zone. Sure OP's example is the wrong way to play an evil character, but just because his retard friend couldn't do it doesn't mean everybody shouldn't be allowed to try. After all there's shit ways to play every alignment and it sounds like OP's friend is just a shit player.
Assume an NPC is found lounging in a burnt out village eating a baby. When asked why all the babies are dead and the villagers left alive but their hands and tongues cut out, he tells you that his girlfriend said one of the waitresses in the inn spilled a drink on her and wasn't able to replace her expensive dress so he made sure they couldn't be mean again.
What place on the alignment axis would you put this fine fellow on?
Why would you include a guy who is going to fuck you over and stab you in the back? Playing an Evil character in a non-Evil party is hoisting a sign over your head that says "I AM ANTI-SOCIAL."
There's always one, but it never really works. I'm honestly bewildered by how Veeky Forums has so many stories of 'master plans', because all PvP I've ever seen ended with the rest of the party curbstomping the other player.
I mean, it's just numbers man. Three against one.
To your first point, I'd say that stealing to survive is neutral, whereas stealing simply for the sake of stealing (i.e. what I believe OP's player is trying to do) would be evil.
Chaotic Evil
No.
A good breakdown of the alignment system:
Lawful Good
>Conformity/Tradition and Benevolence.
Neutral Good
>Benevolence and Universalism
Chaotic Good
>Universalism and Self-Direction
Chaotic Neutral
>Self-Direction and Stimulation
Chaotic Evil
>Hedonism
Neutral Evil
>Achievement and Power
>Lawful Evil
Power and Security
>Lawful Neutral
Security and Conformity/Tradition
>True Neutral
Any values, whether incongruent or not, can serve as motivations for True Neutrals. True Neutrality can indicate no strong preference for a set of motivations (i.e., most motivations are of equal strength) or a tendency to be motivated by values that are normally incongruent (such as Benevolence and Power or Security and Self-Direction).
And yet he did it all for the love of his girlfriend, who he loves unconditionally and would (and has) killed people so he can toss their corpse over a puddle so she doesn't have to get her feet wet?
Would such a person doing selfless if insane and cruel and petty acts for his beloved be considered anything BUT chaotic evil?
Maybe lawful neutral.
Hard to say, because a character isn't defined by one single event.
But you could argue that the character is trying to uphold tradition and philogyny, while standing by their friend.
But to truly determine it, you'd need to know more about the character. They're "human" (quotes because in a fictional setting, they might actually be demi-human or something else entirely) and as a result irrational and flawed. We'd have to see how this characters acts day-to-day and in a lot more situations.
Naw dawg, the paladin turning blackguard, swiping the deck of many things and then drawing 10 beneficial cards always works out! No it doesn't the 11th card is always instant death and this also never actually happened.
Chaotic evil can be just a freedom fighter who goes too far and becomes a terrorist. Or an alchemists break in every law their is to make a panacea and become world famous for making the ultimate healing mechanism while also curing the genetic disease that affects him and his family. Slave rebellion against the evil empire that turns into a war of complete extermination to destroy their masters forever, children, history and all.
This shit ain't hard yo.
Nah, think of it more as
Lawful = righteous
Chaotic = self-indulgent
Why would you party with someone like that?
Think about it. It's actually really hard to be Evil. You have to be a vicious sociopath, a mass-murderer, a follower of institutionalized evil, or a worshipper of an evil god. Being selfish and or mercenary isn't being 'evil'.
Like, an evil guy of any worth RADIATES evil. It's like hiring a psychopath to join your team. Why?
I always treat is as more along the lines of lawful alignments living by a code (even an unwritten one) and chaotic alignments living by their whim.
>This shit ain't hard yo.
Not disagreeing. But so many people misunderstand the alignment system. A good amount of people see it as:
>Chaotic = literal chaos and the antithesis of following rules
>Lawful = Literally abiding and upholding laws.
>Good = Heroic archetype
>Evil = mustache twirling villain
None of the above are true.
You're right. Our collective myth is definitely completely devoid of stories of enemies joining forces to defeat a greater evil.
>It's actually really hard to be Evil.
>You have to be a vicious sociopath
You literally do not. Its pretty easy to be an evil character and not be a mass murder. Or even a dick at all.
Yes, but temporarily. You won't trust someone like that to watch your back. Even then, it's not good for party cohesion: You'd prefer to have anyone else in your group.
Besides, it's simply not a good party dynamic. We have a Paladin, a good-aligned Ranger, a Cleric, and we have the evil Necromancer whose power comes from tormenting the souls he's trapped. One of these is not like the other.
Face it, unless the whole party's Evil, you just want to be contrarian.
>It's actually really hard to be Evil. You have to be a vicious sociopath, a mass-murderer, a follower of institutionalized evil, or a worshipper of an evil god.
Not only do you completely misunderstand "alignment", you apparently only play generic archetypes.
Think outside the box sometimes, user. Its not even hard.
The title of the thread includes "In D&D." An evil character in most D&D games eventually will radiate evil.
You know what also radiates evil? Skeletons. You're talking about someone that has the general miasma of a skeleton at all times. Most adventuring parties won't include a skeleton, at least intentionally starting out; Why would you start with someone that has the same mental outlook and soul aura?
>Besides, it's simply not a good party dynamic. We have a Rogue, a neutral-aligned Ranger, a Druid, and we have the lawful stupid Paladin who sees it as his job to be the fun police. One of these is not like the other.
>An evil character in most D&D games eventually will radiate evil.
This is objectively wrong.
See: "Evil" does not mean "Eeeeeevil". It means your character is self-involved and cares about his/her own goals over anyone else's.
D&D is designed for Good or Neutral parties. Modules are written with the assumption that the characters are Good or at least Neutral. Unless you're playing Way of the Wicked (a specifically-designed evil campaign) or Hell's Vengeance, shit doesn't work.
>You know what also radiates evil? Skeletons.
So a mage summoning a skeleton to help him combat his opponents is inherently evil? The fuck? That's not a determinate of alignment in any way what so ever.
Skeletons have no alignment of their own. They are just mindless entities that follow the orders of whoever summons them.
>D&D is designed for Good or Neutral parties
Factually wrong. D&D is designed as a TEAM game. Alignment is irrelevant.
Using Necromancy to create or summon Undead is an Evil act, by RAW. It's objectively evil, like channeling Negative energy.
On the other hand a mage who summons angels and commands them to fly into a battle they have no chance of winning is 100% a paragon of morality.
d20pfsrd.com
A creature of 5th level who is aligned will pick up an aura of that alignment.
That means that an evil character of any relative strength is going to wind up with a spooky evil aura.
>Using Necromancy to create or summon Undead is an Evil act
>It's objectively evil
Except for the whole part where its not.
One, it depends on the setting.
Two, its possible to have a "good" necromancer.
Three, stop thinking so black and white. Not every character needs to be some silly trope.
Does the mage know that the angels have no chance of winning? If not, then its a moot point.
Again, by RAW using Necromancy is an evil act. So you can be a good Necromancer, if you don't actually channel negative energy or deal with the undead apart from destroying them.
>That means that an evil character of any relative strength is going to wind up with a spooky evil aura.
Not necessarily. For all you know, that "aura" is just color coded or something.
An "evil aura" in no way implies that it offers a feeling of discomfort or anything like that.
Its up to the individual DM to determine what that actually means.
Grasping at straws here.
>Except for the whole part where its not.
He's been talking about dnd the whole time and it is. It's not up to discussion or interpretation, because while alignments are stupid they are also an important part of the game.
So casting Speak With Dead to aid in finding the location of an item is inherently evil? Regardless of motivation? Just because its a necromantic spell? And any character who cast that should be switched to an evil alignment?
That's not how that works, user.
Stop trying to bring moral ambiguity into a game where Detect Evil exists. You can houserule it anyhow you wish but it's very unlikely your interpretation is the original intent
>into a game where Detect Evil exists.
And the rulebook also says that good Necromancers exist. So the whole " b-b-but RAW" argument is moot. The book contradicts itself.
Yes, he's sending them to their deaths to allow him time to escape. But as we've established summoning undead is objectively evil so summoning angels must be objectively good.
>But as we've established summoning undead is objectively evil
Except, you know, its not. See: and
Stop trying to bring your idiotic misunderstanding of alignment into this conversation. Detect Evil and moral ambiguity can exist in the same setting as long as you don't take a "HURR DURR TEH EBIL MEANS MURDERING PSYCHOPATH!!!" stance on things. If you had a picture of alignment that's more nuanced than a 2 year old's you could see that.
Yeah, but any evil character worth his salt would cast protection from evil a few dozen times and his aura would shine as bright and good as the paladin's.
but he's self-indulging himself by commiting selfish evil acts in the name of his friend, that's pretty CE
Explain it to him like this: "You don't shit where you eat. That's not evil, it's dumb. Do you really want to risk antagonizing the armed people who outnumber you while you are sleeping?"
d20pfsrd.com
>School: Necromancy [evil]
d20srd.org
>School: Necromancy [evil]
In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, animating the undead is an evil spell, and casting the spell counts as an evil act. Good-aligned Clerics and other divine casters cannot even get access to the spell, and casting the spell is a good way for a Paladin to fall.
In 5e D&D you might have a leg to stand on, but most of the arguments in this thread have been about 3.pf. And in previous editions, Animate Dead is even more blatantly evil, explaining that filling the soulstuff with pure negative energy is a lot like dirty radiation.
I.E. Yes, Animate Dead is a fucking evil act. Get over it.
Is he though? Never did you initially say that the rogue enjoys doing said acts, just that the rogue does them.
If he is doing it for his own amusement, then that's not what you described at all.
Alignment isn't morality user. Whether something is actually "good" or "bad" means diddly shit because some things are inherently Good or Evil within the context of DnD.
So again, see: By casting Speak With The Dead, you instantly become a mustache twirling villain? It's necromancy. That's an "inherently evil act". Regardless of the reason for doing so.
By your logic, anyone who does this should have their alignment instantly changed to evil.
>you instantly become a mustache twirling villain?
"Evil" on DnD isn't equivalent to real-world "evil". Neither is "good". I don't know if you've went this whole discussion thinking it was about objective morality